You Will Eat Your Dispensations and You Will Like Them!

[Brother Rick]

I’m hearing more and more about people who claim to be “non-dispensational”. From time to time, I can’t help but think that maybe well established truths become stale to some and they have to come up with something new or “out of the box”. Whether or not this is the heart motive of those that claim to be non-dispensational or not, I don’t know, but I’ve personally seen the mess that people get into when they do not apply the command to rightly divide the scriptures.
Before we jump into the prOBlems of being non-dispensational, let’s clear up some common misconceptions about dispensationalism:

Common Misconceptions about Dispensationalism

1. Dispensationalism Teaches Multiple Plans of Salvation

I have been in Baptist churches all over this country and in a few in other countries as well. Dispensations in its purest form have nothing to do with how people were saved before Christ and after the Rapture. There are many believers that teach dispensations and believe everyone was and ever will be saved the same way, regardless of what dispensation they are in. There are also many who believe otherwise as well. Regardless, dispensationalism is not limited to believing a certain prescribed form of “multiple plans of salvation”, that is just another study along with many others that may overlap the study of dispensations.

2. Dispensationalism Teaches That We Only Read the Pauline Epistles

True dispensationalists believe that the entire Bible can apply to us one way or another and that we should read it and study it. At the same time, a dispensationalist understands that there are passages that do not apply to us doctrinally and to try to apply them would be to mishandle the word of God.
I am not a Calvinist, but I recognize the fact that there is such a thing as Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists. A Hyper-Calvinist takes the teaching to the extreme of not bothering to witness to anyone; a Calvinist believes the five points of T.U.L.I.P., but thankfully he just doesn’t act like he believes them (click here to read my articles on Calvinism). A Hyper-Dispensationalist is the person that only studies the Pauline epistles, among other things.

3. Dispensationalists Teach That God’s Grace Only Applies to People Today.

Nothing could be further from the truth. NOBody stands a chance without God’s grace being involved in their life, be it past, present, or future.

4. Dispensations Are Just Some People’s Way of Explaining Things They Don’t Understand.

No, dispensations are the logical way of explaining why God would tell one person one thing in the Bible, and another person 1,000 years later the complete opposite. Without a working understanding of dispensations, you won’t know what to believe.


Click Here For Entire Article

Edited October 7, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[Covenanter]

I’m hearing more and more about people who claim to be “non-dispensational”. From time to time, I can’t help but think that maybe well established truths become stale to some and they have to come up with something new or “out of the box”. Whether or not this is the heart motive of those that claim to be non-dispensational or not, I don’t know, but I’ve personally seen the mess that people get into when they do not apply the command to rightly divide the scriptures.

I can only find one time dispensation in the Bible. - the dispensation of the fulness of times. The other 3 references to dispensation refer to Paul's stewardship & ministry.

Rightly dividing the word of truth does not imply carving it up into dispensations, but right instruction from the word. The translators recognised two divisions - the Old & New Testaments, and the New is the fulfilment of the Old.

Covenant theology is the way forward. Our Lord makes it clear that that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. Hebrews further shows that the just shall live by faith: & proceeds to show exactly how the OT believers lived by faith, as we must.

The everlasting covenant in the blood of Jesus is prefigured in the OT sacrifices & fulfilled at Calvary. It is the only saving covenant.

Hbr 13:20 ¶ Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Dispensationalism is an invention, a word to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers - & teachers.

[John81]

When looking at the history of Christianity various views on various topics come to the fore and fall to the back over time in cycles. This can be seen with regards to dispensationalism as well. Looking at this it can be seen there have been times when this was not a common teaching.

[Brother Rick]

I can only find one time dispensation in the Bible. - the dispensation of the fulness of times. The other 3 references to dispensation refer to Paul's stewardship & ministry.

Rightly dividing the word of truth does not imply carving it up into dispensations, but right instruction from the word. The translators recognised two divisions - the Old & New Testaments, and the New is the fulfilment of the Old.

Covenant theology is the way forward. Our Lord makes it clear that that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. Hebrews further shows that the just shall live by faith: & proceeds to show exactly how the OT believers lived by faith, as we must.

The everlasting covenant in the blood of Jesus is prefigured in the OT sacrifices & fulfilled at Calvary. It is the only saving covenant.

Hbr 13:20 ¶ Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Dispensations is a perfectly fine form of studying the Bible, as is studying it by the Covenants. The point of the article was not to besmearch Covenant Theology, but rather to encourage people to rightly divide the Bible one way or another. There are many who try to apply the whole thing to themselves doctrinally and it just doesn't work.

