Why do dispensationalists chop up the bible into different ages?

[summerville]

no sir, all that stuff just comes from scripture itself. It's not about dispensationalism versus covenant theology. That just happens to be the most common forms of theology talking about what we are talking about. But dispensationalism is not the answer. Covenant theology is WAY off. But Dispensational theology is off in minor ways. But Nothing is perfect. That is why in the OP I mentioned if you wanted to call it ages, that is fine. You don't even have to use the term dispensation. I agree with most of dispensationalism but I do have minor disagreements with hyper dispensationalism. So again dogma is dogma, it's not scripture. The rapture may have originated with dispensational escatology, but the rapture itself is very much alive in scripture. This is not the proper thread to debate rapture proof texts, and that topic is somewhat divisive anyway. I am fine with people believing in all sorts of eschatology that is fine, we need not divide over it. But what I wanted to talk about was that there are different ways to be saved in scripture. At least three, maybe five ways. The coming of grace and truth is only one age, the age of grace.

anyway more on rapture here:
click here to view seminary level article on the rapture

Dispensationalism is less than 100 years old.. Are you a big fan of Hal Lindsey and Tim Lahaye?

 

[createdtoworship]

Dispensationalism is less than 100 years old.. Are you a big fan of Hal Lindsey and Tim Lahaye?

Its almost a hundred and fifty since darby. Time flies huh? I have my sources of dispensational thought, I like chafer, and clarence larkin, and bullinger. But I have used other moderate sources as well, like geisler and ryrie.

 

[nolidad]

yes but if you read the passage I think only one seed out of like four or five situations did not germinate. The rest did. So technically speaking only one in five will be healthy, two or three will fall away, and one fifth will never get saved.

Well it is only four grounds the seed fell on. It is the ground that is the subject not the seed. But once again, are you declaring that a person who is born again can by sins Jesus already paid for become un-born-again? And if so do you think they can become born -again-again?

 

[nolidad]

If you think the Rapture is real, you should go back and read Thessalonians carefully.

The rapture is real! Where the argument lies is the timing of it! Most of the churches that reject the rapture are the Roman churches and the mainline protestant churches.

 

[nolidad]

Its almost a hundred and fifty since darby. Time flies huh? I have my sources of dispensational thought, I like chafer, and clarence larkin, and bullinger. But I have used other moderate sources as well, like geisler and ryrie.

Of the two major hermeneutical methods of understanding the bible, dispensationalism causes the least harm to Scripture. It also recognizes that God governed man in different ways over time and shows the various covenants used to mark the start of that different economy that God used to govern man.

What people forget is that the early church (the Jewish only in the early 1st century) was a very dispensational church.

As the church spread to teh gentiles, the well taught knowledge of the OT was vanishing and dispensational thought fell into disfavor. Then Augustine (the Father of Covenant theology) published his works- covenant theology took over when the Roman church began and carried the day through the reformation. The reason why it was still popular was that the escaping church was busier with far more important doctrines

But as the church grew more firm in the fundamental doctrines of the faith and Scripture became more and more widespread- "dispensational theology" naturally grew out of that growth.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well it is only four grounds the seed fell on. It is the ground that is the subject not the seed. But once again, are you declaring that a person who is born again can by sins Jesus already paid for become un-born-again? And if so do you think they can become born -again-again?

YES sir, just not in the progression. I talk more about it in this thread if you want to redirect away from dispensationalism topic to discuss soteriology:
Can you lose your salvation

 

[kenneth558]

I tried to skim through this thread thus far, and I'm sure I've missed many points that have been discussed, and I really hope I'm not hijacking to interject here.

I was raised to think of a dispensation as a "when" thing. After reading my Bible independently, seriously, and with abandon belief, I see how that misconception of the term leads to innumerable unbeliefs. I hope you'll tolerate this post of me sharing what I've learned of dispensation from scripture and its Author and absolutely no other earthly person:

Jesus used the term dispensation when he told the parable of the unjust steward who was about to lose his dispensation (job, responsibilities, stewardship). The apostle Paul speaks of the dispensation of the fulness of times (again: job, responsibilities, stewardship) where God dispenses an assignment (dispensation) to Jesus to

"gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth".

As you know, the epistles of Ephesians and Colossians parallel each other, so this same assignment (job, responsibilities, stewardship) of God to Jesus is mentioned in Colossians 1:19-20 (hyperlink not intended)

"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

So God will have Jesus carry out that end-time dispensation (assignment, job, responsibility, stewardship) of "gather together in one all things" or "reconcile all things".

Other New Testament uses of the term dispensation are I Cor 9:16-17, Eph 3:2 and Col 1:25 every single one of which are specifically speaking of Paul's dispensation (assignment, job, responsibility, stewardship) from God to deliver the Gospel to the readers of those epistles.

