PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: The Twelve Dispensations - By Bob Hill


webmaster
March 5th, 2002, 10:46 PM
The Twelve Dispensations - By Bob Hill

What is a dispensation? The Greek word for dispensation, oijkonomiva - oikonomia, is defined in two ways. The first definition emphasizes the plan of management: The management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property. The second emphasizes the position entrusted to the administrator: The office of a manager or overseer, stewardship. We refer to the term of office of an American president as an administration. We could refer to it as a dispensation. Here is another way to understand the word. Suppose you inherited an estate and hired an overseer, oijkonovmo" oikonomos, to manage it. You gave him a written document of instructions, the dispensation, and gave him the authority to spend your money to carry out your directions. Although a dispensation is not a period of time, we can see that the directions in the dispensation are carried out over a period of time. If you wanted to, you could replace the old administrator with a new one. You could also change the rules of the dispensation a little, keeping most of the rules from the last dispensation. The employees the prior administrator had hired could adapt to the minor changes easily. But if you hired an administrator and gave him instructions which totally conflicted with the previous dispensation, there would be confusion and probably strong resistance from the employees. Thats what happened in God's dispensational program after the last change. God set aside His nation, Israel, and started a new dispensation with the Apostle Paul.

How many dispensations are there?

That is a much harder question to answer. I could settle for as few as three if I had to. If we had to call it a new dispensation every time God changed the instructions at all, I suppose we could have, maybe even thirty seven. I think we should recognize a new dispensation and call it a new dispensation every time there is a significant difference. But there's a problem with this. What is a significant difference? I hope to show you the significant differences which cause me to affirm that there are twelve dispensations. That?s the reason for this booklet.

Most Biblicists agree that man was created in a state of innocence. Adam and Eve did not know good from evil. The serpent told Eve, For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil? (Gen 3:5).1 Therefore, because they were innocent, I believe it is right to call the first dispensation The Dispensation of Innocence.

The Dispensation of Innocence lasted until there was a significant change. That change happened when Adam and Eve sinned. This is shown in Genesis 3:6-8:

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

They now had a conscience. Because their conscience made them aware of their sin, we call this second method of dealing with man The Dispensation of Conscience. It appears that the conscience works in man in many different dispensations. I believe this dispensation continues in effect for those on the earth until the end of the millennium.

When God saw how evil man had become, He repented that He had made man and destroyed them in the flood according to Genesis 6:5-7:

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord repented2 that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I repent that I have made them.

After the flood, God changed His method of dealing with man. He instituted capital punishment and gave man every living thing that moves for food in addition to the green plants (Gen 9:1-17). Most dispensational theologians refer to this as The Dispensation of Human Government. This method of dealing with man will last until Jesus Christ rules in the millennium. In the millennium, He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron (Rev 19:15).

It is difficult to discern the method of salvation in the second and third of these first three dispensations. God seems to demand sacrifices, but we do not find the instructions for the sacrifices. It appears that they would be saved if they believed God and brought the required sacrifice. When we consider the fourth dispensation, The Dispensation of Promise, the doubt is removed, and clearer instruction are given.

In addition to the dispensations, God made a number of unconditional promises. We may call them unconditional covenants. When we look at God's statement to Abraham in Genesis 15:6, we can see justification is by faith alone under The Dispensation of Promise: And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

In addition, the details of a conditional or two party covenant are displayed in Jeremiah 34:18-20a:

I will give the men who have transgressed My covenant, who have not performed the words of the covenant which they made before Me, when they cut the calf in two and passed between the parts of it the princes of Judah, the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf I will give them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life.

They passed through the split animals as they covenanted with God. The split animals signified If I don't keep the covenant, I will be split like these animals. In contrast to Jeremiah 34, when we look at the details of the unconditional covenant of Genesis 15:7-18, we see that Abram was not allowed to pass through the animals. Only God did. He took the imprecation upon himself.

Then He said to him, I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it. And he said, Lord God,how shall I know that I will inherit it So He said to him, Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon. Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two. And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him. Then He said to Abram: Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates. Because God went through the covenant animals alone, we can see God?s covenant with Abram was unconditional. Abram was justified by grace through faith when He believed God in Genesis 15:6. Then, God made the unconditional covenant with him confirming the promises of the covenant. We will call this the Abramic Covenant.

We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham. Because Abram's name was changed to Abraham when this covenant was made, it could be called the Abrahamic Covenant. However, it is called the Covenant of Circumcision in Acts 7:8. This is the first conditional covenant. The promises of the Covenant of Promise were still certain, but conditions were added for Abraham and his progeny to perform if they wanted to participate in the covenant blessings. Let's read these conditions in Genesis 17:1-14.

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly. 3 Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: 4 As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. 9 And God said to Abraham: As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.

This is unquestionably a two way covenant. Even retribution (v. 14) is included in this conditional covenant. This, indeed, could be called The Covenant of Works. Under this covenant, circumcision was absolutely necessary. A person's faith had to be shown by a his faith-works. We have an illustration of this in Genesis 22. After Abraham obeyed God and attempted to offer his son, God said, Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me (22:12). When James referred to this event where God was the only spectator, Abraham was justified before God. James wrote in 2:21-24,

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Abraham was justified by his faith-work of offering up his son. That was God's method of salvation just as circumcision was necessary. The faith-work did not provide the righteousness. Only Jesus Christ's faithfulness could do that. That is shown in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. Let's look at Romans 3:20-22,25,26 carefully.

Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faithfulness in of Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faithfulness, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

First, notice in verses 21 and 22, it is the righteousness of God which is revealed. How is it revealed? It is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The phrase, "through faithfulness of Jesus Christ", is a prepositional phrase which modifies the verb, "revealed." From this we can see that the righteousness of God is revealed by Christ's faithfulness, not our belief. The word, "faith" (pivstew", pivsti") means faith, faithfulness, pledge, fidelity, belief. It is translated faithfulness in Romans 3:3, For what if some did not believe Will their unbelief make the faithfulness3 of God without effect? Next, in verse 25, how did God demonstrate His righteousness? Since it is God's righteousness that is demonstrated, it must be by Christ's blood and faithfulness not ours. We can't be justified by our works of the law. They result in death. But Christ made God's righteousness available. Man acquires by faith that righteousness which Christ provided by dying. In each dispensation, man must do by faith what God requires. Under circumcision, God required faith-works. Under The Dispensation of Grace, He requires faith apart from works. No Scripture could sum it up better than Philippians 3:9, And be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.

Here was a profound dispensational change. God changed from the unconditional covenant of promise to the conditional covenant of circumcision. We will see how consistently Paul steers away from a works oriented salvation. We will also see how consistently Peter, James, and John emphasize faith-law-works in their messages and epistles.

If you consult the chart at the middle of this booklet, you will see that seven of the twelve dispensations are under the influence of the circumcision covenant. We must conclude that the circumcision covenant even includes the new covenant, for Genesis 17:7,13, and 19 all say it is everlasting.

And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 19 Then God said: No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.

We have covered five dispensations, and we're still in Genesis. The sixth one is The Dispensation of Law. Under this dispensation, God's method for having His righteousness imputed now includes faith-law-keeping. The works of the law didn't provide anything. But when a man continuously kept God's law, by faith, he appropriated God's righteousness. Romans 9:31,32 shows us Israel's problem: But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. They were too busy trying to establish their own righteousness. Instead, the law produced death (Rom 7:7-14). What they needed to do was recognize they could do nothing to produce righteousness. They needed to submit only to God's righteousness as Romans 10:3,4 says: For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

In contrast, we died to the law (Rom 7:6; Gal 2:19). We are not under the law in any way (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18). We have the indwelling Holy Spirit producing the law of the Spirit of life in us (Rom 8:2-4). We have a growing new life in the Spirit as we meditate on God?s word and seek to love Him with all our being (Eph 5:18-21). It is extremely difficult to keep this focus. Most never even seem try. Many don't want to, but this is what God wants us to do more than anything else. Loving God was the one thing that did not interest me for most of my Christian life, yet, from Christ's lips, we hear that it is the most important commandment of all. Join me in striving to love God with our whole life. I'm experiencing some of the blessings of my feeble efforts to allow the Holy Spirit to fill me with His love.

The seventh dispensation is The Dispensation of the Kingdom Promised. How significant is this dispensation from the previous one? There is no difference in the method of salvation. But there is a colossal eschatological difference. It is found in 2 Samuel 7:12-13,16.

When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.

Messiah will sit on the throne of David. This kingdom promised to David will last forever. This became Israel's hope. This promise is temporary, but this kingdom will be established on this earth forever.

About a thousand years later, John the Baptist was sent. The eighth dispensation began, The Dispensation of the Kingdom Proclaimed. Shortly after John's birth, his father, Zacharias, prophesied about Christ and John in Luke 1:68-78:

Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people, 69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David, 70 as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, who have been since the world began, 71 that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us, 72 to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, 73 the oath which He swore to our father Abraham: 74 To grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, 75 in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life. 76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, 77 to give knowledge of salvation to His people by the remission of their sins, 78 through the tender mercy of our God, with which the Dayspring from on high has visited us.

