Why do dispensationalists chop up the bible into different ages?

[createdtoworship]

Actually there are 3 categories of dispensationalists that are present today. You are either Acts 2, mid Acts or Acts 28.

Which would you consider yourself to be under? Who did you learn your dispensationalism from?

I don't regard myself as any of those. Most of that would be IMHO hyper dispensationalism. Which I think presents many problematic errors in scripture. For example some hyperdispensationalists say the beatitudes is not to be applied to the church but to the millenium, thats an error. Also some dispensationalists say that those in "outer darkness" are not in Hell but on the outside of the temple in the millenium. That is just really far fetched. I don't adhere to really any hyper dispensationalists, such as hodges, or Bullinger or any other. I like bullingers works on his companion bible but I think hyper dispensationalists give classic and even soft dispensationalism a bad name. Here is a link that may help you further, I agree with macarther rather than this website, but I wanted to present some of the issues:
John MacArthur and Dispensationalism

 

[Guojing]

I don't regard myself as any of those. Most of that would be IMHO hyper dispensationalism. Which I think presents many problematic errors in scripture. For example some hyperdispensationalists say the beatitudes is not to be applied to the church but to the millenium, thats an error. Also some dispensationalists say that those in "outer darkness" are not in Hell but on the outside of the temple in the millenium. That is just really far fetched. I don't adhere to really any hyper dispensationalists, such as hodges, or Bullinger or any other. I like bullingers works on his companion bible but I think hyper dispensationalists give classic and even soft dispensationalism a bad name. Here is a link that may help you further, I agree with macarther rather than this website, but I wanted to present some of the issues:
John MacArthur and Dispensationalism

Ok, then you are not even a dispensationalist. Thanks for sharing.

The term hyper disp is almost all the time linked to mid acts disp

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok, then you are not even a dispensationalist. Thanks for sharing.

The term hyper disp is almost all the time linked to mid acts disp

I believe their are dispensations, and dispensationalism is what I am closer to than liberal theology or covenant theology. So yes I would still be dispensationalist. But I Dont' chop the new testament up in the pauls gospel and other gospels. The scripture is clear there is only one gospel.

again check out this link you may learn some stuff about soft dispensationalism:
John MacArthur and Dispensationalism

 

[Guojing]

I believe their are dispensations, and dispensationalism is what I am closer to than liberal theology or covenant theology. So yes I would still be dispensationalist. But I Dont' chop the new testament up in the pauls gospel and other gospels. The scripture is clear there is only one gospel.

again check out this link you may learn some stuff about soft dispensationalism:
John MacArthur and Dispensationalism

But who did you learn your dispensationalism from? John MacArthur is hardly one. But would you say you learn it from him?

 

[createdtoworship]

But who did you learn your dispensationalism from? John MacArthur is hardly one. But would you say you learn it from him?

Sir I don't need to convince you I am dispensationalist. I learned from all of them. Chafer, scofield, Darby, Geisler, Ryrie, Hodges, Zuck, walvwoord, and others. But I am hear to say that none of them had it right. Macarther is by far the most accurate of the lot.

 

[Guojing]

Sir I don't need to convince you I am dispensationalist. I learned from all of them. Chafer, scofield, Darby, Geisler, Ryrie, Hodges, Zuck, walvwoord, and others. But I am hear to say that none of them had it right. Macarther is by far the most accurate of the lot.

If you are from Darby and Scofield, I would regard you as a classical or acts 2 dispy. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[nolidad]

You are correct, but non-dispensationalists will not accept your point.

It has always been justification by faith, but faith requires you to obey what God commanded you to do. Before Christ, God commanded the Jews to circumcise themselves, keep the Law and offer an animal sacrifice every time they sin.

If you obey God's instructions before Christ died on the cross, you are showing your faith in God and you are justified because of that.

But after the cross, more precisely after Paul was raised, God now commands us to cease from all works and trust in Jesus's finished work on the cross. Only at that time can there be a faith "apart from works".

So when we obey what he commanded, he sees that as faith and will justify us because of that.

Yes! We do good works because we are saved. We do not do good works to get saved or maintain salvation!.

Only a saved person can really do any work that is pleasing to God.

 

[Guojing]

Yes! We do good works because we are saved. We do not do good works to get saved or maintain salvation!.

Only a saved person can really do any work that is pleasing to God.

That is only true under the gospel of grace, which was revealed to Paul. Faith apart from works was only revealed thru him.

For the Jews for example in the OT, they had to follow Genesis 17. They could not rely on faith apart from works.

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you are from Darby and Scofield, I would regard you as a classical or acts 2 dispy. Thanks for clarifying.

I am not from one or the other, sir. I literally read dozens of books on it. I was facinated with it for about 5 years, then I realized the dispensationalism is not the perfect solution either. It fails in soteriology, in OSAS, and in a host of Biblical presuppositions it forces onto the millenium, that the text does not state.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes! We do good works because we are saved. We do not do good works to get saved or maintain salvation!.

Only a saved person can really do any work that is pleasing to God.

again if you could answer the question about proud homosexuality, I would honor your view. But it appears lordship views account for more of scripture. So when I brought that up you gave up the debate, and I don't blame you for that.

