THE "SEVEN DISPENSATIONS" VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE

[Steve Schwenke]

So, if we are to use Abraham's tithe as a principle, then we are to

1. Tithe of the booty we obtain any time we go to war
2. Tithe to a king of a pagan land who has a Sodomite as his ambassador.
3. Give the remaining 90% of the booty to that Sodomite.

I'll put that on my to-do list.

1. Why do you continue to evade Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7? These Scriptures, as well as Genesis 14 identify Melchizedek as "THE PRIEST OF THE MOST HIGH GOD."
2. The rest of your objections are knee-jerk reactions....The principle is that Abraham gave 10% to GOD'S PRIEST. Period. That is all I need to know. Hebrews 7 is PAINFULLY CLEAR, but you would rather split hairs about the specifics of the OT Law, and Genesis 14. Suit yourself...you are firing blanks. We are not discussing the specifics...only the general principle of what God expects when it comes to giving....and I say 10% is a good place to start.

[Steve Schwenke]

Since the "will a man rob God" thread has been revived, can we keep this thread for the original purpose?

Also, could anyone possibly answer my question in the Rapture thread with regards to Dr.Jeremiah and his teaching on pre-trib/pre-mil?

Thank you!!!

Sorry we got derailed...I bear some blame on that.
I don't listen to Dr. Jeremiah....he is a Bible corrector. He can't offer anything beyond Ryrie.

[John81]

Sorry we got derailed...I bear some blame on that.
I don't listen to Dr. Jeremiah....he is a Bible corrector. He can't offer anything beyond Ryrie.

I'm not sure what you mean "can't offer anything beyond Ryrie". I found Dr. Jeremiah's explanation of pre-trib/pre-mil to be easy to follow and as biblically sound as any I've ever heard. What I have read of Ryrie seemed rather confusing, and especially what I read in one section he put out it almost seemed like in the end he couldn't make up his mind.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

1. Why do you continue to evade Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7? These Scriptures, as well as Genesis 14 identify Melchizedek as "THE PRIEST OF THE MOST HIGH GOD."
2. The rest of your objections are knee-jerk reactions....The principle is that Abraham gave 10% to GOD'S PRIEST. Period. That is all I need to know. Hebrews 7 is PAINFULLY CLEAR, but you would rather split hairs about the specifics of the OT Law, and Genesis 14. Suit yourself...you are firing blanks. We are not discussing the specifics...only the general principle of what God expects when it comes to giving....and I say 10% is a good place to start.

I am not evading either Psalm 110 or Hebrews 7. The fact remains that this Melchizedek that Abram gave tithes to does not appear at all to be a Christophany. Both he and the king of Sodom went out to meet Abram. Abram gives 10% of the spoils of war to Melchizedek. Abram is not seen to praise Melchizedek, not even a "Blessed is Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God". But Melchizedek, on the other hand, salutes Abram with "Blessed be Abram of the most High God. Melchizedek brings bread and wine to Abram. All Abram has for this earthly king is 10% of what doesn't even belong to him. Abram then turns and gives the remaining 90% of the spoils (except for Lot and the food already eaten) to the pagan king of Sodom. Who got the greater praise in this picture? The king of Sodom, who got much, much more given to him than Melchizedek.

From tithing-russkelly.com:

As documented in the first chapter, tithing did not originate in the Bible (and nobody claims that it did). It was a well-known pagan practice from Phoenicia, Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia and lands around the Fertile Crescent. It was a mandatory customary tax to a pagan god or ruler. The Roman Empire continued this tradition by requiring its defeated subject nations, like Israel, to return the spoil of the first tithe of the land to them! From a comparison of discussions of verse 21, Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek was in obedience to this old Arab war ­ custom and was not a command from Yahweh. Evidently, the Arab war custom specified that ten percent of the spoils of war be given to the local priest-king, while the ninety percent belonged to the victor.

Abraham was OBLIGATED to pay a special one-time tithe-tax of the spoils of war. While those spoils usually belonged to an enemy, in this case, they belonged to Melchizedek’s ally, ambassador-friend, and possible subject, the king of Sodom (and those he represented).