John?s commission was to go before the Messiah and prepare the way for the Lord according to Luke 3:2-6,
While Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. 3 And he went into all theregion around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, 4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying: The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord; make His paths straight. 5 Every valley shall be filled and every mountain and hill brought low; The crooked places shall be made straight and the rough ways smooth; 6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

His ministry was to bring salvation to the nation. Because it was such an important part of his ministry, we must understand baptism and its relationship to Israel. Its history is very important. This water rite was explained for Israel under the law in Num 19:9,10,17-21:

Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin. 10 And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening. It shall be a statute forever to the children of Israel and to the stranger who dwells among them. . . . 17 And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin, and running watershall be put on them in a vessel. 18 A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, sprinkle it on the tent, on all the vessels, on the persons who were there, or on the one who touched a bone, the slain, the dead, or a grave. 19 The clean person shall sprinkle the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, wash his clothes, and bathe in water; and at evening he shall be clean. 20 But the man who is unclean and does not purify himself, that person shall be cut off from among the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD. The water of purification has not been sprinkled on him; he is unclean. 21 It shall be a perpetual statute for them.

Further, God told Israel in Ezekiel 36:24-27 that He would baptize them with water, cleanse them from all their filthiness and establish the new covenant with them:

For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

When John started his ministry, he baptized great crowds for the Lord from all the tribes (Mat 3:5,6), not just from the priestly tribe of Levi. Because John was baptizing with authority, the whole nation of Israel went out to him. They were expecting the Messiah (Lk 3:15).

When we look at the Hebrew Scriptures, it is interesting to see that the priests were baptized when they were thirty years old (Num 4:2,3,23; 1 Ch 23:3). This was in preparation for their consecration as priests (Ex 28:41-29:9). God had promised to make Israel a kingdom of priests in Exodus 19:5-6:

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel. Isaiah 61:6 also says they will be priests: But you shall be named the priests of the Lord. They shall call you the servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you shall boast. Further, God had promised to sprinkle them with water to make them clean in Ezekiel 36:22-28.

Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name?s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord, says the Lord God, when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.

Therefore, I believe, by his baptism, John the Baptist was preparing them to be a kingdom of priests. That's what Revelation 1:5,6, shows:

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

They were called a royal priesthood by Peter in 1 Peter 2:5,9, in fulfillment of Ex 19:5,6. John preached that his baptism was for the remission of sins (Mat 3:1-6; Lk 3:3,8). Therefore, we see water baptism was mandated for Israel, would result in a whole nation of priests (1 Pe 2:5,9), accompanied true repentance displayed by works (Mat 3:8; Lk 3:8), resulted in the forgiveness of sins for them at that time (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3), and is associated with the Messianic kingdom promised to Israel (Eze 36:22-28).

John's ministry of proclaiming the kingdom was certified by Jesus Christ in Luke 16:16 when He said, The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. John was also certified by Peter as a minister of the circumcision according to Acts 10:36-38,

The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ He is Lord of all 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

Paul called Jesus Christ a circumcision minister in Romans 15:8, Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers. Because He was a minister of the circumcision, water baptism was part of His program for salvation according. This is shown by at least two passages, John 3:5, Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God; and Mark 16:15,16, And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Also, from Christ's earthly ministry, we see that endurance was expected in the believers if they were to receive salvation. This requirement was in line with the other conditional aspects of the circumcision covenant. John 15:1-8 is the best example:

I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

When He said, If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch, He was speaking to the apostles. Judas had already left in John 13:30. Did He really mean that an apostle could be lost? Yes, they had to abide in Christ in order to be saved. Otherwise they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

Not only did they have to remain in Christ, they also had to forgive men in order to be saved according to Matthew 6:14,15: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. We will see these conditional principles repeatedly as we continue to look at dispensations under the circumcision covenant.

The next dispensational boundary comes after the crucifixion of our wonderful Lord. The apostles did not understand the significance of His death and resurrection. After His resurrection, Christ was with the apostles for forty days. What was He doing? Acts 1:2,3 tells us, He had given commandments to the apostles being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. What were the apostles expecting? They had earlier been sent to the twelve tribes of Israel (Mat 10:6). Christ also promised them they would sit in judgment over the nation of Israel in Matthew 19:28. They were vitally interested in the establishment of the long promised Davidic Kingdom. By now, they knew they had a wonderful part in it. It?s no surprise that Acts 1:6 tells us they asked Him, Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

The signs on the day of Pentecost were to show Israel that the kingdom promised to David was about to be established. The apostles had heard that Christ would return after the tribulation (Mat 24:21,29,30). At the end of Christ's description of the tribulation, He related the parables of the ten virgins and the talents. These were both parables about the kingdom. Then He said Matthew 25:31, ?When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. Remember, He had promised the apostles authority over Israel (Mat 19:28).This is why we must conclude that these were signs to show Israel that the ingdom was about to be established right after the great and terrible day of the Lord (Mat 24:29,30; 25:31,34). The great and terrible day of the Lord of Joel 2:31 would take place right after the tribulation.

The gift of tongues given on the day of Pentecost was a sign to Israel that the kingdom was very near. This gift of tongues was a partial fulfillment of the Joel prophecy since other portions of the prophecy would be fulfilled after the tribulation. When Peter offered the kingdom and many responded to his message and believed, Peter commanded that they be baptized for the remission of sins. Water baptism continued as a requirement for salvation after Pentecost because God continued to offer Israel the kingdom (Acts 3:19-26). We call this ninth dispensation The Dispensation of the Kingdom Offered. If they had repented, God would have sent Christ back (Acts 3:20). Before Pentecost, Christ had commanded belief and water baptism as requirements for salvation shortly after His resurrection. Mark 16:16 says, He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Both "believes" and "is baptized" represent aorist participles. According to Greek syntax4 , the action of these participles must precede the action of the main verb, "will be saved." Therefore, a person had to believe and be baptized before he would be saved. When viewed in its setting of the circumcision covenant, this is consistent with the purification rituals which were imposed on Israel.5

After the Ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2, God still demanded water baptism for the remission of sins."Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 2:38). After Paul was seized in the temple by the Jewish mob and taken into custody by the Roman commander, he was allowed to speak to the violent mob on the way into the barracks. He used the opportunity to recount his conversion. He spoke of "a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there." He related how Ananias had told him about his apostolic commission from God. What method of salvation did Ananias present to Paul? Ananias commanded, "Now why are you waiting" Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). Ananias told Paul the only message that he knew, the message of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, the circumcision gospel with its condition of baptism. One of the most important facts of all should be highlighted. Water baptism would be imposed on Israel until the time of reformation (Heb. 9:10-13) when Christ would establish the kingdom for Israel (Acts 3:21 with Acts 1:6). Therefore, from the beginning of John's ministry, through the time of Christ?s death and Ascension, to the time that Israel was temporarily set aside in Acts 7, we find that water baptism was essential for salvation.

However, the first dramatic change took place on Pentecost in Acts 2. There, after he submitted to water baptism, a believer would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). So, for the first time, there were two baptisms, water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism. As the nation began rejecting Christ, the persecution of the circumcision church which had started on Pentecost increased. When Stephen was stoned, Christ stood in judgment upon the nation of Israel, and they were temporarily set aside. The tenth dispensation, The Dispensation of Grace, started with the conversion of Paul in Acts 9. A comparison of Acts 22:13 and 26:18 indicates that Paul was saved when he received his sight, just as the Gentiles to whom he was sent would be saved upon receiving spiritual sight. Paul received his sight before he was baptized at Ananias' command.

More sensational events followed the salvation of Paul. When God had separated Israel from the nations as His chosen people, He imposed upon them a designation between clean and unclean animals (Lev. 20:23-26). Now, in a vision to Peter, the first dramatic change was made. God abrogated the distinction between clean and unclean animals in order to show that He had demoted Israel from their chosen people status (Acts 10:9-16). However, God did not reveal to Peter the unity and equality of Jew and Gentile in the new man, the body of Christ. In fact, He didn't show him any of the aspects of the great secret He would reveal to Paul. Most important of all, He did not show Peter the new method of salvation by faith alone apart from works. Peter simply adapted the gospel of the circumcision to his Gentile audience: "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:35). This was the same gospel of faith plus works and endurance for salvation which Christ taught (Acts 10:34-42; John 15:1-8). It conformed to the circumcision covenant.

The second change was even more startling. The Holy Spirit showed that water baptism was no longer necessary for salvation after the body of Christ started with Paul's conversion in Acts 9. This was done dramatically when He fell on all who heard the word while Peter was still preaching, before Peter would command them to be water baptized (Acts 10:44,45). The Holy Spirit's gift, here, became the sign that would convince the circumcision believers that God had opened the door of salvation to the Gentiles. The dispensational boundary was Paul's conversion in Acts 9. There, we saw that Paul was sent to the Gentiles, kings and Israel.

