What is "non-dispensational"??

[Guest Guest]

I just saw an IFB church's statement of faith that claimed to be "non-dispensational", and now I can't figure out what it means exactly. Everyone knows that there are "dispensations"... different ways God dealt with people at different times, so how can someone claim to believe the King James Bible and be "non-dispensational", unless I'm not understanding the definition of the word?

(this is not a topic on Dispensational Truth.... so I don't intend for it to become a discussion about that, I just want to know what "non-dispensational" means... if anyone here knows)

[John81]

Actually, not all professing Christians agree with the idea of Dispensations.

[PreacherBen]

Some would say that God has always, and always will deal with humanity the same way...salvation by grace, through faith, in the finished work of Christ. O.T. would do this by looking forward to what Christ would do that was typified in the O.T. sacrifices and ceremonies, we do it by looking at what he did do on Calvary as will everyone in the future until God does away with sin ultimately.

Dispensationalism is "A" way of interpreting the Bible, but not particularly everyones way. Make sense?

Bro. Ben

[Anon]

We pretty much believe in dispensations as sort of a historical dividing line but not really to the point of changing theology depending on what era you lived in. There were different ways of going about things in different dispensations, but salvation was basically the same...Faith in the Messiah/Jesus.

I think if an IFB is non-dispensational it would be a semantics thing, as a knee jerk to hyper dispensationalists...because everyone would have to agree on the different historical periods, whether or not they called them "dispensations".

[Danny Carlton]

In my experience there is a distinct difference between acknowledge a division of scripture (the dispensations) and the teachings of (capital "D") Displensationalism. Many (capital "D") Dispensationalists go too far in their intepritation of prophecy and assign specific details when the Bible is obviously vague about something. That becomes a danger because it weakens one of the core principles behind good theology, which is a logical approach to what the Bible says and doesn't say.

A good test to see if someone is a Dispensationalist rather than simply someone who believes in dispensations, is to ask them who the two witnesses inRevelations will be. (capital "D") Dispensationalists will quickly and adamantly reply that they will be Elijah and Moses. But Revelations never gives any identity to them other than a general and vague description.

[Anon]

Hmmm I'm not a "Dispensationalist" per se but I believe the Bible references enough info to assume the two witnesses may very well be Moses and Elijah...however that is another thread.

[Jerry]

I believed the two witnesses were Elijah and Moses based on the descriptions given - and because Elijah and Moses were the only only Biblically and historically to fulfill all the things mentioned about the two witnesses (ie. the descriptions given are not just indicating what these witnesses will do - but like any other person or symbol in the book of Revelation - refer back to those two who already had similar ministries) - before I ever heard of dispensationalism. The only thing being a dispensationalist reinforces in regards to the witnesses is the fact that they are the two main spokespersons for the OT (Moses representing the Law and Elijah representing the prophets), and that they were both spiritual leaders in Israel (whereas Enoch was a gentile).

[Anon]

Plus the mount of transfiguration...and there is a description of the witnesses that seems to fit those two personalities the best in Revelation.

[Guest Guest]

We pretty much believe in dispensations as sort of a historical dividing line but not really to the point of changing theology depending on what era you lived in. There were different ways of going about things in different dispensations, but salvation was basically the same...Faith in the Messiah/Jesus.

I think if an IFB is non-dispensational it would be a semantics thing, as a knee jerk to hyper dispensationalists...because everyone would have to agree on the different historical periods, whether or not they called them "dispensations".

Ok, that really makes sense right there! I think you got it with the semantics thing... that seems to be the only reason an IFB would claim to be completely "non-dispensational". It's probably a lack of understanding of the word. I've looked into the "Dispensationalism" subject enough to know that almost every IFB would be a Dispensationalist - just in different ways. :smile

(I saw somewhere on another board, while I was googling the word "non-dispensational", that they don't believe in Dispensations because a Dispensationalist believes the promises given to Israel don't apply to the Church. So... if you believe that Israel and the Church are separate, you're a "Dispensationalist"!)

[Baruch]

On 1/21/2008 at 5:39 AM, PreacherBen said:

Some would say that God has always, and always will deal with humanity the same way...salvation by grace, through faith, in the finished work of Christ. O.T. would do this by looking forward to what Christ would do that was typified in the O.T. sacrifices and ceremonies, we do it by looking at what he did do on Calvary as will everyone in the future until God does away with sin ultimately.

Dispensationalism is "A" way of interpreting the Bible, but not particularly everyones way. Make sense?

Bro. Ben

This could not be entirely accurate since Christ had not died and rose again. In the Old Testament under the law works were required for atonement, and in the New Testament Jesus performed all the work, and we are saved by God's grace through faith in Christ alone, no works involved. So even though old testament saints were looking ahead to the true sacrifice, they had to perform works for their salvation/atonement. Therefore they were in a different dispensation than the church.