Abram was obligated to pay to Melchizedek a tithe of the spoils of war. It was not because of a love for Melchizedek, but rather because of an Arab custom.

The fact that the pagan's had one they called their "most high god" and the fact that there is no indication that Abram addressed Melchizedek as priest of the Lord Most High, but Melchizedek spoke such of Abram speaks volums.

I stand by my original convictions as to who and what Melchizedek was.

[Brother Rick]

So, if we are to use Abraham's tithe as a principle, then we are to

1. Tithe of the booty-

Haha... he said "booty."

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Yes, booty.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [A-J]
booty
BOOT'Y, n.

1. Spoil taken from an enemy in war; plunder; pillage.

2. That which is seized by violence and r

ob

bery.

To play booty is to play dishonestly with an intent to lose.

[Steve Schwenke]

I'm not sure what you mean "can't offer anything beyond Ryrie". I found Dr. Jeremiah's explanation of pre-trib/pre-mil to be easy to follow and as biblically sound as any I've ever heard. What I have read of Ryrie seemed rather confusing, and especially what I read in one section he put out it almost seemed like in the end he couldn't make up his mind.

John, first of all, I don't listen to Dr. Jeremiah. There is absolutely no power in the preaching or teaching of these Bible Correctors.
Secondly, there is a progression of knowledge to some degree or another. In my opinion, Larkin has the absolute best teaching on dispensationalism available. The only person who has surpassed Larkin is Dr. Ruckman (again, my opinion...). Scofield and Larkin are fairly close on most things, but Larkin put the effort into writing his monumental book, while Scofield put out his reference Bible.
If I remember my dispesational lineage correctly, Lewis Sperry Chafer learned from Scofield, and then Ryrie studied under Chafer. (Chafer founded Dallas Theological Seminary.) Waloord studied under Ryrie. Dake borrowed heavily from Scofield and Larkin.
Who knows were David Jeremiah got his material from....but my guess would be a combination of Scofield-Chafer-Ryrie.

Anyway, that is neither here-nor-there. They all copy from each other, and none of the modern day teachers (like MacArthur, Jeremiah, etc.) have anything of value to add that Larkin didn't cover in is book "Dispensational Truth."

[Steve Schwenke]

Standing Firm - my response is posted on "Robbing God" thread to allow the others to continue to get back on topic...

[Guest]

John, first of all, I don't listen to Dr. Jeremiah. There is absolutely no power in the preaching or teaching of these Bible Correctors.
Secondly, there is a progression of knowledge to some degree or another. In my opinion, Larkin has the absolute best teaching on dispensationalism available. The only person who has surpassed Larkin is Dr. Ruckman (again, my opinion...). Scofield and Larkin are fairly close on most things, but Larkin put the effort into writing his monumental book, while Scofield put out his reference Bible.
If I remember my dispesational lineage correctly, Lewis Sperry Chafer learned from Scofield, and then Ryrie studied under Chafer. (Chafer founded Dallas Theological Seminary.) Waloord studied under Ryrie. Dake borrowed heavily from Scofield and Larkin.
Who knows were David Jeremiah got his material from....but my guess would be a combination of Scofield-Chafer-Ryrie.

Anyway, that is neither here-nor-there. They all copy from each other, and none of the modern day teachers (like MacArthur, Jeremiah, etc.) have anything of value to add that Larkin didn't cover in is book "Dispensational Truth."

I prefer to do my Bible study as independently as possible. I have Larkin's book "Rightly Dividing The Word" I wonder if I should get a copy of "Dispensational Truth" before I begin my study of Eschatology? I would only use it as a reference and only if required. What's your recommendation on Larkin's book?

[Covenanter]

John:
I prefer to do my Bible study as independently as possible. Amen!! I have Larkin's book "Rightly Dividing The Word" I wonder if I should get a copy of "Dispensational Truth" before I begin my study of Eschatology? I would only use it as a reference and only if required. What's your recommendation on Larkin's book?

The problem with those books is that they are written with a disp paradigm, so cannot help with rightly dividing.

In the various threads I have challenged the disp paradigm from the Word only. The great error they all make is the refusal to understand the OT Scriptures by the NT. You CANNOT develop dispensationalism if you give priority to the teaching of Jesus & the Apostles.

