|
Author
|
Topic: The Beginning of the Present "Dispensation of Grace"
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart:
quote:
Originally Posted by Carol Swenson:
His mission seems to be to convince people that Jesus Christ our Lord taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments, and that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are less important than the preaching of Paul the Apostle.
Carol, I never even hinted that the Lord Jesus "taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments."
I challenge you to quote me saying such a thing. The point which I was making is in regard to what the Lord Jesus taught those under the law what they must do to be saved. Here He said that those who "believe have everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).
Now I will ask you again in the hope that I can finally get a straight answer out of you. Do you think that the people to whom the Lord Jesus addressed those words were required to do "works" in order to be saved?
When you finally give me your answer then also quote me where I even hinted that "Jesus Christ our Lord taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments."
You wrong.
Put your nogin cap on now.
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
It says ON HIM that sent, THE FATHER. Its much different than...
IN Jesus Christ and what He did on the Cross who was sent by Him the Father to do.
Reason this out.
One. Christ, while breathing air on the earth after being born of a virgin and fulfilling the Law and the Prophets addressing Israel, in the flesh and blood.
The other after Death, burial, and Resurrection. For ALL HAVE SINNED!
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
![[cool_shades]](graemlins/cool_shades.gif)
Here Jerry I will do this only once for ya.
"believed in Jesus Christ" from Galatians 2:16
"on him that sent me" from Jn.5:23,24
Difference Between IN and ON
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-in-and-on/
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Carol, I never even hinted that the Lord Jesus "taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments."
Yes, Jerry, you did.
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584 posted March 02, 2012 08:07
quote:
That is right and if works were required for salvation for those who lived during the dispensation of the law then common sense dictates that the Lord Jesus would not tell those people that faith was all that was required. However, that is exactly what He told them:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart:
quote:
Originally Posted by Carol Swenson:
His mission seems to be to convince people that Jesus Christ our Lord taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments, and that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are less important than the preaching of Paul the Apostle.
Carol, I never even hinted that the Lord Jesus "taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments."
I challenge you to quote me saying such a thing. The point which I was making is in regard to what the Lord Jesus taught those under the law what they must do to be saved. Here He said that those who "believe have everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).
Now I will ask you again in the hope that I can finally get a straight answer out of you. Do you think that the people to whom the Lord Jesus addressed those words were required to do "works" in order to be saved?
When you finally give me your answer then also quote me where I even hinted that "Jesus Christ our Lord taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments."
You wrong.
Put your nogin cap on now.
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
It says HIM that sent, THE FATHER. Its much different than...
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
His mission seems to be to convince people that Jesus Christ our Lord taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments, and that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are less important than the preaching of Paul the Apostle.
I think Jerry wan'ts to razzel dazzel us to death with his superior dialectical intellect.
So Big C how do you like your spam?
I like mine with a little Stam, yum.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Carol Swenson:
His mission seems to be to convince people that Jesus Christ our Lord taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments, and that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are less important than the preaching of Paul the Apostle.
Carol, I never even hinted that the Lord Jesus "taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments."
I challenge you to quote me saying such a thing. The point which I was making is in regard to what the Lord Jesus taught those under the law what they must do to be saved. Here He said that those who "believe have everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).
Now I will ask you again in the hope that I can finally get a straight answer out of you. Do you think that the people to whom the Lord Jesus addressed those words were required to do "works" in order to be saved?
When you finally give me your answer then also quote me where I even hinted that "Jesus Christ our Lord taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments."
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
His mission seems to be to convince people that Jesus Christ our Lord taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments, and that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are less important than the preaching of Paul the Apostle.
I think Jerry wan'ts to razzel dazzel us to death with his superior dialectical intellect.
So Big C how do you like your spam?
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Indeed. And
1 Corinthians 3:1 (NASB)
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
His mission seems to be to convince people that Jesus Christ our Lord taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments, and that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are less important than the preaching of Paul the Apostle.
Yea guess we are going to have to rearrange the Greek on this...Then throw a little Stam in miss quoted.
1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
Silly us?
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
His mission seems to be to convince people that Jesus Christ our Lord taught the children of Israel that they did not need to obey God's commandments, and that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are less important than the preaching of Paul the Apostle.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart:
quote:
Originally Posted by WildB:
Put your nogin cap on now.
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
It says HIM that sent, THE FATHER. Its much different than...
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Please correct or move on.
You need to spend less time reading what some men say about the meaning of the Scriptures and more time reading the Scriptures. If you would do that you might know that the words of the Lord Jesus were the words of the Father:
quote:
Its so simple its stupid...
Yes, it is "so simple its stupid" but some people put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than they do in what the Scriptures actually say.
Yep they sur do don't they, lol.
Now go and prayerfully study what the Bible verses that I directed you to mean. They are different.
It is clear to all but you.
Why is that?
So what is your real mission here?
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Charles Ryrie, Professor Emeritus at Dallas Theological Seminary for many years, wrote the following:
"The apostle Paul was principally, though not exclusively, the agent of the revelation of the grace of God for this dispensation. Christ Himself brought the grace of God to mankind in His incarnation (Titus 2:11), but Paul was the one who expounded it" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995],56).
Expound
Add details, as to an account or idea; clarify the meaning of and discourse in a learned way, usually in writing.
Doesn't say he STARTED it.
quote:
Christ Himself brought the grace of God to mankind in His incarnation (Titus 2:11)
You have not proven that the dispensation of grace began with Paul as your opening post states.
quote:
No one preached that gospel unitil Paul preached it so therefore the beginning of the present dispensation could not have possibly had its beginning before Paul was converted.
I am a dispensationalist. I believe in ages. I know that the grace of God has always been, but I recognize that with the coming of Christ a new age began, usually called the Church Age or the Age of Grace. And I realize that as the apostle to the Gentiles some of what Paul taught was different than what the other apostles taught the Jewish Christians. And finally I realize that mysteries were revealed to Paul that had not been made known to anyone before him. But the grace of God did not begin with Paul.
Jesus Christ is the Lord, not Paul. The special dispensation of grace began with Christ, it did not begin with Paul. Paul is fabulous, but he is not God.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is evident in scripture before Paul began preaching.
Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.
Acts 11:22-24 The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.
Acts 14:1-3 Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
John 1:15-17 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Acts 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Carol Swenson:
Did you even read your own quote from Ironside?
Yes, I did. And I notice that you said nothing about his words or anything else that I wrote, except this:
quote:
How come you're quoting these scholars anyway? I thought you were opposed to doing that.
I never said that I was opposed to quoting scholars. However, before I quoted Ironside I appealed to the Scriptues, saying:
"The Scriptures will be searched in vain for any place where the gospel of grace was preached before Paul."
These men whom I am quoting believed that the dispensation of grace began at Acts 2 but yet their testimony about when the "gospel of grace" begins support my view that it did not start before Paul was converted. Charles Feinberg wrote in Bibliotheca Sacra that it was Paul who fitst revealed that the Cross "was the consummation of all God's purposes for the salvation of man":
"After the resurrection of Christ the disciples were reconciled to the fact of His death, but it was Paul who, far from conceiving of the death of Christ as an untimely end of His work, showed that it was the consummation of all God's purposes for the salvation of man" [emphasis added] (Feinberg, "Pauline Theology Relative to the Death and Resurrection of Christ" Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1938, Vol. 95, Number 379, p.292).
The second President of Dallas Theological Seminary, John F. Walvoord, wrote that "The gospel of Grace was given to Paul as a 'new' revelation" (Walvoord, "The Preincarnate Son of God", Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct.-Dec. 1947, Vol. 104, # 416, p.422).
Charles Ryrie, Professor Emeritus at Dallas Theological Seminary for many years, wrote the following:
"The apostle Paul was principally, though not exclusively, the agent of the revelation of the grace of God for this dispensation. Christ Himself brought the grace of God to mankind in His incarnation (Titus 2:11), but Paul was the one who expounded it" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995],56).
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
AGAIN! You quote a portion of something and present it as the whole. Here is the entire paragraph.
The theological definition of the word is based on the biblical usage and characteristics. Scofield's definition has been quoted: "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God." As has been seen, the usual criticism leveled against this definition is that it is not true to the meaning of oikonomia since it says nothing about a stewardship but emphasizes the period of time aspect. Yet note that Fuller admits the validity of practically the same definition, namely that the word may be used "to denote a period of time during which God deals with man in a certain way "[14] However, there is a certain justification to the criticism, for a dispensation is primarily a stewardship arrangement and not a period of time (though obviously the arrangement will exist during a period of time). Age and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning, even though they may exactly coincide in the historical outworking. A dispensation is basically the arrangement involved, not the time involved; and a proper definition will take this into account. However, there is no reason for great alarm if a definition does ascribe time to a dispensation.
Did you even read your own quote from Ironside?
quote:
Well, some of us would rather have evidence from the Scriptures in order to guide us in our beliefs. It seems that all you need is what some people say about the Scriptures.