In other words, "dispensation" has nothing whatsoever to do with "when". It is the assigning by one in authority of a task to one under that authority to perform for them.

The correct alternate way of viewing God's dealing with mankind over history is this found in Deut 29:29:

"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever", [not to be discarded at the end of some made-up "dispensation".]

The most difficult block for most Christians to understanding this radically different concept of dispensation is that they have been led to think in terms of the Law of Moses as a supposed means of salvation gave way to salvation by the Cross, so thereby was a new dispensation ushered in. That notion is falsified by two witnesses against it: Paul states emphatically that the Law could never have given salvation because salvation had always been and still is by grace through faith. The second witness against that notion is the very clear and unambiguous declaration that obedience to the Law of Moses served the purpose of, not personal salvation, but distinguishing the nation of Israel from all other nations:

Ex 19:5 and elsewhere
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people"

Does all this resonate with you?

 

[nolidad]

I tried to skim through this thread thus far, and I'm sure I've missed many points that have been discussed, and I really hope I'm not hijacking to interject here.

I was raised to think of a dispensation as a "when" thing. After reading my Bible independently, seriously, and with abandon belief, I see how that misconception of the term leads to innumerable unbeliefs. I hope you'll tolerate this post of me sharing what I've learned of dispensation from scripture and its Author and absolutely no other earthly person:

Jesus used the term dispensation when he told the parable of the unjust steward who was about to lose his dispensation (job, responsibilities , stewardship). The apostle Paul speaks of the dispensation of the fulness of times (again: job, responsibilities, stewardship) where God assigns to Jesus to

"gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth".

As you know, the epistles of Ephesians and Colossians parallel each other, so this same assignment (job, responsibilities, stewardship) of God to Jesus is mentioned in Colossians 1:19-20 (hyperlink not intended)

"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

So God will have Jesus carry out that end-time dispensation (assignment, job, responsibility, stewardship) of "gather together in one all things" or "reconcile all things".

Other New Testament uses of the term dispensation are I Cor 9:16-17, Eph 3:2 and Col 1:25 every single one of which are specifically speaking of Paul's dispensation (assignment, job, responsibility, stewardship) from God to deliver the Gospel to the readers of those epistles.

In other words, "dispensation" has nothing whatsoever to do with "when". It is the assigning by one in authority of a task to one under that authority to perform for them.

The correct alternate way of viewing God's dealing with mankind over history is this found in Deut 29:29:

"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever", [not to be discarded at the end of some made-up "dispensation".]

The most difficult block for most Christians to understanding this radically different concept of dispensation is that they have been led to think in terms of the Law of Moses as a supposed means of salvation gave way to salvation by the Cross, so thereby was a new dispensation ushered in. That notion is falsified by two witnesses against it: Paul states emphatically that the Law could never have given salvation because salvation had always been and still is by grace through faith. The second witness against that notion is the very clear and unambiguous declaration that obedience to the Law of Moses served the purpose of, not personal salvation, but distinguishing the nation of Israel from all other nations:

Ex 19:5 and elsewhere
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people"

Does all this resonate with you?

You are correct that dispensations are a stewardship or governance. They have a when because each dispensation or way God governed man ended when a new governance started!

The dispensation of innocence ended when Adam and Eve sinned. The dispensation of conscience ended after Noah left the Ark and God established the dispensation of human governance.. etc.etc.etc. It is the form of Governance that is critical. The whens happened when God changed how He oversaw the affairs of men.

 

[kenneth558]

The dispensation of innocence ended...

There you go, thinking of a dispensation as a "when". I don't think you fully understand what I posted. There is no "when" about a dispensation whatsoever.

This "dispensation of innocence", who was the authority assigning it and to whom was it assigned to carry out said duties?

 

[summerville]

Its almost a hundred and fifty since darby. Time flies huh? I have my sources of dispensational thought, I like chafer, and clarence larkin, and bullinger. But I have used other moderate sources as well, like geisler and ryrie.

You're right.. I was just thinking that it didn't become popular until it was preached at tent revivals during the Depression and the Dust Bowl years.

 

[Jack Terrence]

You are correct that dispensations are a stewardship or governance. They have a when because each dispensation or way God governed man ended when a new governance started!

The dispensation of innocence ended when Adam and Eve sinned. The dispensation of conscience ended after Noah left the Ark and God established the dispensation of human governance.. etc.etc.etc. It is the form of Governance that is critical. The whens happened when God changed how He oversaw the affairs of men.

Thanks for a good laugh.

 

[kenneth558]

Thanks for a good laugh.

And thanks for understanding my post!!!