Dispensationalism is an invention, a word to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers - & teachers.

Then why did you quote it as being a specific time period in Eph. 1:10? You're overreacting, brother.

[Covenanter]

Dispensations is a perfectly fine form of studying the Bible, as is studying it by the Covenants. The point of the article was not to besmearch Covenant Theology, but rather to encourage people to rightly divide the Bible one way or another. There are many who try to apply the whole thing to themselves doctrinally and it just doesn't work.

Are you distinguishing "dispensations" from Scofield dispensationalism? The trouble is that that infidel (who abandoned his wife & children, & rOBbed his m-i-l, & so denied the faith) has had a profound influence on the Bible colleges, so that even those who do not use the Scofield Bible (so-called) have been taught Scofeld dispensationalism.



Then why did you quote it as being a specific time period in Eph. 1:10? You're overreacting, brother.

We must use words in a Biblical way. We also need a framework for studying Scripture, or we will be confused like the Judaizers. Some today teach that the Old Covenant is valid for the Jews & that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem & acceptable animal sacrifices offered again. They are even breeding red heifers.

So, Paul teaches a glorious dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him: which is the NH&NE. The other references to dispensation show that we are in a "dispensation of grace" & we agree that salvation is only by grace in every "dispensation." Not least Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD thus spanning two of Scofield's dispensations - conscience & human government - with a dispensation of grace.

Scofield agrees with me but makes some extraordinary statements that we must absolutely reject. (Underlined statements.)

That is incredibly false "logic." The wonderful promise if ye will OBey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: is perverted as at Sinai they exchanged grace for law.

And, of course, the sojourn in Egypt was the fulfilment of the prophecy & promise to Abraham, & the divine reason for Joseph being sold into Egypt. As Stephen declared: when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, 18 Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.

We can, of course, see God dealing with his people & the nations throughout Bible history & assign different names to the time period, but "dispensationalism" is not the way.

[irishman]

I pass on this one!

[John81]

One of the things that's always amazed me is how folks today who stand upon so much of what Scofield put forth but wouldn't have anything to do with a person like Scofield living today.

Scofield lived a life inconsistent with Scripture and put forth views inconsistent with Scripture yet so many fundamental and conservative Christians latched onto the Bible bearing his name (even though so many denounce man having his name lifted up).

Why the double standard with regards to Scofield and Calvin, for example, and others?

Narrowing back to dispensationalism, there can be some merit to studying Scripture in a certain dispensational manner but far too many take dispensationalism to great extremes and try to add what Scripture doesn't declare.

[Brother Rick]

Narrowing back to dispensationalism, there can be some merit to studying Scripture in a certain dispensational manner but far too many take dispensationalism to great extremes and try to add what Scripture doesn't declare.

I agree, I have no idea why there is such an uproar against Scofield in this thread. I never even quoted or mentioned him; I did put a picture of a Larkin chart at the bottom, but that's it. I hope Larkin isn't a bad guy too, I don't know about his character, but his books helped me understand some basic principles when I was younger but I haven't gone through his life or teachings with a fine tooth comb.

There is a lot of merit to studying the Bible and recognizing that there are different dispensations, ages, time periods, covenants, etc. Rightly dividing is the most important thing to do when studying the Bible. I'm seeing first hand what happens when people do not.

I have some friends who are all fouled up because they don't know which side is up when it comes to the Bible. They're trying to OBey Old Testament dietary laws and Sabbath keeping, and that's just the beginning of it. If they just were able to grasp a simple concept of the difference between the Law and the Church Age, they wouldn't be fouled up. They're reactionary against any form of rightly dividing, because someone got to them when they were baby Christians and told them all the supposed "evils" of dispensationalism, and as a result, like I said, they're trying to live under the law today.

I wrote this article out of the heart to minister and help people like that, not to argue about the morals of a man who died nearly a hundred years ago. Edited October 8, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[JerryNumbers]

Rapture is not used in the Bible. Trinity is not used in the Bible. Yet both of these words describe something in the Bible perfectly, so you saying the word

The word Dispensation is not found in the Bible, yet it, like the two words about, describes something from the Bible perfectly.

The sad part if the way some people use Dispensation, of course that should be of no surprise, for there be many that have distorted the truth of the Bible down through the ages

So Covenanter's reasoning if of no effect.

[Covenanter]

The word Dispensation is not found in the Bible, yet it describes something from the Bible perfectly.
You haven't looked very carefully, nor have you read my posts. Which translation do you use?

The sad part if is the way some people use Dispensation, of course that should be of no surprise, for there be many that have distorted the truth of the Bible down through the ages
There we can agree.