Third, the order of the baptisms was reversed. Now, Peter commanded water baptism after Holy Spirit baptism. Now, the Holy Spirit baptism was the one necessary for salvation. Water baptism became secondary for the first time. We're not even sure that God wanted these new Christians baptized. Peter did a number of things here only because the Lord had previously commanded him to do them. Why did these changes take place? When Paul was converted, God committed to him a new stewardship, The Dispensation of the Mystery, and a new gospel, the uncircumcision gospel. What must they now do to be saved? The answer was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Act 16:31).

During this time, there were some confusing events that happened. Paul circumcised Timothy shortly before he wrote the epistle to the Galatians. Yet, he severely criticized those who were being influenced by the Judaizers who wanted them to be circumcised for salvation. Later, he even became ceremonially purified and paid for the sacrifices for four men who had a Jewish vow as well as himself. Yet, Paul had already written Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Romans. He knew he was not under the law. There were other things Paul did, recorded in Acts, which passed away. These things had to do with Israel. But Paul did not address each thing explicitly and say it passed away. Some of these things were: raising the dead, exorcism, healing the sick, being bit by a viper without being harmed. They would cease just as baptism would cease. These signs were related to Israel. God was in the process of showing Israel they had been set aside. God would issue a final declaration showing Israel they had been set aside in Acts 28:28.

Soon, Paul learned that water baptism was not part of his commission (1 Cor. 1:17), and he no longer baptized. But we must remember that baptism was an integral part of the circumcision apostles' commission (Mat. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-18). After Paul's ministry began, he was inspired to write to the Corinthians, "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13). So, even in the dispensation of grace there were two baptisms for a while. Then, we see that as physical circumcision gave way to spiritual circumcision, "made without hands," in spite of Acts 16:1-3, water baptism gave way to spiritual baptism, "through the faithful operation of God" (Col. 2:11,12), in spite of Acts 16:15,31-34, and 1 Cor. 1:14-16.

Why did water baptism give way to spiritual baptism? It was because God set Israel aside in Acts 7 (Rom. 11:11,25; Acts 28:28) when Christ stood in judgment (Isa. 3:13) at the stoning of Stephen. Part of Paul's ministry had been to show Israel that they had been set aside. That is why the Corinthian church spoke in tongues. Their meeting place wall was contiguous with the Jewish synagogue. They spoke in tongues in judgment upon the unbelieving Jews next door in fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 28 (1 Cor. 14:21,22).

God used Paul to pronounce to the Jews in Rome that Israel had been set aside. This occurred in Acts 28:28. After this, the baptisms imposed on Israel, being fleshly ordinances (Heb. 9:10-13), were set aside until God would resume dealing with Israel in the tribulation. For instance, baptism will be necessary for salvation when Peter's epistles are again directly applicable in the tribulation period. We must look at 1 Peter 3:20,21 closely. Verse 20 shows us that the ark and the flood of water were a type. Peter then wrote, There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism. Yes, his message was, Baptism now saves us. Then he explained away the possible confusion that the water baptism would be for the removal of the outward filth of the body as in Mark 7:3-5.6 This outward ritual of 1 Peter 3 in obedience to God, was essential to perform the inner cleansing of sin in accordance with the principles of the circumcision covenant (Numbers 19).

From the time of Israel's fall in Acts 7, the book of Acts relates how Israel was shown more and more that they had been set aside by God. Let me reiterate. This is why the Corinthian church spoke in tongues so much. The church bordered on, was contiguous to,7 the Jewish synagogue. The Gentiles speaking in tongues was God's judgment upon unbelieving Jews next door (Please read 1 Cor. 14:22 in light of Isaiah 28).

Although Paul baptized some in his early ministry, we must remember that Ananias had commanded him to be baptized to wash away his sins. But God gave him further revelations. One was 1 Corinthians 1:17 ?For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. Sure, the context shows there was a division because of baptism, but would Paul really let that affect him if baptism was still necessary and he practiced it? Read 2 Thessalonians 3:6 again, "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." No, Paul would tell them to withdraw from a person rather than deny a true teaching that was still in effect. Baptism was not part of his message, and we have no Scripture which says he recommended it, encouraged it, taught it, or commanded it. Not one.

Finally, at the end of the book of Acts, Israel was shown for the final time that they had been set aside. This happened when Paul spoke in judgment quoting Isaiah 6:9,10. After this judgment was pronounced, Paul was inspired to write Ephesians. In it he wrote, "There is one body andone Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:4,5). One baptism? If there is only one baptism, which one is it? Is it water or Holy Spirit? It is Holy Spirit! Why? Because God has suspended the use of water baptism. It has been done away with because God is through with Israel for the time being. Now there is only one program. It has to do with spiritual things, not carnal. So, for The Dispensation of Grace, there is one baptism. We, who have trusted in Christ, are baptized into the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit baptizes us into Christ's body. That baptism identifies us with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-8). This identification justifies and frees us from all sin (Rom 6:7,18). Water baptism has been set aside because God has set aside Israel.

Under The Dispensation of Grace, there are many new things. There are no law-works necessary for salvation. In fact that's exactly what Titus 3:5,6 says. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior." We are the only ones who have eternal security. This is emphasized by Ephesians 1:4-14. We live the Christian life by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. These are wonderful, awesome blessings. Let's revel in them.

The eleventh dispensation, The Dispensation of the Tribulation, begins right after the rapture. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, Paul wrote about this time:

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

First we must notice that the departure takes place before this day of Christ, or day of the Lord, scenario takes place. That means we will be delivered, rescued, saved from it. We will be gone when the tribulation starts. That's what 2 Th 2:13 says: "But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you unto salvation [deliverance from the tribulation] through sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth." Similarly, 1 Thessalonians 5:9 states, "For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ."

We can be sure that we will be gone when the tribulation starts because of the nature of the mystery. Why? According to Ephesians 3 and Colossians 1, nothing about the mystery and the new creation, the body of Christ, was ever revealed before. That means the many prophecies about the tribulation apply only to Israel and the unsaved Gentiles. When the tribulation starts, we will be with Christ in the heavenlies.

We can see from the material in the book of Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, that endurance and works are again necessary for salvation: Rev 2:5,7,10b,11,17 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place--unless you repent. 7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God . . . 10b Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. 11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death. 17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it. Rev 3:5,10,12 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. 10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. 12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more.

In addition to Revelation, the conditional aspects found in the other circumcision epistles, Hebrews, James, 1,2 Peter, 1,2,3 John, and Jude, will apply at that time. All these epistles from Hebrews through Revelation will apply in the tribulation. I will cite a few from the chart: 2 Pet 1:10,11 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 1 Jo 5:16,17 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. 2 Jo 8,9 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. Everyone deviating and not abiding in the teaching of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

The Dispensation of the Tribulation ends at the second coming. Christ will establish the millennial kingdom at that time. We will call this twelfth dispensation The Dispensation of the Kingdom Established. He will rule the world with a rod of iron (Rev 12:5; 19:5). We will be in the heavenlies. After the thousand years, satan will be loosed for a time. Revelation 20:7-10 tells us what happens.

Now when the thousand years have expired, satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

When everything is subjugated to Christ, He will in turn deliver it all to the Father according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-28:

Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For He has put all things under His feet. But when He says all things are put under Him, it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Then, we will be with Him forever.

--------------
1 I will use the New King James Version or my own translation in all references quoted.

2 BDB, Niphal, to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion, to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent.

3 All bold italics are my emphasis.

4 A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Moulton, V. III, Syntax, Nigel Turner, p. 79, (T & T Clark, Edinburgh, G.B.), 1963.

5 It's interesting that none of the Baptist grammarians even comment on the syntax of Mark 16:16. The best that Robertson could say was, So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament. Two manuscripts are used to dispute the inclusion of 16:9-20. They are Codices B and a. However, many very able scholars have shown that they are riddled with omissions. Textual criticism is not the topic of this article, but I want everyone to be aware that the manuscript evidence supporting the inclusion of this passage is overwhelming.

6 The word in Mark 7:4 is baptivswntai, baptize. "They do not eat unless they wash [baptize]."

7 sunomorevw, Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 611, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI), 1950.

webmaster
March 5th, 2002, 11:37 PM
Click here (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/chart_12dispensations.htm) to see the 12 dispensations chart at Biblical Answers.com

Jaltus
March 6th, 2002, 04:11 PM
First, from BAGD pages 559-560.

oikonomia

1) management, direction, office
2) arrangement, order, plan
3) training

oikonomos

steward, manager
1) literal use
2) figurative use

Strangely enough, BAGD does not define either word as a period of time. Although you admit this point, you still assume it in your usage of the word, whereas the Greek would use a verbal form, not a noun proper (in all likelihood, the Greek would use an articular infinitive, carrying the verbal meaning but transforming it into a noun in terms of usage) Thus, dispensation cannot be taken from this word.

