Why do dispensationalists chop up the bible into different ages?

[createdtoworship]

One does not have to use the word dispensation if they really don't like that term, that is ok, but you must clearly see that there were ages in scripture. God told different commands to noah than He did to moses, than he did to abraham, than he did to joshua, than he did to david. Yes they were all following God with a pure heart, but they had different covenants and they also had different things to do to be saved. Adam and eve to be saved, all they had to do was NOT EAT THE APPLE. So the way of salvation changed literally at that point. So that is one age. Note adam and eve were not saved by faith. It does not say that. They didn't have faith, they KNEW God existed. They had direct proof of God, that is different than faith. They were saved literally by their obedience, and when the sinned they died. Every man was not saved by "faith alone" in fact I make a case that no man is saved by "faith alone." We must have an act of faith, at salvation we must cast down the other idols and false Gods we are worshipping, and turn to God in faith. It is a free gift, but not without repentance. What I am getting at is that no one in history was saved by faith without any type of acting on their faith. It was not faith alone (It was a faith that was NOT Alone.) But the act of faith changed in every dispensation or age, even the faith changed. Some believed in the God the father in the old testament, in the New testament the accept the son as saviour.

 

[HTacianas]

One does not have to use the word dispensation if they really don't like that term, that is ok, but you must clearly see that there were ages in scripture. God told different commands to noah that He did to moses, than he did to abraham, than he did to joshua, than he did to david. Yes they were all following God with a pure heart, but they had different covenants and they also had different things to do to be saved. Adam and eve to be saved, all they had to do was NOT EAT THE APPLE. So the way of salvation changed literally at that point. So that is one age. Note adam and eve were not saved by faith. It does not say that. They didn't have faith, they KNEW God existed. They had direct proof of God, that is different than faith. They were saved literally by their obedience, and when the sinned they died. Every man was not saved by "faith alone" in fact I make a case that no man is saved by "faith alone." We must have an act of faith, at salvation we must cast down the other idols and false Gods we are worshipping, and turn to God in faith. It is a free gift, but not without repentance. What I am getting at is that no one in history was saved by faith without any type of acting on their faith. It was not faith alone (It was a faith that was NOT Alone.) But the act of faith changed in every dispensation or age, even the faith changed. Some believed in the God the father in the old testament, in the New testament the accept the son as saviour.

You're right that salvation is not by faith alone. That is clear from the plain reading of the new testament. But as you pointed out, God made a covenant with Adam, and with Noah, and so on. To call those periods dispensations is only a use of a term. But there are any number of beliefs among dispensasionalists that aren't supported by Christian history.

 

[Dave L]

One does not have to use the word dispensation if they really don't like that term, that is ok, but you must clearly see that there were ages in scripture. God told different commands to noah that He did to moses, than he did to abraham, than he did to joshua, than he did to david. Yes they were all following God with a pure heart, but they had different covenants and they also had different things to do to be saved. Adam and eve to be saved, all they had to do was NOT EAT THE APPLE. So the way of salvation changed literally at that point. So that is one age. Note adam and eve were not saved by faith. It does not say that. They didn't have faith, they KNEW God existed. They had direct proof of God, that is different than faith. They were saved literally by their obedience, and when the sinned they died. Every man was not saved by "faith alone" in fact I make a case that no man is saved by "faith alone." We must have an act of faith, at salvation we must cast down the other idols and false Gods we are worshipping, and turn to God in faith. It is a free gift, but not without repentance. What I am getting at is that no one in history was saved by faith without any type of acting on their faith. It was not faith alone (It was a faith that was NOT Alone.) But the act of faith changed in every dispensation or age, even the faith changed. Some believed in the God the father in the old testament, in the New testament the accept the son as saviour.

I think the Dispensationalists use eisegesis to chop scripture and rearrange it to fit their theory. They have no connection to historic Christianity.

 

[createdtoworship]

You're right that salvation is not by faith alone. That is clear from the plain reading of the new testament. But as you pointed out, God made a covenant with Adam, and with Noah, and so on. To call those periods dispensations is only a use of a term. But there are any number of beliefs among dispensasionalists that aren't supported by Christian history.

to be honest I don't care a lick about christian history. I mean there is some aspect of the fact that doctrine should have some semblance of patristic support, and there is some value to learning church history, but other than those, I don't really care about history. I mean they are not critical to doctrine. The Bible is what is critical.

 

[HTacianas]

to be honest I don't care a lick about christian history. I mean there is some aspect of the fact that doctrine should have some semblance of patristic support, and there is some value to learning church history, but other than those, I don't really care about history. I mean they are not critical to doctrine. The Bible is what is critical.

