- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
It is very clear that Dispensationalism is not directly taught in the Bible, but neither is Covenant Theology. It is also very clear that grace came in even in God’s judgment of mankind’s first sin, with the provision of clothing made of animal skins, and law still exists in all of its power for those who continue to put themselves under it. So both grace and law can indeed be found throughout the Bible and in all time. Covenant Theology teaches that these never change.
But dispensationalism teaches that from time to time, God changes the way He deals with mankind. Although the Scriptures never clearly state this in plain words, they do indeed clearly teach that God has changed the way He deals with mankind at various times in history. And they just as clearly teache that in the future He will again change the way He deals with mankind. And that is what dispensationalism is all about. It is simply an observance of the many distinct changes in the way God deals with mankind that are clearly stated in the Scriptures.
The first of these changes came with mankind’s first sin. Before that time, mankind was innocent, not knowing the difference between good and evil, and God walked and talked with them enough that they knew His voice. And our corporate sin was in attempting to gain this knowledge. Satan tricked mankind into thinking that God had denied them something good in denying them this knowledge, and their first sin introduced all the sorrow and confusion brought into this world by sin.
So God gave them the knowledge of good and evil, but He also expelled them from the garden and told them that they must now work to provide for their own needs, and that they would die.
This was a distinct and undeniable change in the way God dealt with mankind.
At that time God gave them no new laws, other than that they could not return to the garden. Mankind was left more or less up to its own knowledge of good and evil, (its conscience) and consistently chose evil., until God could bear it no longer and brought the great flood to wipe out all mankind except one righteous family.
After the flood, God made two new laws. The first was that He now added the flesh of animals as explicitly permitted food. (He had previously only told them they could eat things that grew out of the ground.) And He explicitly commanded mankind to punish murder with execution.
This, again, was a distinct and undeniable change in the way God dealt with mankind.
Some time after that, God began to openly and clearly deal with some of mankind differently than with others. He called out one man, and promised him a particular piece of real estate as an eternal inheritance. But at the same time, He also told that man that this would only belong to his descendants, whom He said would by then have become a great nation. For He said that the iniquity of the current inhabitants of that piece of real estate was not yet full.
Although not as obvious as the first two changes, for this applied only to some of mankind, this was again a distinct change in the way God dealt with mankind. He had never before done such a thing.
Some time after that God began to fulfill this promise by delivering from slavery the nation descended from this man. But after He had brought them out, He gave them a detailed law, promising them blessing if they kept it and punishment if they broke it.
This was again a very distinct and undeniable change in the way God dealt with mankind.
But as we all know, not even one of them kept this law until Jesus came. And they rejected His holy message and killed Him, not knowing that they were only fulfilling God’s plan for their own good. As a result of that death, which was really a voluntary sacrifice of His own precious blood, mercy and forgiveness was offered to all mankind.
This was again a very distinct and undeniable change in the way God dealt with mankind.
All of these changes are clearly recognized by all, although some do not what to recognize them as significant. The scriptures also clearly describe more distinct changes in the way God will deal with mankind in the future. But an understanding of these changes is clouded for many by a heretical doctrine that was introduced into the ancient church. In an attempt to make the gospel more acceptable to Greeks, certain teachers began to introduce ideas that did not come from the scriptures, but from the Greek philosophers, mainly Plato. These ideas included a notion that spiritual reality differed from physical reality, and that only the spiritual was important. This led to the horribly wicked doctrines introduced by Nicolaius, the head of the sect called the Nicolaitans, mentioned in the Revelation. He taught that since only the spiritual mattered, sin in the physical realm was not important, making fornication and adultery acceptable, among other wicked activities.
These Greek philosophies were also the basis for a doctrine that many of the prophetic statements of the Bible should properly be understood as spiritual, rather than physical. One of the most destructive of these doctrines was the invention of the extra-Biblical term “spiritual Israel,” which was assumed to mean the church. It is very important to realize that this concept did not come from the Bible, but from ancient Greek philosophy, particularly that of Plato. This made it acceptable to dismiss the very many explicitly stated prophecies about the future blessing of Israel as merely having a spiritual meaning, as opposed to actually meaning what they so very explicitly said. To this day, men justify this concept from Romans 9:6, where we read that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” These people claim that this means that “all Israel” is a completely different group from those that “are of Israel.” But the very passage where this occurs very plainly goes on to show the meaning of this statement with examples of some, but not all, of the descendants of Abraham chosen to inherit the blessing. This clearly shows that the meaning of this scripture is that the true Israel is a subset of the physical descendants of that ancient nation, not some other group
This idea that the Scriptures do not actually mean what they explicitly say leads to a slippery slope which makes it possible to deny that the Bible really means anything and everything it says. Thus the Biblical accounts of creation, the world-wide flood, Jonah, Sodom and Gomorrah, the burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea and the Jordan, Mount Sinai, manna, and water flowing out of the rock, all become merely myths told to illustrate spiritual lessons. And in modern times it has led to a rejection of any and every part of the Bible that someone dislikes, including all kinds of perversion. Yet all of this comes from the doctrine that the Bible does not really mean what it says, which, as we have seen, comes from Greek philosophy, rather than from the Bible.