How come you're quoting these scholars anyway? I thought you were opposed to doing that.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
THIS is what Ryrie says. It's far more complicated and involved then you would have us believe, and he does not discount the use of dispensation as referring to a period of time
If Ryrie "does not discount the use of dispensation as referring to a period of time" then why does he say that a dispensation "is NOT a period of time"?:
"a dispensation is primarily a stewardship arrangement and not a period of time (though obviously the arrangement will exist during a period of time). Age and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning, even though they may exactly coincide in the historical outworking. A dispensation is basically the arrangement involved, not the time involved; and a proper definition will take this into account" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], 28).
Nothing which you bolded contradicts what Ryrie said in the quotes which I provided. Can you give me the name of any greek expert who says that the Greek word translated "dispensation" means a period of time?
quote:
You have pulled verses out of context and given them your own meaning.
In Bibliotheca Sacra, a journal published by Dallas Theological Seminary (the largest dispensational seminary in the world), Roy L. Aldrich quotes these three verses (Eph.3:2; Col.1:25; 1 Cor.9:17) and then says, "These passages use the word 'dispensation' (or 'stewardship') to describe the sacred commission or trust to preach the gospel" [emphasis added] (Aldrich, "A New Look at Dispensationalism," Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March, 1963, Vol.120, Number 477, p.43).
quote:
Ephesians 3 concerns the mystery made known to the Apostles and prophets that Jews and Gentiles are fellow heirs.
"Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly" (Eph.3:2-3; NIV).
Here we can see that Paul refers to "God's grace" as the mystery--"Gods grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery,"
Harold W. Hoehner, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes the following in regard to these verses:
"Paul was to administer 'God's grace' which was given to him...That is further explains that the mystery is the 'grace' that is mentioned in verse 2" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament [ChariotVictor Press 1983], p.628).
The way that Paul administered the grace of God was by preaching the "gospel of grace."
quote:
NOT ONE OF THESE VERSES STATES THAT THE GOSPEL OF GRACE BEGAN WITH PAUL, ONLY THAT HE WAS APPOINTED AS A MINISTER.
The Scriptures will be searched in vain for any place where the gospel of grace was preached before Paul. H.A. Ironside, a well known Acts 2 dispensationalist, says the following about the "gospel" which we are to preach today:
"All through those OT dispensations, the gospel was predicted, and when Jesus came, the gospel came with Him. When He died, when He was buried, and when He rose again, the gospel could be fully told out to a poor lost world. Observe, it says, 'that Christ died for our sins.' No man preaches the gospel, no matter what nice things he may say about Jesus, if he leaves out His vicarious death on Calvary's Cross" [emphasis added] (Ironside, God's Unspeakable Gift [London: Pickering & Inglis, 1908], Chapter 2).
No gospel preached before Paul spoke about the "grace" of God nor anything about the "vicarious death on Calvary's Cross." So the dispensation of grace did not begin until Paul began preaching that gospel.
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Ryrie says that "Age and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning" but your whole argument is based on the assumption that they are.
Instead of believing the clear evidence as to what constitutes the beginning of a dispensation in my opening post you pervert the meaning of the Greek word translated "dispensation" so that you can deny the Scriprtual evidence.
The so called "evidence" of your opening post is not clear, but just your statement and then some verses taken out of context.
How can you stand opposed to the idea of time and dispensationalism and yet state that the "beginning" started with Paul? If there is a "beginning" then time is involved.
quote:
Charles Ryrie is highly respected in dispensational circles and he writes, "a dispensation is primarily a stewardship arrangement and not a period of time (though obviously the arrangement will exist during a period of time). Age and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning, even though they may exactly coincide in the historical outworking. A dispensation is basically the arrangement involved, not the time involved; and a proper definition will take this into account" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], 28).
Ryrie says that "Age and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning" but your whole argument is based on the assumption that they are.
Again, you quote a small portion of something and then try to make us believe what you want.
THIS is what Ryrie says. It's far more complicated and involved then you would have us believe, and he does not discount the use of dispensation as referring to a period of time.
What is a Dispensation?
Charles C. Ryrie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no more primary problem in the whole matter of dispensationalism than that of definition. By this is meant not simply arriving at a single sentence definition of the word but also formulating a definition/description of the concept. This will require an examination of the scriptural use of the word, a comparison of the word dispensation with related words such as age, a study of the use of the word in church history and some observations concerning the characteristics and number of the dispensations.
To say that there is a great lack of clear thinking on this matter of definition is an understatement. Both dispensationalists and nondispensationalists are often guilty of lack of clarity. Many from both groups are satisfied to use the well-known definition that appears in the notes of the original Scofield Reference Bible: "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture."[1] Dispensationalists use this definition without thinking further of its implications in relation to age, for instance, and without ever examining its basis or lack of basis in the scriptural revelation itself. Nondispensationalists use it as a convenient and useful scapegoat simply because it does not (and could not in two sentences) convey all that is involved in the concept of a dispensation. If this concise definition were all that Scofield had to say about dispensations, then it would be fair to concentrate an attack on it, but if he has more to say (which he does) then it is not.
The New Scofield Bible, though beginning the note on dispensations with the same sentence as the original Scofield, continues with four paragraphs of elaboration. Among other matters those added paragraphs focus on the concepts of (1) a deposit of divine revelation, (2) man's stewardship responsibility to that revelation, and (3) the time period during which a dispensation operates. Also it is made quite clear that dispensations are not separate ways of salvation; rather, there is only one way of salvation -- "by God's grace through the work of Christ . . . on the cross."[2] More recent nondispensationalists seem to prefer not to interact with this expanded definition/description in their discussions about dispensationalism.[3]
To draw an analogy in another doctrinal area, a conservative, when pressed for a concise statement of his theory of the Atonement will answer, "I believe in substitutionary atonement." This is entirely accurate and probably the best concise answer that could be given. But liberals are well known for using this simple statement as a means of ridicule, for they point out that the work of Christ cannot be confined to a single aspect like substitution. That is true, and the conservative recognizes that the entire work of Christ cannot be fully expressed by the single word substitution. Nevertheless, all the work of Christ is based on His vicarious sacrifice.
In like manner, the nondispensationalist points out some lack in the old Scofield definition and with a wave of the hand dismisses dispensationalism on the basis of the weakness of the definition! Perhaps the earlier definition does not distinguish dispensation from age, but such failure does not mean that they cannot be distinguished or that they have not been distinguished by others. And it certainly does not mean that the entire system is condemned. John Wick Bowman resorts to this stratagem when he declares, "The word translated 'dispensation' in the Greek Bible . . . never means nor does it ever have any reference to a period of time as such, as Scofield's definition demands."[4] Though the accuracy of Bowman's statement may be questioned by the references in Ephesians 1:10 and 3:9, in making such a charge against Scofield's definition, Bowman attempts to discredit the entire system.
The popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible has focused considerable attention on the definition in its notes and has made it a prime target for attack by nondispensationalists. However, scholars who are critical of dispensationalism should recognize that Scofield is not the only one who has defined the word, and, if there are lacks in his definition, they ought to recognize that his revisers and others have offered definitions that are more expanded. At any rate, any scholarly critique should certainly take into account several definitions if the system is to be represented fairly For instance, L. S. Chafer did not emphasize the time aspect of a dispensation in his concept,[5] and long ago the present writer defined a dispensation entirely in terms of economy rather than age.[6] Any critique ought to take into account such definitions as well as ScofieId's.
THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD DISPENSATION
The English word dispensation is an Anglicized form of the Latin dispensatio, which the Vulgate uses to translate the Greek word. The Latin verb is a compound, meaning "to weigh out or dispense."[7] Three principal ideas are connected to the meaning of the English word: (1) "The action of dealing out or distributing"; (2) "the action of administering, ordering, or managing; the system by which things are administered"; and (3) "the action of dispensing with some requirement."[8] In further defining the use of the word theologically, the same dictionary says that a dispensation is "a stage in a progressive revelation, expressly adapted to the needs of a particular nation or period of time. . . . Also, the age or period during which a system has prevailed."[9] It is interesting to notice, in view of the usual criticism of Scofield's definition, that in this dictionary definition dispensation and age are closely related.
The Greek word oikonomia comes from the verb that means to manage, regulate, administer, and plan.[10] The word itself is a compound whose parts mean literally "to divide, apportion, administer or manage the affairs of an inhabited house." In the papyri the officer (oikonomos) who administered a dispensation was referred to as a steward or manager of an estate, or as a treasurer.[11] Thus, the central idea in the word dispensation is that of managing or administering the affairs of a household.
SCRIPTURAL USE OF THE WORD DISPENSATION
The Usage of the Word
The various forms of the word dispensation appear in the New Testament twenty times. The verb oikonomeo is used once in Luke 16:2, where it is translated "to be a steward." The noun oikonomos appears ten times (Luke 12:42; 16:1, 3, 8; Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 4:1, 2; Gal. 4:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 4:10) and is usually translated "steward" or "manager" (but "treasurer" in Rom. 16:23). The noun oikonomia is used nine times (Luke 16:2, 3, 4; 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4). In these instances it is translated variously ("stewardship," "dispensation," "administration," "job," "commission").