[LindaR]

I may have posted this in another thread on Dispensationalism ...but here it is again:

An excellent book on the comparison of Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology is a book written by Dr. Renald E. Showers:

"There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison Of Covenant and Dispensational Theology". Copyright © 1990 by The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc.

[John81]

John, first of all, I don't listen to Dr. Jeremiah. There is absolutely no power in the preaching or teaching of these Bible Correctors.
Secondly, there is a progression of knowledge to some degree or another. In my opinion, Larkin has the absolute best teaching on dispensationalism available. The only person who has surpassed Larkin is Dr. Ruckman (again, my opinion...). Scofield and Larkin are fairly close on most things, but Larkin put the effort into writing his monumental book, while Scofield put out his reference Bible.
If I remember my dispesational lineage correctly, Lewis Sperry Chafer learned from Scofield, and then Ryrie studied under Chafer. (Chafer founded Dallas Theological Seminary.) Waloord studied under Ryrie. Dake borrowed heavily from Scofield and Larkin.
Who knows were David Jeremiah got his material from....but my guess would be a combination of Scofield-Chafer-Ryrie.

Anyway, that is neither here-nor-there. They all copy from each other, and none of the modern day teachers (like MacArthur, Jeremiah, etc.) have anything of value to add that Larkin didn't cover in is book "Dispensational Truth."

I understand what you were trying to say.

What I was referring to was the pre-trib/pre-mil view, not dispensationalism. Whatever his faults or weaknesses, Dr. Jeremiah laid out a very reasonable and seemingly biblically sound case for pre-trib/pre-mil that I've not encountered with other authors/pastors.

[John81]

The problem with those books is that they are written with a disp paradigm, so cannot help with rightly dividing.

In the various threads I have challenged the disp paradigm from the Word only. The great error they all make is the refusal to understand the OT Scriptures by the NT. You CANNOT develop dispensationalism if you give priority to the teaching of Jesus & the Apostles.

This has been a difficulty in studying some such things. Many books begin with holding a particular view and then proceed to see how they can prove their view. It's far more difficult to find books which simply begin with Scripture, examine what Scripture has to say, and then look and see how that does or does not fit with various views on the matter.

For instance, if one really wants to learn about President Obama, it would do little good to study only what is written by the Democratic National Committee. We already know what they want us to think and that they will write in a manner to lead us there. Better to search out sources that are factual based, not biased based.

That said, once a thorough study has been done and the biblical foundation discovered, it can be helpful to read some of the other material for various reasons.

[Steve Schwenke]

I prefer to do my Bible study as independently as possible. I have Larkin's book "Rightly Dividing The Word" I wonder if I should get a copy of "Dispensational Truth" before I begin my study of Eschatology? I would only use it as a reference and only if required. What's your recommendation on Larkin's book?

I highly recommend it. It has much more than just "dispensational" items in it.
It is basically an expanded version of "Rightly dividing the word" with tons more info and much better charts and outlines.
Of course, Larkin is a man and has some bad things in it. He corrects the KJV a couple of times, and teaches the "Nebular hypothesis" theory. Just use the old axiom "Eat the chicken and throw away the bones."

There is a free online version of it here for your perusal:
http://www.preservedwords.com/

[Steve Schwenke]

This has been a difficulty in studying some such things. Many books begin with holding a particular view and then proceed to see how they can prove their view. It's far more difficult to find books which simply begin with Scripture, examine what Scripture has to say, and then look and see how that does or does not fit with various views on the matter.

For instance, if one really wants to learn about President Obama, it would do little good to study only what is written by the Democratic National Committee. We already know what they want us to think and that they will write in a manner to lead us there. Better to search out sources that are factual based, not biased based.

That said, once a thorough study has been done and the biblical foundation discovered, it can be helpful to read some of the other material for various reasons.

I understand what you were trying to say.

What I was referring to was the pre-trib/pre-mil view, not dispensationalism. Whatever his faults or weaknesses, Dr. Jeremiah laid out a very reasonable and seemingly biblically sound case for pre-trib/pre-mil that I've not encountered with other authors/pastors.

OK