But whether men choose to believe it or not, the Bible indeed teaches, and teaches in very clear and explicit language, that after the Lord returns to this earth, He will once again bless the ancient nation of Israel. It also teaches, again in very clear and explicit language, that a new temple will be built in Jerusalem and that a worship system involving animal sacrifices will again be introduced.
Those that reject this concept with horror fail to realize that, although the Bible very clearly says all this will happen, it goes not say, or even imply, that every descendant of Israel will be saved, whether they believe or not. These same prophetic scriptures just as plainly say that before all this takes place, God will first severely judge that guilty and unbelieving nation, and then, even after that, will purge out all the rebels from among them. And then they plainly teach that after that, all the rest of them will come to a true and living faith in their God. So these scriptures do not say, or even imply, that any Israelite will be saved without first coming to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
Those who react in horror at this doctrine also fail to realize that there are distinct differences between the laws of worship under the law of Moses and under the future laws so very clearly set forth in Ezekiel. So these scriptures do not teach that the Mosaic law will be re-established.
But while the scriptures plainly declare that the blessings of this future age will be centered in Jerusalem, they just as clearly state that the promised blessing will flow out to the entire earth. So this will not only be a time of blessing for Israel, but for all the earth. Revelation 20 states six times over that this time of blessing will last for a thousand years. But whether men choose to believe this thousand years is literal, or simply symbolic of a very long time, the period itself is described in such clear, plain, and explicit language that it is simple unbelief to deny that it will indeed take place.
So these scriptures very plainly declare yet another distinct, although future, change in the way God will deal with mankind. And the changes are plainly and explicitly stated, whether men choose to believe them or not.
But even after that, the scriptures plainly declare that at the end of this period of blessing mankind will again rebel, and that God will then destroy the earth and re-create it. They do not reveal how the righteous will be preserved during that time, but they clearly state that they will repopulate the earth in a new creation that will be free from sin.
Once again, whether or not men choose to believe the scriptures, this is yet another distinctly stated future change in the way God will deal with mankind.
So although dispensationalism is indeed never plainly set forth in the Scriptures, the changes upon which dispensationalism concentrates are indeed very clearly stated.
But dispensationalism teaches that from time to time, God changes the way He deals with mankind. Although the Scriptures never clearly state this in plain words, they do indeed clearly teach that God has changed the way He deals with mankind at various times in history. And they just as clearly teache that in the future He will again change the way He deals with mankind. And that is what dispensationalism is all about. It is simply an observance of the many distinct changes in the way God deals with mankind that are clearly stated in the Scriptures.
The first of these changes came with mankind’s first sin. Before that time, mankind was innocent, not knowing the difference between good and evil, and God walked and talked with them enough that they knew His voice. And our corporate sin was in attempting to gain this knowledge. Satan tricked mankind into thinking that God had denied them something good in denying them this knowledge, and their first sin introduced all the sorrow and confusion brought into this world by sin.
So God gave them the knowledge of good and evil, but He also expelled them from the garden and told them that they must now work to provide for their own needs, and that they would die.
This was a distinct and undeniable change in the way God dealt with mankind.
At that time God gave them no new laws, other than that they could not return to the garden. Mankind was left more or less up to its own knowledge of good and evil, (its conscience) and consistently chose evil., until God could bear it no longer and brought the great flood to wipe out all mankind except one righteous family.
After the flood, God made two new laws. The first was that He now added the flesh of animals as explicitly permitted food. (He had previously only told them they could eat things that grew out of the ground.) And He explicitly commanded mankind to punish murder with execution.
This, again, was a distinct and undeniable change in the way God dealt with mankind.
Some time after that, God began to openly and clearly deal with some of mankind differently than with others. He called out one man, and promised him a particular piece of real estate as an eternal inheritance. But at the same time, He also told that man that this would only belong to his descendants, whom He said would by then have become a great nation. For He said that the iniquity of the current inhabitants of that piece of real estate was not yet full.
Although not as obvious as the first two changes, for this applied only to some of mankind, this was again a distinct change in the way God dealt with mankind. He had never before done such a thing.
Some time after that God began to fulfill this promise by delivering from slavery the nation descended from this man. But after He had brought them out, He gave them a detailed law, promising them blessing if they kept it and punishment if they broke it.
This was again a very distinct and undeniable change in the way God dealt with mankind.