The Features Displayed
Before attempting any formal definition, it might be useful to note some of the features connected with the word itself as it appears in the New Testament. These are not necessarily features of the dispensational scheme but are simply observable connections in which the word is used. In Christ's teaching the word is confined to two parables recorded in Luke (12:42; 16:1, 3, 8). In both cases the parables concern the management of a household by a steward or manager, but the parable recorded in Luke 16 gives some important characteristics of a stewardship, or dispensational, arrangement. These characteristics include the following:
1 Basically there are two parties: the one whose authority it is to delegate duties, and the one whose responsibility it is to carry out these charges. The rich man and the steward (or manager) play these roles in the parable of Luke 16 (v. 1).
2 There are specific responsibilities. In the parable the steward failed in his known duties when he wasted the goods of his lord (v 1).
3 Accountability, as well as responsibility, is part of the arrangement. A steward may be called to account for the discharge of his stewardship at any time, for it is the owner's or master's prerogative to expect faithful obedience to the duties entrusted to the steward (v 2).
4 A change may be made at any time unfaithfulness is found in the existing administration ("can no longer be steward").
These four features give some idea of what was involved in the concept of a dispensational arrangement as the word was used in the time of Christ.
The other occurrences of the word are all in the writings of Paul except for the reference in 1 Peter 4:10. Certain features of the concept are evident from these usages.
1 God is the one to whom men are responsible in the discharge of their stewardship obligations. In three instances this relationship to God is mentioned by Paul (1 Cor. 4:1 -- 2; Titus 1:7).
2 Faithfulness is required of those to whom a dispensational responsibility is committed (1 Cor. 4:2). This is illustrated by Erastus, who held the important position of treasurer (steward) of the city (Rom. 16:23).
3 A stewardship may end at an appointed time (Gal. 4:2). In this reference the end of the stewardship came because of a different purpose being introduced. This reference also shows that a dispensation is connected with time.
4 Dispensations are connected with the mysteries of God, that is, with specific revelation from God (1 Cor. 4:1; Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:25).
5 Dispensation and age are connected ideas, but the words are nor exactly interchangeable. For instance, Paul declares that the revelation of the present dispensation was hidden "for ages," meaning simply a long period of time (Eph. 3:9). The same thing is said in Colossians 1:26. However, since a dispensation operates within a time period, the concepts are related.
6 At least three dispensations (as commonly understood in dispensational teaching) are mentioned by Paul. In Ephesians 1:10 he writes of "an administration [dispensation, KJV] suitable to the fullness of the times," which is a future period. In Ephesians 3:2 he designates the "stewardship [dispensation, KJV] of God's grace, which was the emphasis of the content of his preaching at that time. In Colossians 1:25 -- 26 it is implied that another dispensation preceded the present one, in which the mystery of Christ in the believer is revealed.
It is important to notice that in the first two of these instances there can he no question that the Bible uses the word dispensation in exactly the same way the dispensationalist does. Even Bowman admits that: "Actually, of all seven dispensations accepted by Scofield and his colleagues, there are but two (Grace and the Fullness of Time) in connection with which the word 'dispensation' is ever used at all."12 The negative cast of Bowman's statement must not obscure the importance of this point. The Bible does name two dispensations in the same way that dispensationalists do (and implies a third). Granted, it does not name seven, but, since it does name two, perhaps there is something to this teaching called dispensationalism.
Almost all opponents of dispensationalism try to make much of their claim that the Scriptures do not use the word dispensation in the same theological and technical sense that the dispensational scheme of teaching does. Two facts should be pointed out in answer to this charge. The first has already been stated in the preceding paragraph: Scripture on at least two occasions does use the word in the same way the dispensationalist does. Thus, the charge is simply not true.
Second, it is perfectly valid to take a biblical word and use it in a theological sense as long as the theological use is not unbiblical. All conservatives do this with the word atonement. It is a word that is never used in the New Testament, yet theologically all use it to stand for what is involved in the death of Christ. Biblically, the word atonement is not used in connection with the death of Christ, but, since it is used of the covering for sin in the Old Testament, it is not unbiblical to give it a theological meaning that is in reality more inclusive than its strict biblical usage. The dispensationalist does a similar thing with the word dispensation. The usage of the word and the features of the word, as outlined above, prove conclusively that the dispensationalist has in no way used the word in an unbiblical sense when he uses it as a designation for his system of teaching. Even Daniel Fuller admits this: "It is this latter sense which gives rise to the perfectly valid theological usage of the word 'dispensation' to denote a period of time during which God deals with man in a certain way."[13]
Definitions
As far as the use of the word in Scripture is concerned, a dispensation may be defined as a stewardship, administration, oversight, or management of others' property. As we have seen, this involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward.
The theological definition of the word is based on the biblical usage and characteristics. Scofield's definition has been quoted: "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God." As has been seen, the usual criticism leveled against this definition is that it is not true to the meaning of oikonomia since it says nothing about a stewardship but emphasizes the period of time aspect. Yet note that Fuller admits the validity of practically the same definition, namely that the word may be used "to denote a period of time during which God deals with man in a certain way "[14] However, there is a certain justification to the criticism, for a dispensation is primarily a stewardship arrangement and not a period of time (though obviously the arrangement will exist during a period of time). Age and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning, even though they may exactly coincide in the historical outworking. A dispensation is basically the arrangement involved, not the time involved; and a proper definition will take this into account. However, there is no reason for great alarm if a definition does ascribe time to a dispensation.
A concise definition of a dispensation is this: A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose. If one were describing a dispensation, he would include other things, such as the ideas of distinctive revelation, responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment. But at this point we are seeking a definition, not a description. In using the word economy as the core of the definition, the emphasis is put on the biblical meaning of the word itself. Economy also suggests that certain features of different dispensations might be the same or similar. Differing political and economic economies are not completely different, yet they are distinguishably different. Communistic and capitalistic economies are basically different, and yet there are functions, features, and items in these opposing economies that are the same. Likewise, in the different economies of God's running the affairs of this world certain features are similar. However, the word distinguishable in the definition points out that some features are distinctive to each dispensation and mark them off from each other as different dispensations. These are contained in the particular revelation distinctive to each dispensation.
The phrase "the outworking of God's purpose" in the definition reminds us that the viewpoint in distinguishing the dispensations is God's, not man's. The dispensations are economies instituted and brought to their purposeful conclusion by God. The distinguishing features are introduced by God; the similar features are retained by God; and the overall combined purpose of the whole program is the glory of God. Erich Sauer states it this way:
A new period always begins only when from the side of God a change is introduced in the composition of the principles valid up to that time; that is, when from the side of God three things concur:
1. A continuance of certain ordinances valid until then;
2. An annulment of other regulations until then valid;
3. A fresh introduction of new principles not before valid.[15]
To summarize: Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His householdworld God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations. The understanding of God's differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.
Before leaving the subject of definitions, it may be helpful to append several other useful definitions of a dispensation. W Graham Scroggie, a noted Scottish writer and pastor, gave this helpful definition:
The word oikonomia bears one significance, and means "an administration," whether of a house, or property of a state, or a nation, or as in the present study the administration of the human race or any part of it, at any given time. Just as a parent would govern his household in different ways, according to varying necessity yet ever for one good end, so God has at different times dealt with men in different ways, according to the necessity of the case, but throughout for one great, grand end.[16]
Harry Ironside, prince of dispensational preachers, defined it this way: "An economy is an ordered condition of things. . . . There are various economies running through the Word of God. A dispensation, an economy then, is that particular order or condition of things prevailing in one special age which does not necessarily prevail in another."[17]
Clarence E. Mason, Jr., dean for many years at Philadelphia College of Bible, includes descriptive features of dispensations in his definition:
The word dispensation means literally a stewardship or administration or economy. Therefore, in its Biblical usage, a dispensation is a divinely established stewardship of a particular revelation of God's mind and will which brings added responsibility to the whole race of men or that portion of the race to whom the revelation is particularly given by God.
Associated with the revelation, on the one hand, are promises of reward or blessing for those responding to the obedience of faith, while on the other hand there are warnings of judgment upon those who do not respond in the obedience of faith to that particular revelation.
However, though the time period (age) ends, certain principles of the revelation (dispensation or stewardship) are often carried over into succeeding ages, because God's truth does not cease to be truth, and these principles become part of the cumulative body of truth for which man is responsible in the progressive unfolding revelation of God's redemptive purpose.[18]
Another definition also includes descriptive elements:
A dispensation is God's distinctive method of governing mankind or a group of men during a period of human history, marked by a crucial event, test, failure, and judgment. From the divine standpoint, it is a stewardship, a rule of life, or a responsibility for managing God's affairs in His house. From the historical standpoint, it is a stage in the progress of revelation.[19]
The differentiation of viewpoints in this definition is a helpful distinction. A dispensation is from God's viewpoint an economy; from man's, a responsibility; and in relation to progressive revelation, a stage in it.
The more recent movement that calls itself progressive dispensationalism includes some important differences from normative dispensationalIsm. Though its adherents do not wish to be restricted by a sine qua non, they acknowledge the straightforward meaning of the word; namely, "The word dispensation refers to a particular arrangement by which God regulates the way human beings relate to Him."[20] However, they distance themselves from classic dispensationalists by describing themselves as understanding "the dispensations not simply as different arrangements between God and humankind, but as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption."[21] These differences will be discussed in chapter 9.