Secondly,

Please define dispensation. What does it mean? You seem to go out of your way to not define it.

Bob Hill
March 7th, 2002, 10:17 PM
Dear Jaltus,
Thank you for your post. You wrote:



oikonomia 1) management, direction, office 2) arrangement, order, plan 3) training oikonomos steward, manager 1) literal use 2) figurative use

Strangely enough, BAGD does not define either word as a period of time.

Although you admit this point, you still assume it in your usage of the word, whereas the Greek would use a verbal form, not a noun proper (in all likelihood, the Greek would use an articular infinitive, carrying the verbal meaning but transforming it into a noun in terms of usage) Thus, dispensation cannot be taken from this word. Secondly, Please define dispensation. What does it mean? You seem to go out of your way to not define it.



I believe I defined it rather thoroughly, but here it is from theologyonline, again.


What is a dispensation? The Greek word for dispensation, oikonomia - oikonomia, is defined in two ways. The first definition emphasizes the plan of management: The management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property. The second emphasizes the position entrusted to the administrator: The office of a manager or overseer, stewardship. We refer to the term of office of an American president as an administration. We could refer to it as a dispensation. Here is another way to understand the word. Suppose you inherited an estate and hired an overseer, oikonomo" oikonomos, to manage it. You gave him a written document of instructions, the dispensation, and gave him the authority to spend your money to carry out your directions. Although a dispensation is not a period of time, we can see that the directions in the dispensation are carried out over a period of time. If you wanted to, you could replace the old administrator with a new one. You could also change the rules of the dispensation a little, keeping most of the rules from the last dispensation. The employees the prior administrator had hired could adapt to the minor changes easily. But if you hired an administrator and gave him instructions which totally conflicted with the previous dispensation, there would be confusion and probably strong resistance from the employees. Thats what happened in God's dispensational program after the last change. God set aside His nation, Israel, and started a new dispensation with the Apostle Paul.


In case that is not clear, I would define a dispensation as “The rules to administer, run, or manage a house.” We could also say it is “The administration, oikonomia, of those rules by the oikonomos, the administrator. When God used it in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, Eph 3:8-10, it would be the rules that govern the operations of the Apostle Paul and subsequently, the body of Christ which would be God’s church under those rules.

I do not assume the dispensation to be a period of time. However, the present dispensation takes place during a specific period of time, but it isn’t a period of time, it consists of all the methods, rules, and/or operational procedures that are in effect while this dispensation/administration is in place. We use the word dispensation because it is not normally used in our language. That way it will not be as easily corrupted further.

Eph 3:8-10 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.

Here is the complete entry from BAGD. The Greek font is Logos GraecaII. We lose the italics and the GraecaII fonts on the thread.
oijkonomiva, a", hJ (X., Pla.+; iscr., pap.; Is 22:19, 21; Philo, Joseph.—1. management of a household, direction, office (X., Oec. 1, 1; Herodian 6, 1, 1; Jos., Ant. 2, 89; PTebt. 27, 21 [114BC]; PLond. 904, 25).
a. lit., of the work of an oijkonovmo" Lk 16:2-4 (this passage shows that it is not always poss. to draw a sharp distinction betw. the office itself and the activities associated w. it).
b. Paul applies the idea of administration to the office of an apostle oij konomivan pepivsteumai I have been entrusted with a commission 1 Cor 9:17. ajnqrwpivnwn oijkonomivan musthrivwn pepivsteuntai they have been entrusted with the administration of merely human mysteries Dg 7:1. Of the bishop: o}n pevmpei oJ oijkodespovth" eij" ijdivan oijk. (oijk. ivdivou oi[kou) the one whom the master of the house sent to administer his own household IEph 6:1. This is prob. also the place for kata; th;n oijk. tou` qeou` th;n doqei`savn moi eij" uJma`" according to the divine office which has been granted to me for you Col 1:25, but hjkouvsate th;n oijkonomivan t. cavrito" t. qeou` th`" doqeivsh" moi eij" uJma`" you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was granted to me for you Eph 3:2 may be parallel to the usage in vs. 9; s. 2b below.
2. arrangement, order, plan (X., Cyr. 5, 3, 25; Polyb. 4, 67, 9; 10, 16, 2; Diod. S. 1, 81, 3—a. hJ th`" sarko;" oijkonomiva of the arrangement or structure of the parts of the body beneath the skin; they are laid bare by scourging MPol 2:2.
b. of God’s plan of salvation, his arrangements for man’s redemption (in the pap. of the arrangements and directions of the authorities: UPZ 162 IX, 2 [117BC]; PRainer 11, 26, and in PGM [e.g. 4, 293] of the measures by which one wishes to attain some goal by supernatural help) hJ oijk. tou` musthrivou the plan of the mystery Eph 3:9 (cf. vs. 2 and JReumann, NovT 3, ’59, 282-92). Also in the linguistically difficult passage 1:10 oijk. certainly refers to the plan of salvation which God is bringing to reality through Christ, in the fulness of the times. katÆ oijkonomivan qeou` according to God’s plan of redemption IEph 18:2. prosdhlwvsw uJmi`n h|" hjrxavmhn oijkonomiva" eij" to;n kaino;n a[nqrwpon jIhsou`n Cristovn I will explain to you further the divine plan which I began (to discuss) , with reference to the new man Jesus Christ IEph 20:1.
c. also of God’s arrangements in nature pl. aiJ oijk. qeou` Dg 4:5.
3. training (in the way of salvation); this mng. (found also Clem. Alex., Paed. 1, 8, 69, 3; 70, 1 p. 130 St.) seems to fit best in 1 Ti 1:4, where it is said of the erroneous teachings of certain persons ejkzhthvsei" parevcousin ma`llon h] oijkonomivan qeou` th;n ejn pivstei they promote useless speculations rather than divine training that is in faith oijkodomhvn and oijkodomivan [q.v.] as v.l. are simply ‘corrections’ to alleviate the difficulty). M-M.*
Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Jaltus
March 7th, 2002, 10:28 PM
I'll try to get back to this on Friday.

Justin
March 17th, 2002, 09:41 PM
bump

Projill
March 18th, 2002, 01:58 AM
*briefly wonders if the webmaster is held to the same rules as the posters* *shrugs* Meh.

webmaster
March 19th, 2002, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Projill
*briefly wonders if the webmaster is held to the same rules as the posters* *shrugs* Meh. Uh.... no. ;)

Bob Hill
March 19th, 2002, 06:12 PM
2 Fridays have passed.:(

Evangelion
March 29th, 2002, 04:54 AM
It would appear that Dispensationalism is not an exact science.

Indeed, the entire system seems to be wholly arbitrary.

:rolleyes:

Bob Hill
March 30th, 2002, 12:23 AM
Nice rebuttal Evangelion.

Evangelion
March 30th, 2002, 05:24 AM
Bob -

Nice rebuttal Evangelion.

Thanks. :D

On a more serious note, let's review Dispensationalism with a critical eye:

The entire concept of "dispensations" is arbitrary. That much is true.
Indeed, the Bible does not actually speak in terms of "dispensations" but in terms of "Covenants" - of which there are essentially two: the Old and the New.
The Dispensationalist must therefore hunt through the Scriptures and define his "dispensations" as he sees fit. You yourself have already admitted that we could arrive at anything from 3-37 different dispensations, depending on the terms of reference.
Dispensationalism leads to the unhealthy idea that the message of the early Christian community necessarily changed with the conversion of the apostle Paul. This stands in contrast to the Biblical data.
Dispensationalism asserts that God will not deal with His people until the Second Advent. This too, stands in contrast to the Biblical data.
Dispensationalism is associated with the twin heresies of OSAS and "Spirit baptism" as a replacement for Biblical baptism.
Dispensationalism distorts the Biblical definitions of "faith" and "works", attempting to prove that - in a soteriological context, at least - the two are mutually exclusive.

That's just a few objections, off the cuff.

Would you care to discuss them?

:)

Jodia
April 9th, 2002, 06:43 AM
Bob-

I dig it! Finally - I can start to read the New Testament without pulling my hair out! When I started on this journey long ago, hungry for knowledge, people were always recommending
I John as the first book a new Christian should read. I wanted to give up!!!!!! Years in Bible school left me confused and wondering - the Bible seemed to contradict itself on points and yet to say such a thing brought swift rebuke. I think the dispensations are apparent to anyone who has read the Bible critically.

Thanks for all your study! Hope to read more from you! :up:

JGaltJr.
April 9th, 2002, 07:01 AM
Jodia, finding dispensations is a way of overlooking the contradictions. There are many more contradictions that can't be explained away with the use of such arbitrary excuses though.

Evangelion
April 9th, 2002, 11:18 AM
Well now, if Bob could just address himself to my post, we might have something going on here.