 

On 1/21/2008 at 8:48 AM, Anon said:

We pretty much believe in dispensations as sort of a historical dividing line but not really to the point of changing theology depending on what era you lived in. There were different ways of going about things in different dispensations, but salvation was basically the same...Faith in the Messiah/Jesus.

I think if an IFB is non-dispensational it would be a semantics thing, as a knee jerk to hyper dispensationalists...because everyone would have to agree on the different historical periods, whether or not they called them "dispensations".

O.T. saints could not have been saved by faith in Jesus because the messiah had not be formerly announced by name. This was first revealed to Mary the mother of Jesus, and affirmed by God when Jesus was baptized. So, in the O.T. they were saved by faith in the God of Abraham, and not in Jesus name, although Jesus is a member of Trinity.

 

On 1/19/2008 at 8:43 PM, Guest Guest said:

I just saw an IFB church's statement of faith that claimed to be "non-dispensational", and now I can't figure out what it means exactly. Everyone knows that there are "dispensations"... different ways God dealt with people at different times, so how can someone claim to believe the King James Bible and be "non-dispensational", unless I'm not understanding the definition of the word?

(this is not a topic on Dispensational Truth.... so I don't intend for it to become a discussion about that, I just want to know what "non-dispensational" means... if anyone here knows)

Dispensations can't be denied. Yes, God's grace abounds through the bible. However He dealt with man differently during the time of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, then in the New Testament Jesus stated He can specifically for the Jews. After the Pentecost things change, and the Apostle Paul came on the scene with the message of salvation through God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Throughout all dispensations God's grace abounded, the difference is that in the old testament man had to do works, in the new testament Christ did all the work for us. So obtaining salvation through all dispensations have been different. For Adam and Eve it was not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For Noah it was building the Ark, for Moses it was obedient to the Law, for the Jews during Christ's ministry it was to believe on the name of Christ and to be baptized, for the church under Paul's ministry it is faith in Christ alone.

[Jerry]

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Romans 4:3-8 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Genesis 15:6 is quoted in Romans, in the NT - showing that salvation is the same in both Testaments. Galatians and Romans are both excellent for showing that the OT Law was to show people their need of the Saviour BECAUSE IT PROVED THAT NO ONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD COULD FULFILL THE LAW 100%, which was the requirement if someone desired to be saved by the Law. Otherwise, they were under the curse of the Law. Good thing Jesus bore our curse and paid our full debt!

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Jesus said on the cross before He died that It is finished. If anyone every tried to work their way to Heaven and did not trust in Christ's finished work - whether looking forward from the first sin or backwards to the cross of Christ, they are lost and condemned.

Salvation has always been by grace through faith in the Messiah and the work He would do to die/pay for our sins, with no works added EVER.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Throughout history, God had different rules for how His people were to live (which is what the word dispensation literally means - house rules, rules for that period of time), which differed depending upon when they lived - BUT only one plan of salvation.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Jerry

[Hugh_Flower]

Hmm, Jerry when you mean Salvation, are we also talking about Jews going into Abraham’s bosom? Cause going into there I would disagree…  But being freed from there, into Heaven, I would agree is Jesus Christ giving them salvation. 
 

Only reason I say this - Jews had no way of Knowing who/why they would be free other than knowing that their Lord their God is a loving God that wants to be with them. But the actual work of being liberated from this place of death would of had to of been by Christ.

Psalm 18 for reference.

 

[Jerry]

I was referring to what the Gospel is before Christ and since Christ, and you are referring to Abraham's Bosom?

Anyway, ALL people who died went to the OT version of Hell - the waiting compartment in the earth. ONLY the righteous** went to the part of it that was called Abraham's Bosom/Paradise, the lost went to the other part across the big gulf where they suffer and await being resurrected to stand for judgement at the Great White Throne Judgement.

**A person could only be righteous by believing in the Messiah and the work that He would do (or looking back, the work that He did) of redemption.

[MikeWatson1]

Common with dispensationalists is to have the church starting at Pentecost, and salvation by grace through faith in Jesus not happening until  that point.  

It's the very common belief that the body of Christ is the same thing as the Family of God.. that the body of Christ is all redeemed.  This leads to the 'Church' which is meant to be all redeemed.. starting at Pentecost.   

I would contend the body of Christ is a small c church.  All redeemed.. is in the Family of God.. and is no church at all until finally assembled at the end.  It can't be unassembled and be a church. Not yet.

OT believers they have a different way of salvation for.  And I don't know what they do with the disciples.. or like what they do in relegating Jesus' work with the disciples as a real church.. to not be part of the 'Church' so called.

In saying this-- just the term dispensations can be used for the bible.. as God has dealt differently with people in various times thru the bible that can be divided up for understanding the bible.

 

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by MikeWatson1

[Jerry]

There are MANY dispensationalists that believe salvation has always been by grace through faith in the Messiah - the level of knowledge has differed, but since the first sacrifice offered in the Garden of Eden, all true believers have believed in a Substitute who would pay for their sins one day.