THE RELATION OF THE DISPENSATIONS TO PROGRESSIVE REVELATION
Progressive revelation is the recognition that God's message to man was not given in one single act but was unfolded in a series of successive acts and through the minds and hands of many men of varying backgrounds. It is, so to speak, a theistic view of revelation rather than a deistic view. The pages of the Bible present "not the exposition of a revelation completed, but the records of a revelation in progress. Its parts and features are seen, not as arranged after their development, but as arranging themselves in the course of their development, and growing, through stages which can be marked, and by accessions which can be measured, into the perfect form which they attain at last."[22]
The principle of progressive revelation is evident in the Scriptures themselves. Paul told his audience on Mars Hill that in a former day God overlooked their ignorance, but now He commands repentance (Acts 17:30). The majestic opening of the book of Hebrews emphatically outlines the various means of progressive revelation (Heb. 1:1 -- 2). One of the most striking verses that shows the different ways of God's dealing with mankind is John 1:17: "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." Other examples may be found in John 14:16 -- 17; 14:26; and 16:24. God's truth was obviously not given all at one time, and the varying stages of revelation show that He has worked in different ways at different times. The Bible interpreter must observe carefully this progressiveness of revelation, and dispensationalism helps promote accuracy in this regard.
In this matter of the correct observation and interpretation of the progress of revelation we see the close connection between dispensationalism and hermeneutics. A standard text on hermeneutics, which first appeared in 1883 and which has no dispensational ax to grind, says, "With each new series of generations some new promise is given, or some great purpose of God is brought to light."[25] It is the marking off of these stages in the revelation of the purpose of God that is the basis for the dispensational approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures. Even Bernard Ramm, who later moved from a dispensational position, admitted that a clearer realization of progressive revelation has been largely due to the "beneficial influence of dispensationalism."[24]
Nondispensational interpreters (of the covenant theology school) have been guilty of reading back (and sometimes forcing) the teaching of the New Testament into the Old, especially in an effort to substantiate their doctrine of salvation in the Old Testament. Dispensationalists, on the other hand, sometimes make such hard and fast distinctions between the ages and characteristics of the various dispensations that they, for instance, have said very little about grace in the Old Testament. However, the covenant theologian's faulty interpretation is a result of a basically inherent defect in his system (because he subsumes everything since the Fall under the one covenant of grace), whereas the dispensationalist's lack is not in the system but in the expounding of it. Covenant theology allows for and even demands this reading back of the New Testament into the Old. Dispensational theology, while recognizing definite and distinguishable distinctions, asserts the basic unity of the unfolding plan of God in the Scriptures.
Nevertheless, dispensationalists have not always asserted this unity as they might have, and therefore it has become a common thing to indict dispensationalism on this matter. "Dispensationalism destroys the unity of the Bible" is the cry Because of the dispensational scheme, one writer declares, "The Bible ceases to be a selfconsistent whole."[25] "This theory," charges Louis Berkhof, "is also divisive in tendency dismembering the organism of Scripture with disastrous results."[26] More popularly this objection is expressed by the charge that dispensationalists see no value in the Sermon on the Mount or that they will not pray the Lord's prayer.[27]
An interesting historical fact: In the second edition of the Scofield Reference Bible (1917, and retained in the New Scofield, 1967) a new section entitled "A Panoramic View of the Bible" was added to "show the unity of the Book," which listed seven marks of this unity.
Even though dispensationalists may not have clearly communicated the teachings of their system along these lines, it must be remembered that the system is not at fault. Dispensationalism alone has a broad enough unifying principle to do justice to the unity of the progress of revelation on the one hand and the distinctiveness of the various stages in that progress on the other. Covenant theology can only emphasize the unity and, in so doing, overemphasizes it until it becomes the sole governing category of interpretation. Any seeming disunity in the dispensational scheme is superficial, and in reality one feels that the much publicized supposed conflicts of dispensationalism exist in the minds of the covenant theologians and are aggravated by their own unwarranted and forced unified approach to the Scriptures. Variety can be an essential part of unity. That is true of God's creation; it is also true of God's revelation; and only dispensationalism can adequately account for the variety of distinguishable economies or dispensations in (not apart from) the outworking of God's purpose.
To summarize: Progressive revelation views the Bible not as a textbook on theology but as the continually unfolding revelation of God given by various means throughout the successive ages. In this unfolding there are distinguishable stages of revelation when God introduces new things for which man becomes responsible. These stages are the economies, stewardships, or dispensations in the unfolding of His purpose. Dispensationalism, therefore, recognizes both the unity of His purpose and the diversity in the unfolding of it. Covenant theology emphasizes the unity to the point of forcing unwarranted, inconsistent, and contradictory interpretations of the Scriptures. Only dispensationalism can maintain unity and diversity at the same time and offer a consistent system of interpretation
CHARACTERISTICS OF A DISPENSATION
Primary Characteristics
What marks off the various economies in the outworking of God's purpose and distinguishes each from the other? The answer is twofold: (1) the different governing relationship with the world into which God enters in each economy; and (2) the resulting responsibility on mankind in each of these different relationships.
These characteristics are vitally bound up with the different revelations God gave throughout history and show again the link between each dispensation and the various stages in the progress of revelation. Without meaning at all to prejudge the question of how many dispensations there are, let us see if this answer is valid, using several unquestioned dispensations as illustrations.
Before sin entered at the fall of man, God's governmental relationship with Adam and Eve was direct. Their responsibility was to maintain that direct fellowship with Him, and this involved specifically caring for the garden and abstaining from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After sin entered at the Fall, God's relationship was no longer always direct, for a barrier had come between Him and man.
At the giving of the law to the Israelites through Moses, God's government was mediated through the various categories of the law This does not mean that He never spoke directly but it does mean that His principal mode of government was the Mosaic code, which was a new thing Introduced at that time. It also means that the responsibility upon mankind was conformity to that code -- again a new responsibility, for prior to the giving of the law people were obviously not held responsible for something that did not exist.
After the coming of Christ, God's governing relationship with mankind was no longer through the Mosaic Law. The rent veil and the end of approach to God through the sacrificial system show this. Witness, too, the distinguishable difference in relation to justification as summarized by Paul in his sermon at Antioch in Pisidia: "Through Him everyone who believes is freed [justified] from all things, from which you could not be freed [justified] through the Law of Moses" (Acts 13:39). Here is unquestionably a distinguishable and different way of running the affairs of the world regarding man's responsibility in relation to the most important area of justification. Whatever his responsibility was under the Mosaic Law may be left unspecified at present (see chapter 6), but with the coming of Christ the requirement for justification became faith in Him. This, too, is obviously a distinctive stage in the progress of revelation. Therefore, we conclude that a new dispensation was inaugurated, since the economy and responsibility changed and the new revelation was given.
Thus, the distinguishing characteristics of a different dispensation are three: (1) a change in God's governmental relationship with man (though a dispensation does not have to be composed entirely of completely new features); (2) a resultant change in man's responsibility; and (3) corresponding revelation necessary to effect the change (which is new and is a stage in the progress of revelation through the Bible).
Secondary Characteristics
Thus far nothing has been said about the usual characteristics listed for a new dispensation: namely, a test, a failure, and a judgment. The test is practically the same as the human responsibility. Obviously, whenever God gives revelation concerning His method of running the affairs of the world, there is also given a corresponding responsibility or test to people as to whether or not they will align themselves with God's economy and the revelation of it. Opponents of dispensationalism, who insist that such testing on God's part makes Him little more than an experimenter apparently not knowing how things will turn out, in reality fail to understand the purpose of testing in general.[28] After all, a dispensational test is no different essentially from the tests spoken of by James in chapter 1 of his epistle. Such tests are not for the purpose of enlightening God but for the purpose of bringing out what is in people, whether faith or failure.
In one sense every dispensation contains the same test: Will a person respond favorably toward the responsibility of the particular economy under which he is living? Specifically, this general test is particularized in each dispensation by the nature of the revelation God gave in each instance concerning man's responsibility Actually, every part of the revelation belonging to each dispensation is a part of the test, and the totality of the revelation is the test. Dispensationalists have often in their writings tried to isolate the particular test of each dispensation. Whereas this may be helpful to the student, it can only be at best a partial statement of the entire responsibility.[29]
Is failure a necessary part of each dispensation? It is a fact of biblical history that mankind has failed throughout all the ages of time. Each dispensation is filled with failures simply because history is. The failures are in at least two realms -- the realm of governmental economy and the realm of salvation. In both areas not all people have failed, but in both realms most have. Sin often seems to come to a climax at certain points in human history, and such climaxes mark the end of the various dispensations. The crucifixion of Christ was the climax of rebellion of the nation that had been given the privilege of the law and the service of God. It also marked the end of a dispensation. The present age will be climaxed by rebellion and a turning away from God in force. The millennial kingdom will be climaxed by widespread rebellion against the personal reign of Christ the king (Rev 20:7 -- 9).
Does each dispensation have a judgment? Actually each may have many judgments, just as it may have many testings and failures. But if there is a climactic failure, then there is also a climactic judgment. Though the matters of testing, failure, and judgment are not the basics that mark off the dispensations, they seem to be part and parcel of them. If, however, there were no decisive test, there still could be a dispensational arrangement. If there were no climactic failure and judgment, there still could be a change in the dispensational arrangement. The presence of a test, failure, and judgment is not the sine qua non (absolute essential) of a dispensational arrangement.