Without Christian history there is no bible. The books of the new testament were chosen based on Christian history. It is Christian history that teaches us the meaning of the bible.

 

[createdtoworship]

I think the Dispensationalists use eisegesis to chop scripture and rearrange it to fit their theory. They have no connection to historic Christianity.

again historic christianity is not important. I mean you think that praying to dead saints is a good thing? The early church thought so. Not all of them, but some of them, origen, clement and others. And yet others prayed for the dead (my favorite church father turtullian prayed for the dead). So those views are probably and most certainly from extra canonical works, but it could have been from early roman pagan influence. So anyway, there were a host of practices I would not do today that the early church did, but anyway, that is neither here nor there. History is important, but not critical for doctrine. Revelation in a way is progressive. The early church did not understand the trinity, turtullian was the first to debate it, and it became doctrine officially in the third century. But for many years they didn't understand that doctrine. So it took roughly 250 years to formulate. Other doctrines took longer. The rapture for example was from the 19 century mostly, but if I did my homework and studied my books on it, I bet I could find a dozen references to it in church fathers alone. But again that is neither here nor there. History is important but again not crucial. What is crucial is the Bible.

 

[createdtoworship]

Without Christian history there is no bible. The books of the new testament were chosen based on Christian history. It is Christian history that teaches us the meaning of the bible.

you would need to develop this a little further. And maybe provide sources.

 

[HTacianas]

you would need to develop this a little further. And maybe provide sources.

The Synod of Hippo was one of the early councils that chose the books to be included in the new testament. They decided on which books to canonize based in large part on what had been handed down over the previous 300 or so years.

 

[Dave L]

again historic christianity is not important. I mean you think that praying to dead saints is a good thing? The early church thought so. Not all of them, but some of them, origen, clement and others. And yet others prayed for the dead (my favorite church father turtullian prayed for the dead). So those views are probably and most certainly from extra canonical works, but it could have been from early roman pagan influence. So anyway, there were a host of practices I would not do today that the early church did, but anyway, that is neither here nor there. History is important, but not critical for doctrine. Revelation in a way is progressive. The early church did not understand the trinity, turtullian was the first to debate it, and it became doctrine officially in the third century. But for many years they didn't understand that doctrine. So it took roughly 250 years to formulate. Other doctrines took longer. The rapture for example was from the 19 century mostly, but if I did my homework and studied my books on it, I bet I could find a dozen references to it in church fathers alone. But again that is neither here nor there. History is important but again not crucial. What is crucial is the Bible.

Historic Christianity = the church you have no part in, the further you wander off course. They condemned premillennialism as heresy in 431 which includes Dispensationalism. They confirmed Amillennialism as the truth of scripture. You need to real yourself in.

 

[createdtoworship]

You're right that salvation is not by faith alone. That is clear from the plain reading of the new testament. But as you pointed out, God made a covenant with Adam, and with Noah, and so on. To call those periods dispensations is only a use of a term. But there are any number of beliefs among dispensasionalists that aren't supported by Christian history.

you are right you can call them covenants too, but there is some overlap. Because the new covenant is not faith alone as the reformers said. Both the object of faith changed and the act of faith changed, they were in essence "different gospels." That is why you hear dispensationalists speak of different gospels. Anyway, here are all the covenants:
Chapter 26. The Covenants - Dispensational Truth - Study Resources

 

[createdtoworship]

The Synod of Hippo was one of the early councils that chose the books to be included in the new testament. They decided on which books to canonize based in large part on what had been handed down over the previous 300 or so years.

but you said "without christian history there is no bible." Again there were plenty of people to develop canons prior to the the synod of hippo. They may have been incomplete, but even if the counsel never happened God would have a Bible. The key factor is not history But the eternal aspect of Gods word. It is eternal. Again I repeat it's the word that is the key factor not history.

 

[HTacianas]

you are right you can call them covenants too, but there is some overlap. Because the new covenant is not faith alone as the reformers said. Both the object of faith changed and the act of faith changed, they were in essence "different gospels." That is why you hear dispensationalists speak of different gospels. Anyway, here are all the covenants:
Chapter 26. The Covenants - Dispensational Truth - Study Resources

I've seen that before. It directly contradicts the new testament.

 

[createdtoworship]

The comment was brought up on another thread, lets bring it up here A poster said that the "kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of heaven" was synonomous. And that dispensationalists are wrong about distinguishing them. So lets kick this thread started about that topic....here is the post:

The phrase “kingdom of Heaven” occurs thirty-two (32) times and only in the Gospel of Matthew. The phrase “kingdom of God” occurs thirty-two (32) times in the Gospel of Luke, the most of any book in the Bible.

