Bible "Dispensations" Examined Biblically

This may be taken in the wrong spirit with some in this group here but I will tell you what I did for a good while - stayed away from study Bibles for a real long time. I'm serious. I used to read a lot from Bibles like Thompson Chain Reference, Zondervan, etc., but found that they would often lead me astray in interpretation. BTW, I would even say things like paragraph divisions, paragraph titles (I am certainly ready to give examples of all these, if interested), and capitalizations also often can be great misleaders.

I guess I wouldn't want to give back my time at BJU, even though I learned some bad theology alongside good Bible training. Personally, I wouldn't recommend Bible school for most people.

Getting back to Study Bibles: I thought "As long I am Reformed I guess I better get a Reformed study Bible." So I got the one from RC Sproul and also read some from MacArthur. But I was surprised to find notes in there that just didn't jive with what I see in Scripture. In the case of MacArthur it was his eschatology; in the case of the other it was all the Covenant Theology trappings that, at one point try as I may, I just couldn't buy.

I know it comes across as pious and a "just-me-and-the-Bible" kind of religion, but spending lots of time in just Bible study, comparing cross-references, praying and reading some more is the way to go. I really do think that that is one of the biggest problems for Christendom today is that strong desire to affiliate with a system, and to seek out a spiritual authority.

 

Maybe you saw something they didn't see. Of course, Sabbatarianism is the textbook antithesis of believing that Christ is the Sabbath. Those who understand this point about the Sabbath can rest in Christ on the Sabbath (as well as the other six), knowing that the Sabbath itself pointed to Christ.

About your first question: All I can think of off-hand is Richard Barcello. He has often written and preached against us "antinomian" NCTers.

 

I guess I should answer the last item first. I hope no one feels offended or belittled when I present my understanding of the truth.

Also, I am not as interested in the sincere efforts of others to understand the truth as I am of the truth itself. For me, personally, I would much prefer being taught the truth from an insincere person than being lulled into staying with the same falsehood by sincerely wrong friends.

That is how I stayed in dispensationalism for twenty years; taught it, preached it - I learned it from good, sincere friends that I looked up to as experts. Many of these I have still kept as friends - just not as mentors.

BTW, I agree with you that "ages" is a better term to use than dispensations. I do believe in Jesus' "this age" and the "age to come", the this age being the Jewish times, the age to come being the church age.

I don't believe in a Millennial reign of 1000 years, requiring God to build again those things which He already had broken down and obsoleted: The middle wall of partition, the Levitical priesthood, laws and ordinances.

 

Thank you, Hank. I am trying to be kind in what I write. And, yes, I know what it is like to have to eat words, so I try to avoid overstating my case - like I seem to have done with Finney having invented the altar call.

I know that some don't like it when someone is sure on things they are either unsure of or adamantly against. But it would be hypocrisy for me to pretend to uncertainty out of misplaced consideration for others. The things I am sure about I present as such. I spent fiften or so years being sure of dispensationalism - then another 10 years in a theological DMZ. Now I am praying for a good run of many years studying, teaching, and writing on these wonderful truths of the doctrines of graces.