Objections
Do not these characteristics seem to dissect history and compartmentalize its eras? From one viewpoint dispensationalism does appear to do so. This cross-sectional perspective of the dispensational scheme is the view usually presented in dispensational charts. Although there is nothing erroneous about it, it is not the whole story. There is also what may be called the longitudinal or spiral perspective in dispensationalism.[30] This includes the continuing principles through all dispensations that give coherency to the whole course of history. The distinctive governmental arrangement that distinguishes the various dispensations in no way conflicts with the unities of Scripture.
The longitudinal perspective, for example, emphasizes the fact that God is, has been, and will be, a God of grace. The crosssectional perspective emphasizes the administration of grace that prevails today The longitudinal perspective is that of the progress of revelation; the cross-sectional is that of any given point of time. Both perspectives are not only valid but necessary in understanding God's revelation.
Thus, it is an unwarranted objection to say, "If . . . God is always gracious, then it is confusing to distinguish a particular age by a term that characterizes all ages."[31] One might ask if God has not always been a God of law? And if so, is it wrong to delineate a period called the Law? Does not God Himself through John make these distinctions (John 1:17)? The objection is based on a false premise that Fuller reveals in this further statement: "It is impossible to think of varying degrees of grace, for God either is or is not gracious."[32] The fact is that there are varying degrees of the revelation of God's grace, even though when there is less revelation God Himself is not less gracious than when there is greater revelation of His grace. Otherwise, God could be construed not to be very holy and righteous and just whenever He delays or defers immediate and justifiable judgment. He simply reveals His wrath more specifically at certain times in human history than at others. But periods of silence do not make Him less righteous any more than a veiled revelation of grace makes Him less gracious. Only dispensationalism with its cross-sectional and longitudinal/spiral perspectives can recognize the wealth, mobility, and complexity of the history of God's running the affairs of this world.
Before either the covenant or dispensational systems had been developed, Calvin wrote these appropriate words:
It is not fitting, they say, that God, always self-consistent, should permit such a great change, disapproving afterward what he had once commanded and commended. I reply that God ought not to be considered changeable merely because he accommodated diverse forms to different ages, as he knew would be expedient for each. If a farmer sets certain tasks for his household in the winter, other tasks for the summer, we shall not on this account accuse him of inconstancy or think that he departs from the proper rule of agriculture, which accords with the continuous order of nature. In like manner, if a householder instructs, rules, and guides his children one way in infancy, another way in youth, and still another in young manhood, we shall not on this account call him fickle and say that he abandons his purpose. Why, then, do we brand God with the mark of inconstancy because he has with apt and fitting marks distinguished a diversity of times?[33]
Covenant theology with its all-encompassing covenant of grace glosses over great epochs and climaxes of history lest they disturb the "unity of Scripture" and introduce something so distinguishable that a dispensation might have to be recognized. Especially is this true in connection with the church as a new entity. The crosssectional view emphasizes the distinctive importance of each event in its historical setting and for its particular purpose; the longitudinal view places all events in their proper relationship in the total progress of revelation. Dispensationalism avoids confusion and contradiction and at the same time unites all the parts into the whole.
The distinguishable yet progressive character of dispensational distinctions prohibits that they should be intermingled or confused as they are chronologically successive. But it has been alleged that these characteristics of test, failure, and judgment form a repeated cyclical pattern of history like that of the pagan Greeks. For instance, Kraus says, "The philosophy of history is essentially the Greek concept of cycles, each cycle ending in apostasy and judgment. God is not represented as working out His plan in the historical process, but as appearing intermittently, as it were, to begin a new cycle by supernatural intervention."[34] Chapter 1 pointed out that only dispensationalism presents a properly optimistic philosophy of history. Furthermore, the charts notwithstanding, the dispensational pattern does not only form a repetitive cyclical picture but also an ascending spiral. Erich Sauer, whose books combine so ably both the cross-sectional and the longitudinal perspectives of dispensationalism, summarizes the matter in this way:
But a fresh Divine beginning is never merely a return to the old. In each reformation born out of collapse lay at the same time the seed of a life-program for the future. Revelation and development are in no case opposites but belong together. In the sphere of the Bible, as elsewhere, there is an ascent from lower to higher, from twilight to clearness.[35]
This spiral concept is readily seen by imagining the confusion of inverting the dispensational order and placing the Millennium first. Just as illogical would be the reversing of Law and Grace (or whatever names you wish to attach to that which came through Moses and that which was revealed through Christ). Dispensationalism reveals the outworking of God's plan in the historical process in a progressive revelation of His glory. It magnifies the grace of God, for it recognizes that true progress can come only from God's gracious intervention in human society. If there were not "cyclical" interventions, then the course of history would be only downward and entirely pessimistic.
To summarize: The principal characteristic of a dispensation is the economic arrangement and responsibility that God reveals in each dispensation. Such responsibility is a test in itself. Most men fail the test, and then judgment follows. The dispensational scheme has two perspectives: a cross-sectional aspect (which is sometimes misconstrued as cycles but which is in reality a spiral) and a longitudinal aspect (which emphasizes the unfolding progress of revelation and continuing principles throughout the ages of the dispensations).
THE SINE QUA NON OF DISPENSATIONALISM
What marks off a person as a dispensationalist? What is the sine qua non (the absolutely indispensable part) of the system? Even though certain later discussions must be anticipated in order to answer that question, it seems appropriate to give an answer at this point.
Theoretically, the sine qua non ought to lie in the recognition of the fact that God has distinguishably different economies in governing the affairs of the world. Covenant theologians hold that there are various dispensations (and even use the word) within the outworking of the covenant of grace. Charles Hodge, for instance, believed that there are four dispensations after the Fall -- Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the end.[36] Berkhof writes, as we have seen, of only two basic dispensations -- the Old and the New, but within the Old he sees four periods and all of these are revelations of the covenant of grace.[37] In other words, a person can believe in dispensations, and even see them in relation to progressive revelation, without being a dispensationalist.
Is the essence of dispensationalism in the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system, as will be discussed in the next chapter. It is not that Scofield taught seven dispensations and Hodge only four that makes the former a dispensationalist and the latter not.
Perhaps the issue of premillennialism is determinative. Again the answer is negative, for there are those who are premillennial who definitely are not dispensational. The covenant premillennialist holds to the concept of the covenant of grace and the central soteriological purpose of God. He retains the idea of the millennial kingdom, though he finds little support for it in the Old Testament prophecies. The kingdom in his view is markedly different from that which is taught by dispensationalists, since it loses much of its Jewish character due to the slighting of the Old Testament promises concerning the kingdom. Many covenant premillennialists are also posttribulationalists, and that seems to be a logical accompaniment of the nondispensational approach.[38] At any rate, being a premillennialist does not necessarily make one a dispensationalist. (However, the reverse is true -- being a dispensationalist makes one a premillennialist.)
What, then, is the sine qua non of dispensationalism? The answer is threefold.
1 A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct. This is stated in different ways by both friends and foes of dispensationalism. Fuller says that "the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity"[39] A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.[40] Chafer summarized it as follows:
The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity ... Over against this, the partial dispensationalist, though dimly observing a few obvious distinctions, bases his interpretation on the supposition that God is doing but one thing, namely the general separation of the good from the bad, and, in spite of all the confusion this limited theory creates, contends that the earthly people merge into the heavenly people; that the earthly program must be given a spiritual interpretation or disregarded altogether.[41]
This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.[42]
Though God's purpose for Israel and God's purpose for the church receive the most attention in Scripture, God has purposes for other groups as well. He has a purpose and plan for the angels, which in no way mixes with His purposes for Israel or the church (2 Peter 2:4; Rev. 4:11). He has a purpose for those who reject Him, which also is distinct from other purposes (Prov. 16:4). He has a plan for the nations, which continues into the New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:2), and those nations are distinct from the bride of Christ. God has more than two purposes even though He reveals more about His purposes for Israel and His purpose for the church than He does about the other groups.
Progressive dispensationalists seem to be blurring this distinction by saying that the concept is not in the same class as what is conveyed by the concepts of Gentiles, Israel, and Jews. What this means is not completely clear. (See the more complete discussion in chapter 9.) However, it does seem to imply that the classic Israel/church distinction is less clear.
2 This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the matter of historical-grammatical hermeneutics. The word literal is perhaps not as good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation often does. The spiritualizing may be practiced to a lesser or greater degree, but its presence in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.[43]
Consistently literal, or plain, interpretation indicates a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture. And it is this very consistency -- the strength of dispensational interpretation -- that seems to irk the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule.[44] To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is.. This does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation.
3 A third aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is a rather technical matter that will be discussed more fully later (see chapter 5). It concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world. The covenant theologian, in practice, believes this purpose to be salvation (although covenant theologians strongly emphasize the glory of God in their theology), and the dispensationalist says the purpose is broader than that; namely the glory of God. Progressives have a Christological center, apparently to undergird their emphasis on the Davidic covenant and on Christ as the already reigning Davidic ruler in heaven.