 

[Guojing]

I am not from one or the other, sir. I literally read dozens of books on it. I was facinated with it for about 5 years, then I realized the dispensationalism is not the perfect solution either. It fails in soteriology, in OSAS, and in a host of Biblical presuppositions it forces onto the millenium, that the text does not state.

okay earlier I concluded you are not a dispensationalist but I thought you objected to that too. Glad it is settled then

 

[createdtoworship]

okay earlier I concluded you are not a dispensationalist but I thought you objected to that too. Glad it is settled then

it's the closest thing I would say to my view. And it's better than the alternatives. But I would not call myself a strict dispensationalist, it's too errorsome as I have repeatedly said. One merely need to google search problems of dispensationalism to see the issue.

dispensationalists teach that only the prison epistles written by Paul after the close of the Book of Acts could be considered as doctrine for the Christian. (see bullinger), that means that even the words of Christ himself are not applicable for the church age. 2 timothy 3:16 refutes that. They also speak of several gospels in the new testament. When we are saved by one gospel.

 

[Guojing]

dispensationalists teach that only the prison epistles written by Paul after the close of the Book of Acts could be considered as doctrine for the Christian. (see bullinger), that means that even the words of Christ himself are not applicable for the church age. 2 timothy 3:16 refutes that. They also speak of several gospels in the new testament. When we are saved by one gospel.

What you are referring to are Acts 28 dispensationalists. Don't lump all of them together. Remember there are 3 main types, acts 2, mid acts, and acts 28 dispy.

 

[createdtoworship]

What you are referring to are Acts 28 dispensationalists. Don't lump all of them together. Remember there are 3 main types, acts 2, mid acts, and acts 28 dispy.

why don't you explain each briefly. So those in this thread know what you are referring to. I feel you are not being entirely transparent about it. I feel you think by keeping people in the dark about it, that they won't have ammunition against it. But if we are ashamed of something about what we believe, all the more we should communicate and work through that shame. (btw I am not saying you are ashamed, I am talking about how I would feel if I adhered to such views).

 

[nolidad]

That is only true under the gospel of grace, which was revealed to Paul. Faith apart from works was only revealed thru him.

For the Jews for example in the OT, they had to follow Genesis 17. They could not rely on faith apart from works.

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

This does not mean they are not saved! the Mosaic Covenant was more for how to live as the people of God. Teh cutting off from the people either meant disfellowshipping or killing and nothing to do with the state of their soul.

Salvation is always by grace through faith! The object of faith has been different in different dispensations, but the blood of Jesus was positionally operative since Adam!

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This is why OT saints when they died, went to Abrahams Bosom and not heaven like we do!

 

[nolidad]

again if you could answer the question about proud homosexuality, I would honor your view. But it appears lordship views account for more of scripture. So when I brought that up you gave up the debate, and I don't blame you for that.

Because it is a question that no human can answer!

Only the Lord knows the condition of the soul of an individual. This "proud homosexual" could be going through a season of sin, and is saved and will repent. Or maybe they are not saved and using religion for a period. If you think you can know the condition of their soul- you are arrogantly fooling yourself.

Are they living in sin? Yes! Does sin cause a saved person to be unsaved? NO! Will this sin if the person is saved, harm them? Absolutely! or maybe they only prayed a prayer and really did not get saved and when the weeds grew, they fell ini love with the weeds! You and I and everybody cannot know what is what!

And Jesus is Lord over all of a believers life, whether they have surrendered that part of their life to Him yet or not! YOur conception of God and His mercy and grace is just too small!

 

[Guojing]

This does not mean they are not saved! the Mosaic Covenant was more for how to live as the people of God. Teh cutting off from the people either meant disfellowshipping or killing and nothing to do with the state of their soul.

Salvation is always by grace through faith! The object of faith has been different in different dispensations, but the blood of Jesus was positionally operative since Adam!

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This is why OT saints when they died, went to Abrahams Bosom and not heaven like we do!

No one expected Jesus to die on the cross until it finally happened, not even Peter, who rebuked Jesus for telling them that.

 

[Guojing]

why don't you explain each briefly. So those in this thread know what you are referring to. I feel you are not being entirely transparent about it. I feel you think by keeping people in the dark about it, that they won't have ammunition against it. But if we are ashamed of something about what we believe, all the more we should communicate and work through that shame. (btw I am not saying you are ashamed, I am talking about how I would feel if I adhered to such views).

The key question to distinguish them is "When did the Body of Christ begin, where Jews and Gentiles are equal before God?" Was it during

• Acts 2 during Pentecost?
• Mid Acts after Paul was saved and commissioned by God?
• Acts 28, after the Jewish Diaspora rejected Jesus as their Messiah?

 

[createdtoworship]

The key question to distinguish them is "When did the Body of Christ begin, where Jews and Gentiles are equal before God?" Was it during

• Acts 2 during Pentecost?
• Mid Acts after Paul was saved and commissioned by God?
• Acts 28, after the Jewish Diaspora rejected Jesus as their Messiah?

I don't really think it matters to be honest. That is what I mean by dispensationalism makes errors. I mean who cares when the church started? If dispensationalists are fighting over this, all the more to move away from that. I presume the whole reason for the debate, is to chop of the various gospels in the new testament at various points, and to know when grace came. But we know grace came with Christ, it says so. I would go further and say that all those who believed in Christ (even before the cross but during Christ's ministry) were saved by grace. But a dispensationalist may even put them under law, I don't know. But it's endless debates over nothingness that made me realize I could never be hyper dispensationalist, or even classic dispensationalist. If anything I am a soft dispensationalist, but I am not sure if I want to be associated at all with it. The more I talk to you. I think I am just a Bible believer who believes there are various ages in scripture. Call it dispensation, or age, or covenant, it does not matter to me.