95 Theses Against Dispensationalism

[LindaR]

The word "dispensation" means:

Strong's Greek Dictionary
3622. oikonomia

oikonomia oy-kon-om-ee'-ah

from 3623; administration (of a household or estate); specially, a (religious) "economy":--dispensation, stewardship.

It's found in Luke 16:2, 3, & 4, where it is defined as "stewardship"

Luke 16:2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; (oikonomia) for thou mayest be no longer steward.

Luke 16:3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship:(oikonomia) I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.

Luke 16:4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship,(oikonomia) they may receive me into their houses.

In 1 Corinthians 9:17 dispensation means "administration of a house or property management":

1 Corinthians 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation (oikonomia) of the gospel is committed unto me.

In Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 3:2 and Colossians 1:25 "dispensation" means the administration of God's eternal plan.

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation (oikonomia) 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:

Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation (oikonomia) of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation (oikonomia) of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Dispensations are the means of how God "administrates" His plan during different periods of time throughout history.

Edited February 2, 2012 by LindaR

[anime4christ]

Ok, I agree, just I missed the last part in my bible. If I'm a project manager and I tell my subcontractors what to do, can I require the same labor from my cousin who is not a subcontractor and has nothing to do with the project during my time administrating the project? If this question makes no sense, I'd just like to say it's following the principle of dispensationalism which puts everyone under the demands of a dispensation whether or not they are included in a covenant to which the supposed dispensation is loosely linked to.

[anime4christ]

This website is dispensational but the outline for the covenants is pretty good.. http://www.jesuschrist.co.uk/the-word/bible-timeline/bible-timeline-iv-the-covenants/

[2Tim215]

All right, lets get off this word "dispensation" for a bit and look at the Word. We can agree that there are two testaments - the old and the new. We can agree that in these two testaments God had different methods for salvation, one works (and faith) based and one by grace alone (faith) - one based on man, the other on God and eternal - so we have to agree that there are two exceedingly different divisions in the bible placed there by God. Lets look at two more divisions, that between the early NT church and now. Signs and wonders for the Jews and wisdom (The Word) for the Greeks (us). So there are clearly divisions in how, when and the why of God dealing with man.
If we are not taught to rightly "divide" these "divisions" we have many confused Christians and whether we call them dispensations, covenants, divisions or ages makes no difference to the fact that they are there and are there for a specific purpose - that being the revealing of God's methods, character and Glory to man.
Don't you think that we through pride get caught up in our own idea of who is right or wrong, that the devil can lead us into an endless circle of argument (disagreement not war) that leads us away from the truth - I was always taught that a preacher with an agenda to prove ONE point of the Word and not the whole is one to steer clear of. Does it make any difference to ones salvation what we call it? Does it make the Cross any less powerful or take any glory from God what term we use? That there are clear delineations (another term for you to disagree on ) in the Word of God is obvious to any serious bible student regardless of the terminology we use to label them - how we "rightly divide" them is though is the real issue here and that we all need wisdom from God and His Spirit to do so is a thing we should all pray for daily - for ourselves and everyone else - more praying and less disagreeing I think is the answer.

[John81]

The words used is "divide," and it is used for a reason. The Bible you carry is already divided one time between the Old and New Testaments, so you have to believe in at least two dispensations or you need a different book. That's the basic principle, and it's a natural, basic, biblical principle. If you want to be reactionary against it that's on you.

Our pastor said it's wrongly dividing that verse to say it means we are to divide the Word into dispensations when God didn't see fit to do so. The Word is "divided" by God between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. There is no need to try and force more divisions.

There is nothing "reactionary" to holding to the Scripture, as did Spurgeon when he denounced the new theories of dispensationalism put forth by Darby as not being found in Scripture.

[Covenanter]

Our pastor said it's wrongly dividing that verse to say it means we are to divide the Word into dispensations when God didn't see fit to do so. The Word is "divided" by God between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. There is no need to try and force more divisions.