An examination of Synoptic parallels will demonstrate that the two phrases refer to the same idea.

“the kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17) || “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 5:3) || “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20)

“Among those born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist, notwithstanding he who is least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than him.” (Matt. 11:11) || “Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than him.” (Luke 7:28)

“the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:11) || “the mysteries of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11 cp. Luke 8:10)

“the kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed” (Matt 13:31) || “the kingdom of God...is like a grain of mustard seed” (Mark 4:30-31 cp. Luke 13:18-19)

“The kingdom of Heaven is like leaven” (Matt. 13:33) || “the kingdom of God...is like leaven” (Luke 13:20)

“Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 18:3-4) || “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein” (Mark 10:15)

“Allow little children, and do not forbid them to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt. 19:14) || “Allow the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14 cp. Luke 18:16)

“a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 19:23) || “How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” (Luke 18:24)

In other words, “kingdom of God” = “kingdom of Heaven.” If this is so, then “God” = “Heaven,” which leads us into my next point.

“Heaven” as a Circumlocution or Substitute for “God”
The reason why Matthew uses the phrase “kingdom of Heaven” more often than “kingdom of God” (which he uses only five (5) times in his gospel, although there are textual variants) is because he wrote to a Jewish audience, and the Jews did not pronounce the Tetragrammaton יַהְוֶה (Yahveh), and sometimes not even the word אֱלֹהִים (elohim). For example, today, Jews do not say אֱלֹהִים (elohim), but rather, אֱלֹקִים (elokim), and certainly never the Tetragrammaton. Rather than pronouncing those, they used “substitutes.” Some of these substitutes include:

Taken from; What is the difference in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God?

so what do you think about this?

 

[createdtoworship]

I've seen that before. It directly contradicts the new testament.

thats fine but you have to make a case, you can't just say something is wrong because at that point I can just say...."no you are wrong, I am right." and then you can say "no, no, no I am right, and you are wrong."

you see my point, it's just circular logic of opinion and we get no where.

So you can say you disagree, that is fine. But don't say it contradicts, unless you are willing to explain with citations.

 

[HTacianas]

but you said "without christian history there is no bible." Again there were plenty of people to develop canons prior to the the synod of hippo. They may have been incomplete, but even if the counsel never happened God would have a Bible. The key factor is not history But the eternal aspect of Gods word. It is eternal. Again I repeat it's the word that is the key factor not history.

It seems we have a "chicken or the egg" thing going here. You say God would provide a bible even without a council, I say God used the council to provide a bible.

 

[HTacianas]

thats fine but you have to make a case, you can't just say something is wrong because at that point I can just say...."no you are wrong, I am right." and then you can say "no, no, no I am right, and you are wrong."

you see my point, it's just circular logic of opinion and we get no where.

Regarding new covenant the writer states:

"This Covenant has not yet been made. It is to be made with Israel after they get back to their own land."

The book of Hebrews says:

Heb 9:15 - And for this reason (Jesus) is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

 

[createdtoworship]

It seems we have a "chicken or the egg" thing going here. You say God would provide a bible even without a council, I say God used the council to provide a bible.

of course God doesn't need counsels. He chose to use one yes, but like I said the critical aspect is history is not MORE important than the eternal aspect of the word. The reason for the counsel was not to create a history of the Bible critically but because the word is eternal and cannot be destroyed.

 

[createdtoworship]

Regarding new covenant the writer states:

"This Covenant has not yet been made. It is to be made with Israel after they get back to their own land."

The book of Hebrews says:

Heb 9:15 - And for this reason (Jesus) is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

those are different covenants, like I said there are half a dozen or more covenants of scripture. But regardless, men make mistakes, and no dispensationalist is perfect. I call myself a dispensationalist simply because there are numerous gospels in the Bible. You can't say we are saved by faith and everyone was saved by faith. That doesn't work.

 

[HARK!]

Adam and eve to be saved, all they had to do was NOT EAT THE APPLE.

No.

(CLV) Gn 2:17
But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you must not eat from it; for on the day you eat from it, to die you shall be dying

They rebelled against the father's instruction; and they died.

The message has been the same from the beginning.

 

[HTacianas]

those are different covenants, like I said there are half a dozen or more covenants of scripture. But regardless, men make mistakes, and no dispensationalist is perfect. I call myself a dispensationalist simply because there are numerous gospels in the Bible. You can't say we are saved by faith and everyone was saved by faith. That doesn't work.

I never make the mistake of saying we are saved by faith. That also contradicts the new testament. See Matthew 25:32-46. See also James:

Jas 2:24 - You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.