:rolleyes:

Evangelion
April 22nd, 2002, 11:20 PM
*Bump*

:)

biblicalanser4u
May 13th, 2002, 01:44 AM
Evan,

On a more serious note, let's review Dispensationalism with a critical eye

Thats all we should do!


The entire concept of "dispensations" is arbitrary. That much is true.

Arbitary of what may I ask? Just want to make sure we are on the same wavelenghth.


Indeed, the Bible does not actually speak in terms of "dispensations" but in terms of "Covenants" - of which there are essentially two: the Old and the New.

The Covenants are related to Dispensations. In some cases Evan, covenants are what that particular dispensation is about. Think on this if you will. Now I am assuming your of the view that the Mosiac Covenant given to Moses is the Old Covenant? Or is it the Covenant of Works, made with Adam before the fall, promising Adam eternal life in exchange for his obedience, which when he fell, thereby ushering in the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, providing salvation for fallen man?

The example I will give is the Noahic Covenant. This covenant is the basis for the Dispensation of Human Government. The Dispensation of Law is simply the Mosiac Covenant. I hope that helps in your understanding.


The Dispensationalist must therefore hunt through the Scriptures and define his "dispensations" as he sees fit. You yourself have already admitted that we could arrive at anything from 3-37 different dispensations, depending on the terms of reference.

True! And what exactly is wrong with hunting scripture? Are we not to study to show thyself approved? To find truth? Or are we just going to take someones word for it?


Dispensationalism leads to the unhealthy idea that the message of the early Christian community necessarily changed with the conversion of the apostle Paul. This stands in contrast to the Biblical data.

Where is this in the scriptures? I find scriptures point in the other direction.


Dispensationalism asserts that God will not deal with His people until the Second Advent. This too, stands in contrast to the Biblical data.

How so again? Paul in Romans even states ungodliness will be turned away from Jacob and all Isreal will be saved by the coming of the deliverer, not before His coming. Reference Romans 11:26.


Dispensationalism is associated with the twin heresies of OSAS and "Spirit baptism" as a replacement for Biblical baptism.

Heresies Huh? I will respond to those in due time. But You can debate with me about babtism now in The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! If your up to it.

Dispensationalism distorts the Biblical definitions of "faith" and "works", attempting to prove that - in a soteriological context, at least - the two are mutually exclusive.

I will start here as a starting point.

biblicalanser4u
May 13th, 2002, 03:06 AM
my computer is down for a few hours til I get a battery! I will be back!

Evangelion
May 13th, 2002, 10:50 AM
It's OK, the time is 11:50 PM here in Australia right now, and I have to be in bed soon anyway.

:)

biblicalanser4u
May 13th, 2002, 10:54 AM
Dispensationalism distorts the Biblical definitions of "faith" and "works", attempting to prove that - in a soteriological context, at least - the two are mutually exclusive.

First Question What is Soteriological mean? I just had to ask that question.:)

I am sure you are referring to James 2. Just want to make sure. If there are other verses you like to throw in , please do.

biblicalanser4u
May 13th, 2002, 10:55 AM
thats cool. we can pick this up when your ready

Evangelion
May 13th, 2002, 11:52 AM
Biblical -

Arbitary of what may I ask? Just want to make sure we are on the same wavelenghth.

I mean that you can have as many "dispensations" as you want, since none of them are defined by Scripture itself. So how do you know that you're getting it right? Bottom line - you don't. Your version of Dispensationalism is just as good as anyone else's.

This is not a sound epistemological base.

The Covenants are related to Dispensations.

Scripture, please!

In some cases Evan, covenants are what that particular dispensation is about.

For the sake of the argument, I shall allow you to develop this thought. :up:

Think on this if you will.

*thinks*

OK, I thought about it, and what I thought was "This isn't very interesting." Where do you go from here? :)

Now I am assuming your of the view that the Mosiac Covenant given to Moses is the Old Covenant?

Correct.

Or is it the Covenant of Works, made with Adam before the fall, promising Adam eternal life in exchange for his obedience, which when he fell, thereby ushering in the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, providing salvation for fallen man?

Crikey. :rolleyes: If this is what happens when you've been studying Dispensationalism for too long, I don't want to go there already. :p

Lemme see here... no, I don't buy that at all. None of it. Why? Because it's not in Scripture, while the Old Covenant is. :)

The example I will give is the Noahic Covenant. This covenant is the basis for the Dispensation of Human Government.

Scripture, please!

The Dispensation of Law is simply the Mosiac Covenant. I hope that helps in your understanding.

Well I now have a list of your "Dispensations" (or some of them, at least.) What's next?

I had written:

The Dispensationalist must therefore hunt through the Scriptures and define his "dispensations" as he sees fit. You yourself have already admitted that we could arrive at anything from 3-37 different dispensations, depending on the terms of reference.

To which you responded:

True! And what exactly is wrong with hunting scripture? Are we not to study to show thyself approved? To find truth? Or are we just going to take someones word for it?

Well, hunting through Scripture is all fine and dandy, my friend... just so long as you're guided by Scripture at the same time. As it stands, your definitions are purely arbitrary. There's nothing in Scripture which specifies the parameters of each "Dispensation", so you're free to make it up as you go along.

Again - this is not a sound epistemological base.

I had written:

Dispensationalism leads to the unhealthy idea that the message of the early Christian community necessarily changed with the conversion of the apostle Paul. This stands in contrast to the Biblical data.

To which you responded:

Where is this in the scriptures? I find scriptures point in the other direction.

Both Peter and Paul claimed to preach that which was "written in the Law and the prophets." If they've got two entirely different messages, they can't both be preaching "from the Law and the prophets", can they? Both preached to the Jews (though Peter more than Paul), and both preached to the Gentiles. They went first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, after some of the Jews had rejected their message.

But guess what? Jesus himself had already done the same thing! Yep! Jesus preached to both Jews and Gentiles during his ministry. Not only this, but he had instructed the disciples to go first to the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6), in accordance with his parable of the wedding feast. After his resurrection, however, Jesus spoke these words in Mark 16:15:

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

"All the world" and "every creature." Not a word about the Jews. That's pretty clear to me. :up:

I had written:

Dispensationalism asserts that God will not deal with His people until the Second Advent. This too, stands in contrast to the Biblical data.

You responded:

How so again? Paul in Romans even states ungodliness will be turned away from Jacob and all Isreal will be saved by the coming of the deliverer, not before His coming. Reference Romans 11:26.

Try reading the first few verses for context:

Romans 11:1-5.
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Notice that he also says:

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

So some have not obtained; others have obtained, and eventaully, all Israel shall be saved.

Meanwhile, the OT informs us that God will continue to work with His people by fulfilling the prophecies which His prophets foretold. The re-establishment of the State of Israel is a classic example. :) Will "all Israel be saved" when Christ returns? Absolutely! And did Paul continue to preach the gospel message to the Jews? Absolutely! Even as late as Acts 18 he was preaching to the Jews, and they were converting! Even as late as Acts 28 he was preaching to the Jews, and they were converting!

So I think you're over-stating the case when you say that Peter and Paul each carried a different message.

I had written:

Dispensationalism is associated with the twin heresies of OSAS and "Spirit baptism" as a replacement for Biblical baptism.

You responded:

Heresies Huh? I will respond to those in due time. But You can debate with me about babtism now in The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! If your up to it.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I was debating baptism on that thread for weeks before you came along. I eventually moved over to the Trinity thread, because I had finished with the baptism debate. I had dealt with every proof text that my opponents had thrown at me, and it had reached the stage at which people just weren't listening anymore. I suggest that if you want to see where I'm coming from, you can go back over the thread yourself, and take a look at my arguments.

I'm certainly not interested in repeating myself. :rolleyes:

It's time for bed now (12:50 AM), so I'll see you tomorrow evening when I get home from work.


PS. "Soteriological" means "with regard to salvation." Soteriology is the study of salvation doctrines. :)

drbrumley
June 19th, 2002, 01:55 AM
Evangelion,

I mean that you can have as many "dispensations" as you want, since none of them are defined by Scripture itself. So how do you know that you're getting it right?

Let's see, the argument here seems to be that dispensations are not defined. Well, let's look at the word shall we. I will even quote Mr. Hill because his definition is accurate.



What is a dispensation? The Greek word for dispensation, oijkonomiva - oikonomia, is defined in two ways. The first definition emphasizes the plan of management: The management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property. The second emphasizes the position entrusted to the administrator: The office of a manager or overseer, stewardship. We refer to the term of office of an American president as an administration. We could refer to it as a dispensation.

That seems pretty clear there. So to say that looking thru scripture one cannot find any differences is not exactly right. God has dealt differently with the men at different times during our history.

Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Dispensationalists do teach that man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.



Dispensationalism leads to the unhealthy idea that the message of the early Christian community necessarily changed with the conversion of the apostle Paul. This stands in contrast to the Biblical data.

Good grief!