[Covenanter]

I agree, I have no idea why there is such an uproar against Scofield in this thread. Scofield's concept of dispensationalism is widely accepted, whether he is mentioned or not.

There is a lot of merit to studying the Bible and recognizing that there are different dispensations, ages, time periods, covenants, etc. Rightly dividing is the most important thing to do when studying the Bible. I'm seeing first hand what happens when people do not.

Agreed. Systematic Bible study, comparing & relating Scriptures, particularly how the OT is used by the NT writers is extremely valuable.

I have some friends who are all fouled up because they don't know which side is up when it comes to the Bible. They're trying to OBey Old Testament dietary laws and Sabbath keeping, and that's just the beginning of it. If they just were able to grasp a simple concept of the difference between the Law and the Church Age, they wouldn't be fouled up. They're reactionary against any form of rightly dividing, because someone got to them when they were baby Christians and told them all the supposed "evils" of dispensationalism, and as a result, like I said, they're trying to live under the law today.

I won't argue with that either. Not just dispensationalism - supposed evils of covenant theology, creationism, calvinism, independence, musical instruments in worship, the charismatic movement, politics ...

The Lord Jesus Christ himself, & our relationship with him must be the primary focus. New Christians are susceptible to the first teaching they get - they are eager to learn - & sadly if that teaching is bad, it still sticks with them. Often they are not converted in a sound Gospel church, but in a situation where they have heard the word & believed.


I wrote this article out of the heart to minister and help people like that, not to argue about the morals of a man who died nearly a hundred years ago.

The title of your thread does not indicate that aim. It is deliberately controversial.

[John81]

I have some friends who are all fouled up because they don't know which side is up when it comes to the Bible. They're trying to OBey Old Testament dietary laws and Sabbath keeping, and that's just the beginning of it. If they just were able to grasp a simple concept of the difference between the Law and the Church Age, they wouldn't be fouled up. They're reactionary against any form of rightly dividing, because someone got to them when they were baby Christians and told them all the supposed "evils" of dispensationalism, and as a result, like I said, they're trying to live under the law today.

I wrote this article out of the heart to minister and help people like that, not to argue about the morals of a man who died nearly a hundred years ago.

It sounds like your friends would do well to read and study the New Testament thoroughly, leaving aside the Old Testament until they grasp the New Testament.

One prOBlem many new believers have, and this can extend to some who are not so new, is the tendency to begin reading in the Old Testament, reading the law and such and out of a sincere desire to follow God, they try to keep these, not knowing better.

This is certainly another of the many reasons we are told in Scripture to make disciples, not converts. All new and immature believers need discipling.

Without being specifically guided to read and study the New Testament, many new believers grab their Bible and start at the beginning like they would with any other book. Without a foundation in the New Testament it's very easy to believe being a Christian following God means one has to follow the Old Testament laws.

Of course we can't keep the law and oftentimes new believers become very discouraged when they try so hard in their own strength to keep the law and fail.

We need to point new and immature believers to the New Testament and disciple them if we can.

[Brother Rick]

The title of your thread does not indicate that aim. It is deliberately controversial.

Hahaha... not really brother, at least that wasn't my intention! I just try to put a little bit of humor in my titles sometimes, as well as the pictures. The joy of the Lord is our strength, and a merry heart doeth good like a medicine! Did you read the article? At least look at the pictures, you might get a kick out them.

[Covenanter]

Hahaha... not really brother, at least that wasn't my intention! I just try to put a little bit of humor in my titles sometimes, as well as the pictures. The joy of the Lord is our strength, and a merry heart doeth good like a medicine! Did you read the article? At least look at the pictures, you might get a kick out them.

From my childhood memories of spinach, your dispensations will get splattered all around - & will not be digested, nor appreciated. Edited October 9, 2010 by Covenanter

[Covenanter]

My earlier replies were without reading the article - only your OP. I have scanned it now, & broadly agree with

1. Defer to the New Testament Over the Old Testament
Many times God changed things when going from the Old Testament to the New Testament. This should be abundantly clear when reading Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In such cases, defer to the New Testament.

In particular, keep the Hebrew epistle high in your thoughts as you read the OT. He makes it very clear that the Old Covenant is OBsolete. Paul makes it clear the the experiences of the people of Israel should be used as examples & warnings. (1 Cor. 10)

When you say

2. Defer to the Pauline Epistles Over the Rest of the New Testament

"I would say, 2. Defer to the Epistles Over the Rest of the New Testament."

Right - we are working from general agreement ... I'll post this & post again.