To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself. Scripture is not man-centered as though salvation were the main theme, but it is God-centered because His glory is the center. The Bible itself clearly teaches that salvation, important and wonderful as it is, is not an end in itself but is rather a means to the end of glorifying God (Eph.. 1:6, 12, 14). John F. Walvoord, Chafer's successor at Dallas Theological Seminary, puts it this way: "The larger purpose of God is the manifestation of His own glory To this end each dispensation, each successive revelation of God's plan for the ages, His dealing with the non-elect as with the elect . . . combine to manifest divine glory."[45] In another place he says:
All the events of the created world are designed to manifest the glory of God. The error of covenant theologians is that they combine all the many facets of divine purpose in the one objective of the fulfillment of the covenant of grace. From a logical standpoint, this is the reductive error -- the use of one aspect of the whole as the determining element.[46]
The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispensationalist's consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.
NOTES
[1]. Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford, 1909), 5.
[2]. New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford, 1967), 3.
[3]. E.g., John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), 152, 270.
[4]. John Wick Bowman, "The Bible and Modem Religions: II. Dispensationalism," Interpretation 10 (April 1956): 174.
[5]. L. S. Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas: Seminary Press, 1936), 8 -- 9.
[6]. Charles C. Ryrie, "The Necessity of Dispensationalism," Bibliotheca Sacra 114 (July 1957): 251.
[7]. W W Skeat, An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946), 174.
[8]. Oxford English Dictionary (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1933), 3:481.
[9]. Ibid.
[10]. W F. Arndt and F. W Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1957), 562.
[11]. J. H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 442 -- 43.
[12]. Bowman, "The Bible and Modern Religions: II. Dispensationalism, 175.
[13]. Daniel P Fuller, "The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism (Th.D. diss., Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, 1957), 20.
[14]. Ibid.
[15]. Erich Sauer, The Dawn of World Redemption (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 194.
[16]. W Graham Scroggie, Ruling Lines of Progressive Revelation (London:
Morgan & Scott, 1918), 62 -- 63.
[17]. H. A. Ironside, In the Heavenlies (New York: Loizeaux Bros., n.d.), 67.
[18]. C. E. Mason, Jr., "Eschatology" (mimeographed notes for course at Philadelphia College of Bible, rev. 1962), 5 -- 6.
[19]. Paul David Nevin, "Some Major Problems in Dispensational Interpretation" (unpublished Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary 1963), 97.
[20]. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1993), 14.
[21]. Ibid., 48.
[22]. T D. Bernard, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 20.
[23]. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, nd.), 568.
[24]. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, rev. ed. (Boston: Wilde,
1956), 158.
[25]. Oswald T Allis, "Modern Dispensationalism and the Law of God," Evangelical Quarterly 8(15 July 1936): 272.
[26]. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 291.
[27]. For example, T A. Hegre, The Cross and Sanctification (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1960), 6. Cf. the entire chapter entitled "Have You Lost Your Bible?" which devotes two pages to the disastrous effects of liberalism on the Bible and five pages to the "damaging" results of dispensationalism!
[28]. Bowman, "The Bible and Modern Religions: II. Dispensationalism, 176.
[29]. C. l. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (New York: Revell, nd.).
[30]. H. Chester Woodring, "Grace Under the Mosaic Covenant" (unpublished Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary 1956), 33 -- 38.
[31]. Fuller, "The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, 164.
[32]. Ibid.
[33]. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (London: Wolfe & Harison, 1561), II, XI, 13.
[34]. C. Norman Kraus, Dispensationalism in America (Richmond: John Knox, 1958), 126.
[35]. Sauer, The Dawn of World Redemption, 54
[36]. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), 2:373-77.
[37]. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 293-300.
[38]. H. Phillip Hook, "The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Covenant Premillennialism (unpublished Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary 1959). Cf. Fuller, "The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, 363-64.
[39]. Fuller, "The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, 25.
[40]. Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew (New York: Our Hope, 1910), 1:4.
[41]. Chafer, Dispensationalism, 107.
[42]. There can be rare exceptions, as with C. E. B. Cranfield (Commentary on Romans [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979], 448 n. 2), who rejects the teaching that Israel has been replaced by the church.
[43]. Cf. George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956),
126 -- 34. Even though Ladd believes in a future for the nation Israel (cf. "Is There a Future for Israel?" Eternity [May 1964], 25 -- 28, 36), that does not mean that he is a dispensationalist, for he fails to meet the criterion concerning the consistent use of the literal principle of interpretation. In this same article (p. 27) he declares that "although the Church is spiritual Israel, the New Testament teaches that literal Israel is yet to be saved." In other words, he distinguishes the church and Israel in the future millennial age, but he does not distinguish them in the present age. Since Israel and the church are not kept distinct throughout God's program, Ladd fails to meet this test of dispensationalism.
[44]. Arnold B. Rhodes, ed., The Church Faces the Isms (New York: Abingdon, 1958), 95.
[45]. John F. Walvoord, "Review of Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, by George E. [add," Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (January 1953): 3-4.
[46]. John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1959), 92.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispensationalism. Charles C. Ryrie. Moody Press, Chicago. 1995. Pages 23-43.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart:
A "dispensation" is in regard to a "stewardship" that is given to man from God in order to carry out a specific task. Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:
"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).
"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).
"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).
The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:
"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the event which marks the beginning of the "dispensation of grace" is the preaching of the "gospel of grace."
No one preached that gospel unitil Paul preached it so therefore the beginning of the present dispensation could not have possibly had its beginning before Paul was converted.
You have pulled verses out of context and given them your own meaning.
Ephesians 3 concerns the mystery made known to the Apostles and prophets that Jews and Gentiles are fellow heirs.
Ephesians 3:1 - 13 (NASB) 1For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— 2if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; 3that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. 4By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, 7of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God’s grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. 8To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. 11This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him. 13Therefore I ask you not to lose heart at my tribulations on your behalf, for they are your glory.
Colossians 1 is about the mystery of Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Colossians 1:24 - 29 (NASB) 24Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. 25Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, 26that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, 27to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. 29For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.
1 Corinthians 9 Paul is stating that he does not get paid for preaching.
1 Corinthians 9:15 - 18 (NASB) 15But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. 16For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. 17For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.
Acts 20 Paul says he will go to Jerusalem even if it's dangerous for him because his ministry is more important than his life. Note that he states he preached repentance, the kingdom and the whole purpose of God.
Acts 20:18 - 35 (NASB) 18And when they had come to him, he said to them, “You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time, 19serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews; 20how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22“And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. 24“But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God. 25“And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face. 26“Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27“For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. 28“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31“Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. 32“And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33“I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes. 34“You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. 35“In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
NOT ONE OF THESE VERSES STATES THAT THE GOSPEL OF GRACE BEGAN WITH PAUL, ONLY THAT HE WAS APPOINTED AS A MINISTER.
The fact that he was appointed to the gentiles who were not required to keep the Law of Moses confuses the issue. Are we defining grace as the gospel distinguished from the law, or are we defing grace as the free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God?
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
quote:
Originally Posted by WildB:
Put your nogin cap on now.
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
It says HIM that sent, THE FATHER. Its much different than...
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Please correct or move on.
You need to spend less time reading what some men say about the meaning of the Scriptures and more time reading the Scriptures. If you would do that you might know that the words of the Lord Jesus were the words of the Father:
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him" (Deut.18:18-19).
This Prophet referred to here was the Lord Jesus, as witnessed by what is said here:
"And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:...For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you" (Acts 3:20,22).
When anyone believed the words spoken by the Lord Jesus they were beliving the One Who sent Him because the Lord Jesus was the Prophet who spoke the words of the Father.
You are now back where you started. You defend Stam's teaching that "works" were required for salvation for those who lived under the law but at the same time you have no answer to what the Lord Jesus said to those who lived under the law:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).
If "works" were required for David to be saved why does the Apostle Paul say that the imputed righteousness of David was "without works":
"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works" (Ro.4:6).
quote:
Its so simple its stupid...
Yes, it is "so simple its stupid" but some people put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than they do in what the Scriptures actually say.
"For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Ro.10:2).
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Its so simple its stupid...
Put your nogin cap on now.
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
It says HIM that sent, THE FATHER. Its much different than...
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Please correct or move on. Im done playing your,
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Carol Swenson:
It's time to define terms. The word "dispensation" has three meanings:
1. A stewardship, the management or disposition of affairs entrusted to one.
2. An era of time during which man is tested in respect to obedience to some definite revelation of God’s will.
3. The method or scheme according to which God carries out his purposes towards men is called a dispensation.
The thing that is important is the definition of the Greek word translated 'dispensation."
That word is oikonomia and here Greek expert John Henry Thayer gives the following meanings of that word:
"1) the management of a household or of household affairs
a) specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property
b) the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship
c) administration, dispensation" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
The Greek word oikonomia does not mean an "era of time." An oikonomia covers a period of time but it itself is not a period of time.
You mistakenly say that an oikonomia is an "age" and then you base your whole argument on comparing the different "ages."
Charles Ryrie is highly respected in dispensational circles and he writes, "a dispensation is primarily a stewardship arrangement and not a period of time (though obviously the arrangement will exist during a period of time). Age and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning, even though they may exactly coincide in the historical outworking. A dispensation is basically the arrangement involved, not the time involved; and a proper definition will take this into account" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], 28).