There is nothing "reactionary" to holding to the Scripture, as did Spurgeon when he denounced the new theories of dispensationalism put forth by Darby as not being found in Scripture.

Nice point, John. We are not trying to "correct" the KJV but to rightly understand its teaching.

We had an English lesson about "divide" but I learnt division as arithmetic nearly 70 years ago - we called it "sharing." Division in Scripture needs to be determined by context. Division can be of like - he looked up to heaven, and blessed , and brake the loaves, and gave [them] to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided heKJV^'>3307 among them all. he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves: or unlike - a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats. The KJV'>Blue Letter Bible allows a study of different words & meanings for "divide."

In 2 Tim there are a series of "not-but" contrasts - divisions:

God hath n

ot

given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Be n

ot

thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;

n

ot

according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,

n

ot

only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

must n

ot

strive; but be ge

nt

le;

the time will come when they will n

ot

endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

The single word the Holy Spiirit chooses for "rightly dividing" in 2T2:15 is orthotomeō - 3718 meaning to cut straight. It is not used elsewhere in Scripture, though the root 5114 also occurs once where it is ranslated "sharper":

the word of God [is] quick , and powerful, and sharper

KJV

'>5114

than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joi

nt

s and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and i

nt

e

nt

s of the heart.

There the dividing asunder is KJV'>g3311 μερισμός merismos which is used in one other place:

God also bearing [them] witness , b

ot

h with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts

KJV

'>3311

of the Holy Ghost,

Clearly it is simplistic - & a serious error - to claim that 2T2:15 is a command to divide the Word of truth into lots of dispensations. It is a command to preach it correctly & faithfully so that we will not be ashamed of teaching error & leading our hearers astray. We are to feed them as Jesus fed the 5,000; we are to share the new covenant signs of bread & wine, as Jesus did at the last supper; we are to give them the truth so they will not be deceived but carnal teachers.

[Brother Rick]

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I'm trying to defend what I believe biblical dispensationalism is, which is commonly taught today. I'm not trying to defend anything else. Allow me to illustrate what I mean by true, pratical, biblical dispensationalism:


Is wrong to say that there was a time once when it was okay to marry your sister, but then God said it wasn't?

Is it wrong to say there was once a time in which God was silent about drinking blood, so to do so would have been acceptable, but then after a considerable amount of time He said it was wrong?

Is wrong to say there was a time in which God wanted His kingdom spread by armed combat and in some cases the killing of heathen women and children, but now His kingdom is to be won by the preaching of His word?

Is it wrong to say there was a time when it was a sin to eat half of strip of bacon during breakfast over a campfire on Saturday morning, but now it's just dandy?

Is it wrong to say that there was a time when believers were not supposed to witness to Gentiles, but now we are?

Is it wrong to say there was a time when believers would heal people, perform miracles, and speak in tongues to convince people that the message they were preaching was true, but now they do not?

Is it wrong to say that there will be a time in which the earth is filled with perfect and holy people, but now it is not?

Is it wrong to say there was a time in which if you sinned God expected you to kill something, but now He does not?


No one here would say that it would be wrong to say any of those things. But somehow if I draw a chart on a whiteboard illustrating these changes in the Bible I've done something wrong? That is all that biblical dispensationalism is, and to say that is wrong is just plain foolish. Biblical dispensationalism dovetails wth the natural reading of the Scriptures, and it is simply a tool to help better understand the Bible.

Understanding these things are simply just a part of rightly dividing. Understanding the different covenants in the Bible are as well. Understanding the different testaments, judgments, baptisms, resurrections, etc, are all part of the idea of rightly dividing. As a tool, biblical dispensationalism is not the authority, the Scriptures are the authority. Biblical dispensationalism is no more wrong than having an outline for a message you're about to preach - both are rightly dividing the word for the benefit of the hearer.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Rick Schworer

[Covenanter]

That is no justification for the Darby/Scofield invention that is commonly taught as dispensationalism. In the OT God had many rules for behaviour in the OT. Some stilll apply, & some don't.