Both Peter and Paul claimed to preach that which was "written in the Law and the prophets." If they've got two entirely different messages, they can't both be preaching "from the Law and the prophets", can they? Both preached to the Jews (though Peter more than Paul), and both preached to the Gentiles. They went first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, after some of the Jews had rejected their message.

Not two messages, different house rules.


But guess what? Jesus himself had already done the same thing! Yep! Jesus preached to both Jews and Gentiles during his ministry. Not only this, but he had instructed the disciples to go first to the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6), in accordance with his parable of the wedding feast.

Newsflash for you. Jesus was sent only to ISREAL. Do you need a reference here. Your in luck, I will provide you one.

Matthew 15:24 [Jesus] said, " I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. "

Christ did not limit His earthly ministry to Isreal because He had no love for or plan for reaching the Gentiles. His plan was to reach Isreal first and then through them to reach all of the other nations.

As far as the record is concerned Jesus ministered to only two Gentiles, a Roman centurion who had built a synagogue for the Jews and the woman above. Thats it. To say that He preached to both Jews and Gentiles is arbritary and to make a doctrine out of that is not sound.

Dispensationalism asserts that God will not deal with His people until the Second Advent

The boundary line between ours and the former dispensation is marked off in Scripture by Isreal's fall. Paul makes it very plain in Romans 11:12-15 that it was through the fall of Isreal the Gentiles had been blessed under his ministry. If we can locate Isreal's fall we can locate the dispensational boundary line. Romans 11, written at least three or four years before Acts 28 definitely announces that Isreal has already fallen. Likewise, in his very first epistle he announces concerning the Jews: " for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" 1Thess. 2:16. To me, in Paul's mind God's wrath was upon the Jew to the uttermost, which does not at all sound as though they were still in the good graces of God and still having the kingdom blessings offered to them.

And saying God still doesn't deal with Isreal is not quite accurate.
I agree with you that God played a major role in Isreal becoming a nation again. Noone said God does not deal with Isreal on this thread as of yet.

So before you start critizing dispensationalism, get the facts of what dispensationalists teach.

Evangelion
June 19th, 2002, 01:38 PM
.

Knight
June 19th, 2002, 01:44 PM
Evang - this is your final warning keep your posts shorter!

Evangelion
June 19th, 2002, 01:45 PM
Sorry, my mistake. :o

I'll re-post it as a two-part mini-series.

:)

Evangelion
June 19th, 2002, 01:49 PM
Well, well, well...

Let's see, the argument here seems to be that dispensations are not defined. Well, let's look at the word shall we. I will even quote Mr. Hill because his definition is accurate.

You mean that you will quote Mr Hill because you just so happen to agree with his particular model.

OK. So let's do that:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is a dispensation? The Greek word for dispensation, oijkonomiva - oikonomia, is defined in two ways. The first definition emphasizes the plan of management: The management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property. The second emphasizes the position entrusted to the administrator: The office of a manager or overseer, stewardship. We refer to the term of office of an American president as an administration. We could refer to it as a dispensation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That seems pretty clear there.

Yes, it defines the word "dispensation" very well - which is not what I had asked for. Remember, I had said to Bob:

The Dispensationalist must therefore hunt through the Scriptures and define his "dispensations" as he sees fit. You yourself have already admitted that we could arrive at anything from 3-37 different dispensations, depending on the terms of reference.

And I had said to Bob's friend:

I mean that you can have as many "dispensations" as you want, since none of them are defined by Scripture itself. So how do you know that you're getting it right? Bottom line - you don't. Your version of Dispensationalism is just as good as anyone else's. This is not a sound epistemological base.

...

There's nothing in Scripture which specifies the parameters of each "Dispensation", so you're free to make it up as you go along.

That's what I'm talking about when I refer to "defining your dispensations." I'm not talking about the meaning of the word itself, but the scope of each "dispensation" as defined by the dispensationalist.

So to say that looking thru scripture one cannot find any differences is not exactly right.

Straw man. This is not what I had said.

God has dealt differently with the men at different times during our history.

Straw man. I had never denied this.

Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations

Well, according to Bob Hill, the Dispensationalist who started this entire thread:

We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.

So perhaps you'd like to tell Bob that he's got it all wrong? ;)

and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another.

Straw man. This is not what I had said.

Dispensationalists do teach that man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.

So you believe in a different message for a different age. Fine. Since I had already agreed that is precisely what dispensationalists teach, I am at a loss to know why you're going over old ground now.

Not two messages, different house rules.

Well now, it appears that there is some measure of confusion in the Dispensationalist camp.

For example, while you have argued that there was only one message, another Dispensationalist tells me:

The simple fact is that while Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism generally, along with Modernism and Roman Catholicism, have considered Paul merely as one of the Apostles, entrusted with the same message the Twelve were sent to proclaim, the Scriptures clearly teach that this is not so. Paul's message and ministry were distinct and separate from theirs; to him was committed the doctrine and the program for a new dispensation, a new creation, the Church, never before even contemplated, except in the mind and heart of God.
Full text available here. (http://withchrist.org/MJS/paul.htm)

So who am I expected to believe? The Dispensationalist, or... the other Dispensationalist?

I have already said that Dispensationalism is "hardly an exact science", and this only serves to confirm my point.

Newsflash for you. Jesus was sent only to ISREAL.

The word you are looking for is "Israel." Misspell it, and you remove a title of God from the name of His nation.

Not a good idea.

Do you need a reference here. Your in luck, I will provide you one.

Matthew 15:24 [Jesus] said, " I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. "

I have already agreed that this was his primary mission. But it did not exclude the Gentiles, and it does not automatically present us with a certain "dispensation."

Christ did not limit His earthly ministry to Isreal because He had no love for or plan for reaching the Gentiles. His plan was to reach Isreal first and then through them to reach all of the other nations.

This is all very well, and I agree with it in principle. But the plain fact remains that Christ visited the Gentiles during his ministry (even to the extent of leaving Jewish territory and preaching to the Samaritans), and they believed at the receipt of his message. The lines of demarcation are not as clearly drawn as you would have me believe. Indeed, Jesus himself comments on the fact that "no prophet is accepted in his own country." Many Gentiles heard him preach - he preached to them by choice, and they believed on his word.

Evangelion
June 19th, 2002, 01:50 PM
Continued from the previous post...

drbrumley -

As far as the record is concerned Jesus ministered to only two Gentiles, a Roman centurion who had built a synagogue for the Jews and the woman above. Thats it. To say that He preached to both Jews and Gentiles is arbritary and to make a doctrine out of that is not sound.

Wrong. Jesus actively preached in Samaria. That is how he met the woman at Jacob's well. There is no getting around it - Jesus went into Samaria on his way to preach in Galilee (known to the Jews as "Galilee of the Gentiles", which should give you a hint about the sort of people who lived there), and found an opportunity to preach to the Gentiles of Samaria.

Thus:

John 4:39-42.
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
And many more believed because of his own word;
And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.

Jesus was invited to stay for a while and preach to the Gentiles. So he stayed for a while and preached to the Gentiles. And many of the Gentiles believed.

B. W. Johnson has this to say in his People's New Testament:

John 4:42 - Know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
To the woman Jesus had said that he was the Christ. Now, by his teachings, many months before Peter's confession, the Samaritans pronounce him the Christ, the Savior, not of Jews only, or Jews and Samaritans, but of the world.

A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament) agrees:

The Saviour of the world (ho sōtēr tou kosmou).
See Mat_1:21 for sōsei used of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term sōtēr to Jesus again in 1Jo_4:14. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (Joh_4:22). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (Joh_4:26) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews.

So they knew perfectly well that the salvation of God had come to the Gentiles and the Jews. This was the direct result of Jesus' preaching. Indeed, it was his personal message to them.

End of story.

The boundary line between ours and the former dispensation is marked off in Scripture by Isreal's fall.

This remains to be proved.

Paul makes it very plain in Romans 11:12-15 that it was through the fall of Isreal the Gentiles had been blessed under his ministry.

Very true. But did you take a little time to see what else he has to say about the Gentiles? And (more signficantly) what else he has to say about Israel?

If we can locate Isreal's fall we can locate the dispensational boundary line.

OK, well Paul actually refers to more than one "fall." He refers to the fall of Israel in the wilderness, and the fall of Israel when they encountered the stumblingblock that was "Christ crucified."

Romans 11, written at least three or four years before Acts 28 definitely announces that Isreal has already fallen.

Agreed. But I note with interest that you've skipped over the key verses of Romans 11. Any particular reason for that?

Likewise, in his very first epistle he announces concerning the Jews: " for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" 1Thess. 2:16. To me, in Paul's mind God's wrath was upon the Jew to the uttermost, which does not at all sound as though they were still in the good graces of God and still having the kingdom blessings offered to them.

...and yet, "all Israel shall be saved." And since (as you correctly observe) Acts 28 was not yet written by this stage, I am waiting to hear you explain why Paul was still preaching to the Jews in Acts 28, and why they still continued to believe.