Ryrie says that "Age and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning" but your whole argument is based on the assumption that they are.
Instead of believing the clear evidence as to what constitutes the beginning of a dispensation in my opening post you pervert the meaning of the Greek word translated "dispensation" so that you can deny the Scriprtual evidence.
You still have not said one thing that demonstrates that what I said in my opening post is in error.
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
quote:
Originally Posted by WildB:
You want to divided, thats good but do it rightly.
You seem to think that you are an expert on what determines the beginning of a dispensation so please tell me what I said in my original post that is in error.
quote:
You attack Stam with no Idea what is being said then turn around and say what you say, that he is saying is wrong YET FORWARD HIS THINKING, MIXED WITH YOUR OPINION SPIN?
Let it be known to you son that some here have studied him for over 30 years.
There might be some here who have studied Stam for over thirty years but you still have not even attempted to answer what I said about what Stam said here:
"Now in the cases of Abraham and David, works were required for salvation, whereas in our case works for salvation are distinctly forbidden; yet it is clear from the passages above that Abraham, David and we were all saved essentially by grace through faith and that works as such have never had any saving value."
Here Stam said that works were "required" for salvation for David, a man who lived under the law. However, the Lord Jesus told those living under the law that only "faith" was necessary:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).
If "works" were required for David to be saved why does the Apostle Paul say that the imputed righteousness of David was "without works":
"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"
I have presented this evidence to you previously but you refuse to deal with the words of the Lord Jesus at John 5:24. Why do you continue to run from this verse as fast as you can?
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
It's time to define terms. The word "dispensation" has three meanings:
1. A stewardship, the management or disposition of affairs entrusted to one.
2. An era of time during which man is tested in respect to obedience to some definite revelation of God’s will.
3. The method or scheme according to which God carries out his purposes towards men is called a dispensation
Jerry defines dispensation as a stewardship.
But we've shown that dispensation can also mean a period of time, in this case from the Cross to the Rapture.
And dispensation can mean the way God deals with people, and God has shown grace throughout the Bible.
But at the same time it's true that God has dealt with people in different ways throughout history. Here is a list of the dispensations and how they ended. The second list shows the covenants.
Age of Innocence ==> the fall, kicked out of the garden of Eden
Age of Conscience ==> the Flood
Age of Human Government ==> the scattering at the Tower of Babel
Age of Promise ==> sent down to Egypt for 400 years (situation with Jacob’s family by the end of Genesis)
Age of Law ==> Christ coming, atoning work on the cross to bring in the New Covenant
Age of Grace ==> the apostasy that will come about, followed immediately by the rise of antiChrist and the Great Tribulation
Millennial Kingdom Age ==> The Gog and Magog event described in Revelation 20
The related biblical covenants:
Age of Innocence == Edenic Covenant
Age of Human Government == Noahic Covenant
Age of Promise == Abrahamic Covenant
Age of Law == Mosaic Covenant, also Land Covenant (Deuteronomy; a renewal of the Abrahamic Covenant)
Davidic Covenant, an expansion of the Abrahamic Covenant
Age of Grace == New Covenant
Paul was not only a “prisoner” [in Rome] because of “the mystery,” but he was also a “minister.” God gave him a “dispensation” (stewardship) that he might go to the Gentiles, not only with the Good News of salvation through Christ, but also with the message that Jews and Gentiles are now one in Christ. The word dispensation comes from two Greek words: oikos, meaning “house” and nomos, meaning “law.” Our English word “economy” is derived directly from the Greek oikonomia, “the law of the house,” or “a stewardship, a management.” God has different ways of managing His program from age to age, and these different “stewardships” Bible students sometimes call “dispensations” (Eph. 1:9-10). God’s principles do not change, but His methods of dealing with mankind do change over the course of history. (Wiersbe)
The word "grace" also has several definitions.
1. The gospel as distinguished from the law
2. A state of sanctification by God; the state of one who is under such divine influence
3. The free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God
I'm guessing that Jerry is using the first definition, the gospel as distinguished from the law.
Paul was blessed with revelations shown to no one before him, but the gospel of grace did not start with Paul if you understand the full meaning of grace.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Thanks yahsway! You're right! That was GRACE.
God is full of grace, and His grace is evident throughout the Bible.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
Carol, you rock! i am in complete agreement with you. Yahweh God showed His Grace when He delievered the Children of Israel from Egypt. They were not required to do anything except put the bllod of a lamb on their doorposts so the death angel would pass them by. I believe this took faith on their behalf followed by their action to do it.
He led them out and them married them at Mt. Siani
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart:
quote:
Originally Quoted by Carol Swenson:
Technically, this dispensation does not begin with Christ's birth but with his death and resurrection. It extends from the cross to the calling up of all believers, dead or alive, at the rapture. (1 Thes. 4:13-18).
Of course the author of this article gave no evidence that the beginning of the dispensation of grace began at the Cross.
On the other hand I providing three different verses which speak specifically about the present dispensation. I then quoted another verse that speaks specifically about Paul's dispensational responisibility and how it ties into those other three verses.
You have provided absolutely no evidence that demonstrates that anything which I said is in error.
All you did was to quote someone else who gave no evidence from the Scriptures which demonstrates that the present dispensation of grace began at the Cross.
The only thang I can find that is different is,
Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
So a cut organ changes the Grace of God, how?
Would not wan't you to be in charge of the
cutting away of the foreskin of my heart.
You want to divided, thats good but do it rightly.
You attack Stam with no Idea what is being said then turn around and say what you say, that he is saying is wrong YET FORWARD HIS THINKING, MIXED WITH YOUR OPINION SPIN?
Let it be known to you son that some here have studied him for over 30 years.
Many read here. Few wan't to get involved with your type of sillyness.
Some do because they defend the simplicity that is in Christ for those that are just baseball fans in left field. Your shell game could cause them to stumble.
Do you want that on your head?
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
When he was a Jewish rabbi, Paul was separated as a Pharisee to the laws and traditions of the Jews. But when he yielded to Christ, he was separated to the Gospel and its ministry. Gospel means “the Good News.” It is the message that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again, and now is able to save all who trust Him (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It is “the Gospel of God” (Rom. 1:1) because it originates with God; it was not invented by man. It is “the Gospel of Christ” (Rom. 1:16) because it centers in Christ, the Saviour. Paul also calls it “the Gospel of His Son” (Rom. 1:9), which indicates that Jesus Christ is God! In Romans 16:25-26, Paul called it “my Gospel.” By this he meant the special emphasis he gave in his ministry to the doctrine of the church and the place of the Gentiles in the plan of God.
The Gospel is not a new message; it was promised in the Old Testament, beginning in Genesis 3:15. The Prophet Isaiah certainly preached the Gospel in passages such as Isaiah 1:18, and chapters 53 and 55. The salvation we enjoy today was promised by the prophets, though they did not fully understand all that they were preaching and writing (1 Peter 1:10-12).
Jesus Christ is the center of the Gospel message. Paul identified Him as a man, a Jew, and the Son of God. He was born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25) into the family of David, which gave Him the right to David’s throne. He died for the sins of the world, and then was raised from the dead. It is this miraculous event of substitutionary death and victorious resurrection that constitutes the Gospel; and it was this Gospel that Paul preached.
(Wiersbe)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
You evidently do not believe the evidence from the Scriptures which I provided that demonstrates that the dispensation of grace did not start until the gospel of grace was preached.
No Jerry, the PREACHING began when it was preached.
Grace began long before Paul. If the examples from our Lord's earthly ministry don't convince you, let's go back further.
God did not need to put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden within reach of Adam and Eve. But He did.
God did not need to make garments for them, He could have simply destroyed them and started over. But He didn't.
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life: And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed (singular); it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)
And God did all this knowing that their sin would lead Him to the cross.
Do you deny that this is Grace?
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Carol Swenson:
Let me guess. Putting me down a lot makes you feel bigger and better?
Here's my other cheek. Have at it.
I was just stating the facts as I see them, Carol. I am not attacking you personally as you seem to think.
You evidently do not believe the evidence from the Scriptures which I provided that demonstrates that the dispensation of grace did not start until the gospel of grace was preached. You gave no reason as to why you do not believe what I said and instead you quote someone saying that the present dispensation of grace began at the Cross.
What evidence can you give from the Scriptures which proves that that idea is correct?
Thanks!
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Let me guess. Putting me down a lot makes you feel bigger and better?
Here's my other cheek. Have at it.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
quote:
Originally Quoted by Carol Swenson:
Oh well, it works for me!
Well, some of us would rather have evidence from the Scriptures in order to guide us in our beliefs. It seems that all you need is what some people say about the Scriptures.
quote:
The writer of my article referenced lots of verses. Can't you look them up?
The writer of the article provided no evidence from the Bible that demonstrates that the present dispensation of grace began at the Cross.
But evidently you need no evidence from the Scriptures to support your beliefs about when the present dispensation began. It also seems that you reject the evidence from the Bible which I gave you even though you have been unable or unwilling to demonstrate that I am in error.
quote:
And by the way, what did Paul always talk about?