But as we all know, not even one of them kept this law until Jesus came. And they rejected His holy message and killed Him, not knowing that they were only fulfilling God’s plan for their own good. As a result of that death, which was really a voluntary sacrifice of His own precious blood, mercy and forgiveness was offered to all mankind.
This was again a very distinct and undeniable change in the way God dealt with mankind.
All of these changes are clearly recognized by all, although some do not what to recognize them as significant. The scriptures also clearly describe more distinct changes in the way God will deal with mankind in the future. But an understanding of these changes is clouded for many by a heretical doctrine that was introduced into the ancient church. In an attempt to make the gospel more acceptable to Greeks, certain teachers began to introduce ideas that did not come from the scriptures, but from the Greek philosophers, mainly Plato. These ideas included a notion that spiritual reality differed from physical reality, and that only the spiritual was important. This led to the horribly wicked doctrines introduced by Nicolaius, the head of the sect called the Nicolaitans, mentioned in the Revelation. He taught that since only the spiritual mattered, sin in the physical realm was not important, making fornication and adultery acceptable, among other wicked activities.
These Greek philosophies were also the basis for a doctrine that many of the prophetic statements of the Bible should properly be understood as spiritual, rather than physical. One of the most destructive of these doctrines was the invention of the extra-Biblical term “spiritual Israel,” which was assumed to mean the church. It is very important to realize that this concept did not come from the Bible, but from ancient Greek philosophy, particularly that of Plato. This made it acceptable to dismiss the very many explicitly stated prophecies about the future blessing of Israel as merely having a spiritual meaning, as opposed to actually meaning what they so very explicitly said. To this day, men justify this concept from Romans 9:6, where we read that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” These people claim that this means that “all Israel” is a completely different group from those that “are of Israel.” But the very passage where this occurs very plainly goes on to show the meaning of this statement with examples of some, but not all, of the descendants of Abraham chosen to inherit the blessing. This clearly shows that the meaning of this scripture is that the true Israel is a subset of the physical descendants of that ancient nation, not some other group
This idea that the Scriptures do not actually mean what they explicitly say leads to a slippery slope which makes it possible to deny that the Bible really means anything and everything it says. Thus the Biblical accounts of creation, the world-wide flood, Jonah, Sodom and Gomorrah, the burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea and the Jordan, Mount Sinai, manna, and water flowing out of the rock, all become merely myths told to illustrate spiritual lessons. And in modern times it has led to a rejection of any and every part of the Bible that someone dislikes, including all kinds of perversion. Yet all of this comes from the doctrine that the Bible does not really mean what it says, which, as we have seen, comes from Greek philosophy, rather than from the Bible.
But whether men choose to believe it or not, the Bible indeed teaches, and teaches in very clear and explicit language, that after the Lord returns to this earth, He will once again bless the ancient nation of Israel. It also teaches, again in very clear and explicit language, that a new temple will be built in Jerusalem and that a worship system involving animal sacrifices will again be introduced.
Those that reject this concept with horror fail to realize that, although the Bible very clearly says all this will happen, it goes not say, or even imply, that every descendant of Israel will be saved, whether they believe or not. These same prophetic scriptures just as plainly say that before all this takes place, God will first severely judge that guilty and unbelieving nation, and then, even after that, will purge out all the rebels from among them. And then they plainly teach that after that, all the rest of them will come to a true and living faith in their God. So these scriptures do not say, or even imply, that any Israelite will be saved without first coming to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
Those who react in horror at this doctrine also fail to realize that there are distinct differences between the laws of worship under the law of Moses and under the future laws so very clearly set forth in Ezekiel. So these scriptures do not teach that the Mosaic law will be re-established.
But while the scriptures plainly declare that the blessings of this future age will be centered in Jerusalem, they just as clearly state that the promised blessing will flow out to the entire earth. So this will not only be a time of blessing for Israel, but for all the earth. Revelation 20 states six times over that this time of blessing will last for a thousand years. But whether men choose to believe this thousand years is literal, or simply symbolic of a very long time, the period itself is described in such clear, plain, and explicit language that it is simple unbelief to deny that it will indeed take place.
So these scriptures very plainly declare yet another distinct, although future, change in the way God will deal with mankind. And the changes are plainly and explicitly stated, whether men choose to believe them or not.
But even after that, the scriptures plainly declare that at the end of this period of blessing mankind will again rebel, and that God will then destroy the earth and re-create it. They do not reveal how the righteous will be preserved during that time, but they clearly state that they will repopulate the earth in a new creation that will be free from sin.
Once again, whether or not men choose to believe the scriptures, this is yet another distinctly stated future change in the way God will deal with mankind.
So although dispensationalism is indeed never plainly set forth in the Scriptures, the changes upon which dispensationalism concentrates are indeed very clearly stated.