 

[createdtoworship]

I tried to skim through this thread thus far, and I'm sure I've missed many points that have been discussed, and I really hope I'm not hijacking to interject here.

I was raised to think of a dispensation as a "when" thing. After reading my Bible independently, seriously, and with abandon belief, I see how that misconception of the term leads to innumerable unbeliefs. I hope you'll tolerate this post of me sharing what I've learned of dispensation from scripture and its Author and absolutely no other earthly person:

Jesus used the term dispensation when he told the parable of the unjust steward who was about to lose his dispensation (job, responsibilities, stewardship). The apostle Paul speaks of the dispensation of the fulness of times (again: job, responsibilities, stewardship) where God dispenses an assignment (dispensation) to Jesus to

"gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth".

As you know, the epistles of Ephesians and Colossians parallel each other, so this same assignment (job, responsibilities, stewardship) of God to Jesus is mentioned in Colossians 1:19-20 (hyperlink not intended)

"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

So God will have Jesus carry out that end-time dispensation (assignment, job, responsibility, stewardship) of "gather together in one all things" or "reconcile all things".

Other New Testament uses of the term dispensation are I Cor 9:16-17, Eph 3:2 and Col 1:25 every single one of which are specifically speaking of Paul's dispensation (assignment, job, responsibility, stewardship) from God to deliver the Gospel to the readers of those epistles.

In other words, "dispensation" has nothing whatsoever to do with "when". It is the assigning by one in authority of a task to one under that authority to perform for them.

The correct alternate way of viewing God's dealing with mankind over history is this found in Deut 29:29:

"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever", [not to be discarded at the end of some made-up "dispensation".]

The most difficult block for most Christians to understanding this radically different concept of dispensation is that they have been led to think in terms of the Law of Moses as a supposed means of salvation gave way to salvation by the Cross, so thereby was a new dispensation ushered in. That notion is falsified by two witnesses against it: Paul states emphatically that the Law could never have given salvation because salvation had always been and still is by grace through faith. The second witness against that notion is the very clear and unambiguous declaration that obedience to the Law of Moses served the purpose of, not personal salvation, but distinguishing the nation of Israel from all other nations:

Ex 19:5 and elsewhere
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people"

Does all this resonate with you?

You are correct that dispensations are a stewardship or governance. They have a when because each dispensation or way God governed man ended when a new governance started!

The dispensation of innocence ended when Adam and Eve sinned. The dispensation of conscience ended after Noah left the Ark and God established the dispensation of human governance.. etc.etc.etc. It is the form of Governance that is critical. The whens happened when God changed how He oversaw the affairs of men.

So the thousands of words of text regarding temples, clothing, incence, fated calves, red heafers, levites, days of atonement, people literally dying in the temple because they messed up the annual sacrifice, the need to tie ropes to the high priest foot to pull them out if he messed up the day of atonement. All that stuff did not really atone for sin? It was a lie? They were really secretly saved by faith alone in a Saviour that would not appear for two thousand years? I have a hard time believing that. Adam and Eve when they had one rule to follow and messed up, it was because they rejected salvation by faith alone that they died not because of disobedience to Gods law? Again there are obvious ages and different ways of salvation and different covenants of salvation. To say everyone was saved by the reformed mantra "SOLA FIDE." Is really optimistic to say the least.

 

[kenneth558]

So the thousands of words of text regarding temples, clothing, incence, fated calves, red heafers, levites, days of atonement, people literally dying in the temple because they messed up the annual sacrifice, the need to tie ropes to the high priest foot to pull them out if he messed up the day of atonement. All that stuff did not really atone for sin? It was a lie? They were really secretly saved by faith alone in a Saviour that would not appear for two thousand years? I have a hard time believing that.

"But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city."
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."
Although scripture is slightly vague, what we're able to understand is very consistent with the notion that they did were not able to fully receive their heavenly city until Jesus died on the Cross and led them from a temporary place to their heavenly city. In other words, the blood of bulls and goats was the pattern, foretelling the original to come later. Faith in God prior to the revealing of Jesus was their faith, if you can see from my first post a few back: "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God..." etc. Calling it "secretly" as you do is just fine.

Adam and Eve when they had one rule to follow and messed up, it was because they rejected salvation by faith alone that they died not because of disobedience to Gods law? Again there are obvious ages and different ways of salvation and different covenants of salvation. To say everyone was saved by the reformed mantra "SOLA FIDE." Is really optimistic to say the least.

I'll leave this for nolidad b/c I think nolidad's post is what you might be referring to...besides I'm calling it quits for the night right now. Suffice to say: the just shall live by [his] faith. In other words, the obedience shows the faith to exist rather than the obedience being able to exist without faith.