Any suggestions?

And saying God still doesn't deal with Isreal is not quite accurate.

That is what I have been told by Dispensationalists. Don't blame me if they can't all agree on the rules.

Here, why don't we ask Bob Hill for his opinion...?

God used Paul to pronounce to the Jews in Rome that Israel had been set aside. This occurred in Acts 28:28. After this, the baptisms imposed on Israel, being fleshly ordinances (Heb. 9:10-13), were set aside until God would resume dealing with Israel in the tribulation.

Bob Hill says that "God would resume dealing with Israel in the tribulation." (And stop me if I'm wrong, but Dispensationalists believe that the tribulation has yet to occur.) So Bob is telling us that God "still doesn't deal with Israel." Are you now telling me something different?

This is all very interesting, by the way. :)

I agree with you that God played a major role in Isreal becoming a nation again.

In that case, you disagree with Bob Hill - another Dispensationalist.

Noone said God does not deal with Isreal on this thread as of yet.

Bob did, and since Bob's a Dispensationalist, I thought he was telling me what Dispensationalists believe. That was a reasonable inference, wasn't it?

So before you start critizing dispensationalism, get the facts of what dispensationalists teach.

Well I thought I had, but unfortunately, different Dispensationalists want to tell me different things.

*shrugs* Like I said - it's hardly an exact science, is it?

Now, let's review...

You have spent most of your time attacking straw men.

You have not even attempted to engage with my argument from Romans 11 (clearly articulated below.)

By the way - you might be interested in this (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=1900&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) brief debate which I had in the "Dispensationalism" forum.

:)

Evangelion
June 19th, 2002, 01:52 PM
I've used a maximum of three pages per post. :up:

That's one page below the average length of posts on the "General Theology" board.

:)

Knight
June 19th, 2002, 03:06 PM
I do not see all the posts on TOL. Just because there may be someone violating the rules elsewhere does not excuse those from violating the rules here.

It would be no big deal if I hadn't already warned you 3-4 other times.

Evangelion
June 19th, 2002, 07:31 PM
Can I have a ballpark figure here?

Is three pages too long?

Knight
June 19th, 2002, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Evangelion
Sorry, my mistake. :o

I'll re-post it as a two-part mini-series.

:) Much better, thank you!

Evangelion
June 20th, 2002, 04:42 AM
No worries, Knight. :up:

:)

drbrumley
June 28th, 2002, 02:04 AM
Evan,

That's what I'm talking about when I refer to "defining your dispensations." I'm not talking about the meaning of the word itself, but the scope of each "dispensation" as defined by the dispensationalist.

Just as with any doctrine which man tries to formulate from the revelation of the Word, it is to be expected that there would be differences of opinion on the subject of dispensations. Dispensationalists are no more agreed on the number and the divisions of the dispensations than christians are on the doctrines of election, baptism and the second coming of Christ. Some men call themselves either non- or - anti- dispensationalists,(you perhaps) arguing that lack of agreement is proof of the falseity of the doctrine. To say the least, this is a rather immature position to take. The lack of agreement should be a challenge to more diligent study. No one man, with the exception of Jesus Christ, has had all the truth. An open minded, unprejudiced study should bring believers closer to unity in this field. It is no mark of spirituality to call one self anti-anything that is in Scripture, simply to avoid differences or controversy.

What did Mr. Hill say that was so wrong? His quote you gave me is pretty accurate. The burden is on you to disprove it. So quit duckin it.

Mr. Hill's quote.
We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.

So please don't imply that we teach that we teach different ways of being saved. That would not be accurate.

So you believe in a different message for a different age. Fine. Since I had already agreed that is precisely what dispensationalists teach, I am at a loss to know why you're going over old ground now.

Great, let's move on to the meat of the subject then instead of you favorite pastime of making a play of wording.


Well now, it appears that there is some measure of confusion in the Dispensationalist camp.

Not at all.

For example, while you have argued that there was only one message, another Dispensationalist tells me:

The simple fact is that while Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism generally, along with Modernism and Roman Catholicism, have considered Paul merely as one of the Apostles, entrusted with the same message the Twelve were sent to proclaim, the Scriptures clearly teach that this is not so. Paul's message and ministry were distinct and separate from theirs; to him was committed the doctrine and the program for a new dispensation, a new creation, the Church, never before even contemplated, except in the mind and heart of God.

Again, back to an earlier statement I made:

Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Dispensationalists do teach that man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.

I have yet to meet one dispensationalists that disagrees with that statement. In your folly. you try to use this as some sort of division. Very bad and sad on your part. Again trying to make a play of words.

About Samaria on the next post.

Evangelion
June 28th, 2002, 11:59 AM
drbrumley -

Just as with any doctrine which man tries to formulate from the revelation of the Word, it is to be expected that there would be differences of opinion on the subject of dispensations. Dispensationalists are no more agreed on the number and the divisions of the dispensations than christians are on the doctrines of election, baptism and the second coming of Christ.

Fine. So I'll thank you to stop talking about "what Dispensationalists believe" as if there's some sort of universal standard.

Some men call themselves either non- or - anti- dispensationalists,(you perhaps) arguing that lack of agreement is proof of the falseity of the doctrine.

*snip*

Straw man. I am not arguing that the lack of agreement is proof of the "falseity of the doctrine [sic]." I am arguing that you cannot talk about "what Dispensationalists believe" as if there's some sort of universal standard.

What did Mr. Hill say that was so wrong?

You had said that there was no change in God's method of salvation.

Thus:


Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations

My quote from Mr Hill stands in direct contradiction to your statement.

His quote you gave me is pretty accurate. The burden is on you to disprove it. So quit duckin it.

If anyone's "duckin it" [sic]", it's you. I have presented you with a contradiction between your statement, and Mr Hill's. To date, this contradiction has not been resolved.

Mr. Hill's quote.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[color=red]We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So please don't imply that we teach that we teach different ways of being saved. That would not be accurate.

Are you even reading this stuff? :confused: Look, I'll spell it out:

Mr Hill says that there was [b]a change in the method of salvation.

This means that I have a Dispensationalist here who is talking about different ways of being saved. (One of which is no longer in effect.)

That is precisely what I had said, and precisely what you had denied.

I never claimed that Dispensationalists teach that there are different ways for modern Christians to be saved, if that's what you're thinking.

Please take the time to read my posts properly. I take the time to read your posts properly, and the least you can do is return the courtesy.

In your folly. you try to use this as some sort of division.

You have already agreed that there is division within the Dispensationalist camp. You don't call it "division" - you call it "difference of opinion" - but the net result is the same.

Very bad and sad on your part.

Don't blame me if you guys can't agree on the essentials.

Again trying to make a play of words.

Nothing of the sort.

About Samaria on the next post.

Good.

IDF1
July 5th, 2002, 03:04 AM
Yeah, come on Bob, what are yoou doing man, youv'e just made a big statement and Evangelions taken it to pieces, come on man stand up for your self and what you believe.

Evangelion
July 5th, 2002, 12:11 PM
LOL :o Gently, Bentley... ;) So, you enjoyed my little stoush with the Dispys, eh?

I did too. :D

drbrumley
July 5th, 2002, 01:35 PM
IDF1,

Welcome to TheologyOnline. FYI, I am not as blessed with time as Evan is, so forgive me if I don't answer right away. I listen to Evan, and prayfully consider an answer to him. If that takes a week or two, then so be it.

Yeah, come on Bob, what are yoou doing man, youv'e just made a big statement and Evangelions taken it to pieces, come on man stand up for your self and what you believe.

I'm not Bob. LOL! And I don't speak for him either.

But we seem to have here is a huge misrepresentation of words. I quoted:

Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. Dispensationalists do teach that God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.

Please note the key phrase of my answer:

Man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways.

Like I said earlier, Jesus saves. It is by the blood of Christ that ALL men have been saved. Past, Present, and Future. But Isreal in the Old Testament times didn't know who the Messiah was. But they expected him, so they had a faith in the coming Messiah.

Now Evangelion likes to say this is what Bob Hill doesn't mean. This is exactly what Bob means. Maybe Bob should have said something more about this to clarify the position. And I hope he does. But I know this is exactly what he means. This is exactly what Bob says in his thesis:

Bob Hill quotes: Abraham was justified by his faith-work of offering up his son. That was God's method of salvation just as circumcision was necessary. The faith-work did not provide the righteousness. Only Jesus Christ's faithfulness could do that. That is shown in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians.

Or did you just miss that Evangelion. Or are you just pertending he didn't say that?

So the rest of your rant on your post has been answered and needs no more clarification.

Evangelion
July 5th, 2002, 02:47 PM
Well, again, Bob seems to have chosen his language with a cavaliar disregard for the very theological specifics he is supposed to be defining. It is one thing to say that man has been required to manifest his faith in different ways. It is quite another thing entirely, to say that God has decided to save man through a variety of methods. And yet, that is precisely what Bob has told us. Indeed, your citations merely prove my point - viz., that he has actually claimed both simultaneously!