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:2
Yes, and that is the heart and soul of the gospel of grace:
"Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.324).
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Oh well, it works for me! I adore Paul, but THE CROSS outshines us all!
And by the way, what did Paul always talk about?
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:2
The writer of my article referenced lots of verses. Can't you look them up? ![[pound]](graemlins/pound.gif)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
quote:
Originally Quoted by Carol Swenson:
Technically, this dispensation does not begin with Christ's birth but with his death and resurrection. It extends from the cross to the calling up of all believers, dead or alive, at the rapture. (1 Thes. 4:13-18).
Of course the author of this article gave no evidence that the beginning of the dispensation of grace began at the Cross.
On the other hand I providing three different verses which speak specifically about the present dispensation. I then quoted another verse that speaks specifically about Paul's dispensational responisibility and how it ties into those other three verses.
You have provided absolutely no evidence that demonstrates that anything which I said is in error.
All you did was to quote someone else who gave no evidence from the Scriptures which demonstrates that the present dispensation of grace began at the Cross.
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
The teaching of Grace began long before Paul who was a minister of the gospel, but not the author of it.
The Davidic Covenant and The Dispensation of Grace
This covenant and dispensational arrangement is different from the others because the covenant is given nearly 1000 years before it and its accompanying dispensation go into effect. Instead of starting when it was first mentioned, this covenant is not fully in effect until David's seed comes along (Jesus Christ).
Once when Israel was at peace and David was at rest from his enemies, David wanted to do something for God and proposed building Him a permanent house (temple) to dwell in. Through Nathan the prophet God told David He did not yet want a house, but appreciated the thought (1 Ki. 8:18), and He then told David He was going to make a house out of HIM.
God made three promises to David in this unconditional covenant found in 2 Sam. 7:4-17:
1. That his house (posterity) would never cease (vs. 12-13).
2. That his throne will never be completely destroyed and continue forever (vs. 13, 16).
3. That his earthly kingdom will also continue forever through his promised seed (vs. 13, 16).
In some respects this covenant could be speaking of Solomon as the seed, but Solomon's reign ended in apostasy (1 Kings 11), thus another seed of David must be the ultimate fulfillment—the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is the only person who can possibly fulfill it. He is the seed of Adam, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David, and he is the only person in history who fulfills the more than sixty other prophesies God had given concerning the "seed." Before Christ was born the angel Gabriel told Mary the son to be born of her was to be the "son of the highest" (God), the "son of David" (man), and He would reign on David's throne forever (Luke 1:30-33). This covenant, like the Abrahamic Covenant continues to the gate of eternity.
Since the fulfillment of this covenant is Jesus Christ, and God is going to keep all of His promises to David in Christ, the covenant did not come into effect until Christ was born. That no seed of David has reigned in Jerusalem since the Babylonian captivity has nothing to do with the fulfillment of this covenant. It is not until after Israel's full chastisement for rejecting Christ is completed (Tribulation) that Christ comes as a King to reign on David's throne (Millennium). Christ came the first time as a Servant and sacrificial Lamb; the second time He will come as a Warrior and King.
The dispensation ushered in by the Davidic Covenant is our present Dispensation of Grace. Again, that this dispensation is named grace does not mean that God's grace cannot be found in the other dispensations, only that it is more prevalent and visible in this one. God often had mercy and grace on many in the past (Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, etc.), but now He freely offers His saving grace to everyone through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Technically, this dispensation does not begin with Christ's birth but with his death and resurrection. It extends from the cross to the calling up of all believers, dead or alive, at the rapture. (1 Thes. 4:13-18). In some ways this is a parenthetical dispensation because it is in the form of a mystery and sandwiched between the two Jewish dispensations of Law and the Millennium.
The subject of this dispensation is a group called "the church" or "the body of Christ." The Church is the mystery referred to in Eph. 3:3-9 and is so named because God had not revealed in the Old Testament that He was going to form such an organism, especially from both Jews and Gentiles. The New Testament tells us God's purpose in the Church is to gather a "people for His name" from all humanity, Jew and Gentile, in Jesus Christ to (among other things) become Christ's bride. "Whosoever will" can become a member of this living organism by simply repenting and by faith receiving the risen Jesus Christ into his heart. No works are required to obtain or keep this eternal salvation; all one must have is Jesus Christ in him. Christ has promised to freely come into and save all who will admit they are sinners, abandon all other means of salvation, and trust Him alone as Savior.
In this dispensation God is no longer dealing with man primarily as nations but as individuals. Every individual can have a personal relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ and he does not have to go through any priest or religious system to receive atonement for his sins. Israel, as a nation, has been placed on a "back burner" because of their blindness, but individual Jews can be saved just the same as Gentiles until this dispensation ends. The "Church of God" is a distinct body from both Jews and Gentiles and has many blessings these two groups don't enjoy. God has poured many extremely rich blessings upon the saved of this dispensation that He has not given to those of any other. Even those saved in future dispensations do not have many of the precious treasures the Body of Christ has now. For example:
1. The new birth (regeneration [Tit. 3:5, etc.]). There is no clear, biblical proof that the new birth is valid in any other dispensation (More on this later).
2. A completed atonement (described under the salvation doctrines propitiation and redemption [Heb. 9:12; 1 Jn. 2:2]). Until Christ's death salvation was "on credit."
3. Eternal and everlasting life that the believer cannot loose (described under the salvation doctrines justification, adoption, reconciliation, imputation, etc. [John 3:16, 5:24; etc.])
4. Salvation by faith alone, no works at all required to obtain or keep it (Eph 2:8-9; etc.).
5. The indwelling Holy Spirit who comforts, empowers, and seals believers (Eph. 4:30).
6. A position in Christ's Body and Bride (Eph. 5:30-32).
7. The promise of a supernatural body like Christ's resurrection body (Phil. 3:21).
8. A future mansion in the New Jerusalem (John 14:1-3).
Clearly, born again Christians, by no value of their own, have been given more blessings and promises than any other group of saved people, all by the good pleasure and pure grace of God. Why God selected this group to shower these amazing privileges on is fully known only by Him, but how much more should we who are saved and partake of them obey God's wishes with love and thanksgiving?
The obligation of believers during this dispensation is simple and direct. Each believer is to:
1. Evangelize by preaching the gospel of the grace of God to every creature (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15).
2. Be filled with the Holy Spirit and let Him direct his every thought and action (Gal. 5:16; Eph.5:18).
3. Present himself as a living sacrifice for God's service and separate himself from the world (Rom. 12:1-2).
Whether the believer obeys or disobeys these duties has nothing to do with his salvation, but disobedience will cost him rewards and crowns at the Judgment Seat of Christ where every believer will give account of himself to God (Rom. 14:10).
Even with the multitude of great blessings and privileges God has showered upon believers in Christ, this dispensation still ends in failure. Their failure was hinted at by Christ before the cross. He said when He returned the times would then be like the days of Noah thousands of years earlier (Matt. 24:37-39), characterized by unrestrained rebellion, wickedness, and apostasy. With all God has given believers in this present dispensation, they have again willingly refused to consistently do as He commanded.
Soon Christ will return and secretly take away all the Christians to Heaven and judgment and let the world continue, then even faster, toward its destiny of destruction.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Dispen1b.htm
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Carol Swenson:
Here is some Grace for you:
Luke 23
39One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!” 40But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41“And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
No one denied that grace has always been the way whereby people have been saved down through the ages. However, the dispensational responsibility in the present "dispensation of grace" is to preach the gospel of grace.
If that responsibility had been given to Peter on the day of Pentecost then it could be said that the present dispensation began at Acts 2. However, Peter did not preach that gospel then and no one preached it until Paul.
Therefore it is impossible that the present dispensation of grace had its beginning prior to Paul being converted.
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14, NKJV).
Peter Walking on the Water Matt. 14:28-31
And Peter answered Him and said, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.” So He said, “Come.” And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus. But when he saw that the wind was boisterous,[a] he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, “Lord, save me!” And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”
Jesus’ parable of the workers in the vineyard Matt. 20:1-15.
When Mary Washed and Kissed Jesus’ Feet Luke 7:36-48
Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.” And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” So he said, “Teacher, say it.”
“There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have rightly judged.” Luke 7:39-44 NKJV
The Prodigal Son Luke 15:11-31
The grace of restoration bestowed by the father on the son.
But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. v20
The Woman Caught in Adultery John 8:1-11
Jesus was and is full of grace and truth.
There are more examples than the ones I've listed here. The teaching of Grace began long before Paul who was a minister of the gospel, but not the author of it.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
And that was more from Jerry's own website.
http://www.twonewcovenants.com/twogospels/twogospels1.html
Here is some Grace for you:
Luke 23
39One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!” 40But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41“And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jerry Shugart
Advanced Member
Member # 9584
|
posted
A "dispensation" is in regard to a "stewardship" that is given to man from God in order to carry out a specific task. Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:
"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).
"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).
"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).
The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:
"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the event which marks the beginning of the "dispensation of grace" is the preaching of the "gospel of grace."
No one preached that gospel unitil Paul preached it so therefore the beginning of the present dispensation could not have possibly had its beginning before Paul was converted.
Posts: 34 | From: San Luis Potosi, Mexico | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