 

[createdtoworship]

"But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city."
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."
Although scripture is slightly vague, what we're able to understand is very consistent with the notion that they did were not able to fully receive their heavenly city until Jesus died on the Cross and led them from a temporary place to their heavenly city.

yes I agree but there is more to this...

In other words, the blood of bulls and goats was the pattern, foretelling the original to come later. Faith in God prior to the revealing of Jesus was their faith, if you can see from my first post a few back: "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God..." etc. Calling it "secretly" as you do is just fine.

again the "day of atonement" did atone for sin. That does not mean they removed sin, but it covered them, it atoned for sin, and they could be forgiven "And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. (Leviticus 4:20)" So sacrifice did forgive sin, albeit temporarily. So my response is this.....why do levitical sacrifice at all? Why not just say a messiah will come and be a sacrifice. And if you believe in him you are saved?

I'll leave this for nolidad b/c I think nolidad's post is what you might be referring to...besides I'm calling it quits for the night right now. Suffice to say: the just shall live by [his] faith. In other words, the obedience shows the faith to exist rather than the obedience being able to exist without faith.

so too, just as old testament sacrifice was an old covenant, when the new covenant came, the old was done away. And those sins that were only covered, could not be forgiven. Hebrews 10:10-12. Adam and eve were yet a third covenant or age, or dispensation, whichever you wish to call it. However upon dying on the cross it does say that Christ decended into hell and proclaimed victory over the demonic host in hell or tartarus, and those in hell, and preached himself and his sacrifice to those in abrahams bosom. This allowed the sin that was atoned for and temporarily forgiven to be completely forgiven. so in essence those saved under the old covenant were also given opportunity to be saved by the new covenant. I do believe that Christ was preached to both sides of those in Hell and paradise, and any on either side could then decide to receive or reject the gospel. So technically speaking we are all saved by faith. So that means adam was in essence saved by faith in Christ. But and this is important. If one did not sacrifice in the old testament they went to HELL at least for a few thousand years till Christ decended and preached the gospel to them. So sacrifice and obedience did save from hell at least temporarily. And there are lots of verses in the new testament mentioning we are saved by our repentance from sin and faith in christ. Not of merit, but a free gift. God allows us to be free from sin.

 

[nolidad]

There you go, thinking of a dispensation as a "when". I don't think you fully understand what I posted. There is no "when" about a dispensation whatsoever.

This "dispensation of innocence", who was the authority assigning it and to whom was it assigned to carry out said duties?

The when is secondary to the how or what God was doing. But there is a when to every dispensation. God governed Adam and Eve differently before the fall than after! So there was a start and an end. I focus on the how but know there still is a when.

The names also are secondary. But they do describe the basic condition during that dispensation. Adam and Eve were innocent of evil until theu disobeyed. So the title is just simply there to describe the state at the time!

 

[nolidad]

Thanks for a good laugh.

Glad I brought joy to your life.

 

[nolidad]

So the thousands of words of text regarding temples, clothing, incence, fated calves, red heafers, levites, days of atonement, people literally dying in the temple because they messed up the annual sacrifice, the need to tie ropes to the high priest foot to pull them out if he messed up the day of atonement. All that stuff did not really atone for sin? It was a lie? They were really secretly saved by faith alone in a Saviour that would not appear for two thousand years? I have a hard time believing that. Adam and Eve when they had one rule to follow and messed up, it was because they rejected salvation by faith alone that they died not because of disobedience to Gods law? Again there are obvious ages and different ways of salvation and different covenants of salvation. To say everyone was saved by the reformed mantra "SOLA FIDE." Is really optimistic to say the least.

Well I can only give you what Scripture says!

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.

Hebrews 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

And for the OT an atonement did not remove sin like Jesus blood does, but it merely covered sins until Jesus actually shed His blood! That is why OT saints could not go directly to heaven, but had to wait in Paradise/Abrahams Bosom and why NT saints go directly to heaven.

 

[Stone-n-Steel]

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.

I think you answered your own question. I am interested in how you differentiate an act and a belief.

Is is possible that a person can come to God based on belief in what Jesus did at the cross and not based on any act that they did?

 

[createdtoworship]

Well I can only give you what Scripture says!

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.

Hebrews 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

And for the OT an atonement did not remove sin like Jesus blood does, but it merely covered sins until Jesus actually shed His blood! That is why OT saints could not go directly to heaven, but had to wait in Paradise/Abrahams Bosom and why NT saints go directly to heaven.

again the "day of atonement" did atone for sin. That does not mean they removed sin, but it covered them, it atoned for sin, and they could be forgiven "And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. (Leviticus 4:20)" So sacrifice did forgive sin, albeit temporarily. So my response is this.....why do levitical sacrifice at all? Why not just say a messiah will come and be a sacrifice. And if you believe in him you are saved?