So I don't want to hear any more about "What Dispys teach", as if there's some kind of hard-and-fast rules about what they teach and what they don't. It's simply a matter of personal choice.

As I said in the beginning, so I now say again - Dispensationalism is hardly an exact science. :rolleyes:


PS. Bob appears to imply (if not assert), that circumcision was necessary for salvation. I hope he realises that this is totally false. :)

Evangelion
July 5th, 2002, 02:52 PM
Oh yeah - and let's get another thing straight. I didn't write a "rant." If anything, that's what you did.

:rolleyes:

drbrumley
July 5th, 2002, 03:52 PM
Evangelion,

Oh yeah - and let's get another thing straight. I didn't write a "rant." If anything, that's what you did.

ROFL! You say so.

Evangelion
July 6th, 2002, 01:05 AM
Oh, wow. That was a "prayerfully considered post", and no mistake.

:rolleyes:

drbrumley
July 6th, 2002, 04:33 AM
To all who read this thread,

As you can see, Evangelion has been refuted and what does he do? Makes things up. Now Bob is cavier in his theology and says two different things simultaneously. Evan, your grasping for straws mate. If you want to have a healthy debate about what he wrote, thats fine. But if you want to smear the man, this debate is over. Good day.

:down:

Evangelion
July 6th, 2002, 05:27 AM
"Cavier"? Do you mean "caviar", perhaps"? ;) (Or "cavalier", which is actually what I'd written...) :p BTW, just where was I "refuted", pray tell? I had said "Bob wrote (x)." You said "No he didn't, he wrote (y)!" I then pointed out that Bob had written both (x) and (y) - and now you get all sulky!?

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Look, I am not "smearing the man", I am simply pointing to something he wrote, and asking a few questions about it. If you don't want to discuss what he wrote, that's fine. Just skip Mr Hill and his lengthy dissertation, and move on to the Dispy-ism.

drbrumley
July 6th, 2002, 05:20 PM
Evangelion,

I had said "Bob wrote (x)."

And x was:

We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.

You said "No he didn't, he wrote (y)!

And y was:

Abraham was justified by his faith-work of offering up his son. That was God's method of salvation just as circumcision was necessary. The faith-work did not provide the righteousness. Only Jesus Christ's faithfulness could do that. That is shown in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians.

I never denied he said x. But what you seem to fail to realize is y is an explaination of x. (I feel as if I'm in Algebra again)

Then comes this statement from you:

It is one thing to say that man has been required to manifest his faith in different ways. It is quite another thing entirely, to say that God has decided to save man through a variety of methods.

In which the response is:

Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. Dispensationalists do teach that God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.

Please note the Bold sentence.

If you cannot understand that, then I'm sorry and lets move on.

If anyone looking at this thread other than myself and Evangelion understands this or not, feel free to join in and give your take on it.

Evangelion
July 7th, 2002, 06:03 AM
OK, now I see where you're coming from - and I apologise for the misunderstanding. It's just that Bob is (a) explaining himself poorly, in what I consider to be an extremely clumsy fashion, and (b) making this entire thing far more complicated than it really needs to be, IMHO. Dispensationalism seems to consist of a "gnats and camels" approach to Scripture, combined with a loose assortment of personal assumptions. :rolleyes:

And there's still that question about circumcision being necessary for salvation...

drbrumley
July 8th, 2002, 11:37 AM
Evangelion,

Glad we can get past Bob's lack of prensentation (in your opinion) and move on.

And there's still that question about circumcision being necessary for salvation

You have the honor of starting this. What are your concerns or objections to this?

Evangelion
July 8th, 2002, 11:58 AM
drbrumley -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there's still that question about circumcision being necessary for salvation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You have the honor of starting this. What are your concerns or objections to this?

It is fundamentally unsound. Try saying "Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation" to yourself ten times, and wait for the logic to sink in.

Then you'll see where I'm coming from. :)

drbrumley
July 8th, 2002, 01:18 PM
Evangelion,

It is fundamentally unsound

I would like to hear the reasons why?

Try saying "Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation" to yourself ten times, and wait for the logic to sink in.

LOL! If we as christians have to do that to determine doctrine, we are in trouble.

drbrumley
July 8th, 2002, 01:21 PM
Wait, I'll try it.

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

Hmmmmmmm, was something supposed to happen?

Evangelion
July 8th, 2002, 01:40 PM
drbrumley -

Evangelion,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is fundamentally unsound
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I would like to hear the reasons why?

Oh, come on - you should know the answer to this one! Think about it, please!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try saying "Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation" to yourself ten times, and wait for the logic to sink in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LOL! If we as christians have to do that to determine doctrine, we are in trouble.

Well, we don't really have to do that to determine doctrine. But some Christians have to do it before their ability to think logically kicks in. :)

Evangelion
July 8th, 2002, 01:41 PM
drbrumley -

Wait, I'll try it.

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

Hmmmmmmm, was something supposed to happen?

Did I say ten?

I meant twenty. :)

drbrumley
July 8th, 2002, 01:45 PM
ROFL!

Evangelion
July 8th, 2002, 01:54 PM
OK, so this is the part where I ask you to prove (from Scripture) that circumcision was necessary for salvation under the Law of Moses.

Oh, and I also need you to explain how this was applied to the nation of Israel as a whole.

(Sheesh, that was a pretty big hint. I think he'll get it this time. At least, I hope he will.) ;)

drbrumley
July 8th, 2002, 02:10 PM
Evangelion,

Be glad to provide scripture, but first thing first.

I asked you first as to why. Instead of clever and rather humorous responses, give a detailed presentation. I know you can do it.

Evangelion
July 8th, 2002, 02:21 PM
drbrumley -

I asked you first as to why.

For the sake of maintaining mutual respect, I'll pretend I didn't hear that. :)

Instead of clever and rather humorous responses, give a detailed presentation.

I'd rather watch you use your brain. (I know you can do it.)

I know you can do it.

Thanks for believing in me... :kiss:

drbrumley
July 8th, 2002, 02:26 PM
A skilled debater you are.

Sits and waits for a mistake and if one doesnt present itself, make one up. Your good. Puts your combatant on the defensive.

But what i said still stands give your reasons first as to why circumsion to be saved is Unsound

Evangelion
July 8th, 2002, 02:55 PM
drbrumley -

A skilled debater you are.

Thankyou. :)

Sits and waits for a mistake

...and nails it immediately when it appears. ;)

and if one doesnt present itself, make one up.

Nope. You've made a genuine mistake, and I'm waiting for you to realise it.

Your good.

Thanks again. :up:

Puts your combatant on the defensive.

Which is exactly where I want you.

But what i said still stands give your reasons first as to why circumsion to be saved is Unsound

I refuse to do so - for two reasons:

I asked you first.

I can see that you don't understand the principle behind circumcision, which leads me to believe that you've never actually studied the Law of Moses yourself.

Now, you say that circumcision was necessary for salvation under the Law of Moses. But why do you say this? Is it because you've personally studied the Law of Moses, and realised that this is what it is saying? Or is it because Bob Hill has said this, and you're happy to take his word for it?

Thus far, you have given me every reason to believe the latter, and absolutely no reason to believe the former.

drbrumley
July 8th, 2002, 03:30 PM
Evangelion,

I refuse to do so - for two reasons: I asked first

Geez! Do I need to point this whole dialogue on circumsion?

First there was the dialogue of your "Bob doesn't present this very well" opinion.

Then comes this:

PS. Bob appears to imply (if not assert), that circumcision was necessary for salvation. I hope he realises that this is totally false.

Thats called a statement. Not a question.

And there's still that question about circumcision being necessary for salvation

In which I replied:

You have the honor of starting this. What are your concerns or objections to this?

In which you replied:

It is fundamentally unsound.

And then I asked:

I would like to hear the reasons why?

Now with that exchange, you have already admitted that I asked first because you answered.

So please, give your presentation. I will gladly read it and make a rebuttal if I disagree. It's simple as that.

And now this wonderful statement:

I can see that you don't understand the principle behind circumcision, which leads me to believe that you've never actually studied the Law of Moses yourself.

That has yet to be determined. Assuming isnt very noble of you.

Knight
July 8th, 2002, 05:47 PM
You go drbrumley :up:

Evangelion
July 9th, 2002, 01:19 AM
I would have thought that any grown man would realise that circumcision wasn't necessary for salvation under the Law of Moses because circumcision was only performed on the male population, not on the females! To claim that this was necessary for salvation, is to miss the entire point of the exercise. If circumcision was necessary for salvation, and women weren't circumcised (as we know they weren't), then your argument results in the peculiar conclusion that the Law of Moes could only save men. Duh. :rolleyes:

Good grief, it's incredible that I had to spell this out. I can hardly begin to comprehend the kind of mindset