Bible "Dispensations" Examined Biblically

Not to hijack the thread, but I find Hodge easier to understand than Berkhof.

 

Send them over, I'll take themoff your hands :wavey:

 

It took these old eyes a while to figure out your moniker [asterisk tom] but I like it! I am sort of partial to some of your posts also!:wavey::thumbsup:

 

No evidence of God changing his dealings with mankind? I beg to differ and I will point out the difference by asking and answering three questions from the Eph 3 text:

• What is the dispensation spoken of in verse 1? It is (vs 6) that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel. The Gentiles and Israel are members of one body. The Gentiles and Israel share together in the promise of Jesus Christ.
• How did Paul know of this dispensation? It was given to him by specific divine revelation. Note also what Paul says about his revelation in Galations 1: “…the gospel I preach is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”.
• On what basis does one say that this revelation to Paul is new? Because Paul describes it as such. Note Eph 3:5: the revelation “was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

So this dispensation is a new revelation; never given before; never understood before; whose result—the union of Jew and Gentile into one body—has never been seen before. Yet you see no evidence of God changing his dealings with mankind.

But, even given this argument, the "fullness of time" is distinct dispensationally from what preceded it. A change in the way God dealt with men occurred when Jesus came. The law preceded Christ, but grace and truth came from Christ. This is a differenct stewardship for man. Prior to Christ, man was responsible to keep God's law. After the coming of Christ, the demand of God upon men is that they "believe the Son whom He has sent".

 

A lot of folks find comfort or solace by conforming with hoi polloi. Few actually 'think outside of the box'.

 

........I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world. Mt 13:35

which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; Eph 3:5

There's nothing new about any of the spiritual tenets of the New Covenant. They're new only because the mysteries had not been heretofore revealed until the time came for the removal of the old; i.e. '...the removing of those things that are shaken.....that those things which are not shaken may remain.'; 'In that He saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old...'.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb 13:8

 

This is something even a child understands, but may not understand that they understood!

My 6 year old remarked the other day that his favorite part of the Bible is how Jesus saved the people during the flood. He could not be more correct! :jesus:

 

When I pulled a book out and showed my three year old pictures of Abraham Lincoln, the pictures were not new, but they were new to him because he'd never seen them before.

The fact that New Covenant revelation was not revealed but now is revealed is what makes it new. Of course, nothing is new to God, but when God reveals Himself in a new way by which he had not revealed Himself before, it is new to us. These new revelations (new to man) are the unfolding dispensations.

 

That sounds a little like the hyper dispensationalism of Ituttut.:thumbsup:

 

I believe that the New Covenant is revealed to the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapter 31?

31. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The Apostle Paul thought so since he repeats it in Hebrews, Chapter 8.

 

Amen. This is the main reason why I reject the new doctrine of dispensationalism.

 

First, I hope your not basing your argument as a KJVO would. It sounds like it. The NT was written in Greek, not Shakespearean English.
Secondly, If the word was changed to "period of time," or some other such synonym, would that satisfy you?
Third, as you already inferred, perhaps it was the KJV translators that got it wrong and not the "dispensationalists" in not translating the word correctly.

Dispensationalism as we know it today is a way of looking at the Bible, just as Covenant theology is. If "dispensationalism is wrong, then covenant theology is wrong also. We don't find those two words juxtaposed together in the Bible either. Of course neither the prophets nor the Apostles spoke KJV English, errr...did they? If the KJV was good enough for Paul then is it good enough.....??

 

Ole Ben may be right especially for those who take on dispensationalism right away!!

 

Although I call myself a "dispensationalist" (of sorts), I do not like the term "dispensation". I call my self such out of honesty so people will know where I stand concerning eschatology (or at least a pretty close approximation).

I prefer the term "age" rather than dispensation because the phrase "dispensation" (at least in English) is too limiting and can also be confusing.

e.g. If you eat pork and go to "church" on Sunday rather than the Sabbath you are in the age of Grace and not the Law. This is far wider in scope and implication than a change of "dispensation" or a "new economy".

Same for when Christ comes to rule and reign for 1000 years (assuming the Millenium or Chiliad of Revelation 20 is a literal 1000 years).

Same for the eternal state.

Another thing is that while elements of "dispensationalism" have existed from the early Church (included those convoluted arguments concerning Daniel 2, 7, etc...) many have held some "wild and crazy" ideas.

The fact is that so-called dispensationalism has an intense focus on eschatology which only now seems to be coming into its own much as Trinitarianism developed in the first 3-4 centuries of the church, but unlike Trinitarianism, echatology is still in an undisciplined, unsubdued state even after these nearly 2000 years and far from having the precise dogma and general agreement of Trintarianism.

Personally, I don't belittle the eschatological views of other Christians who are sincerely trying to make sense of "things to come" or "things past (preterists)".

You know, I may be wrong and if I'm nice I won't have to eat so much crow when we meet in the air (or not) .

HankD