Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
reformed baptist

The word 'dispensation' in scripture.

Recommended Posts

I wanted to pick up on a comment made in another thread:

 

The term 'dispensation' is used once in the New Testament. And I'm thinking it was used in context of 'the age of / the period of time of'. As in we're in the 'age' of or dispensation Of 'grace'.

 

in response to that I would say the number of occurrences probably depends on which translation you are using, my main version is the NKJV and it occurs twice in that translation:

 

Eph 1:10 that in the dispensation (οἰκονομία) of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth-- in Him. (NKJ)

 

Eph 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation (οἰκονομία) of the grace of God which was given to me for you, (NKJ)

 

However, if we look at the underlying Greek text we find the word οἰκονομία is used more often then that - in the New Testament it has 9 usages - twice it is translated as dispensation and 5 times as 'stewardship' (Luke 16:2; 3; 4; 1 Cor 9:17; Col 1:25). - there are also a couple of well known textual variants (Eph 3:9 and 1 Tim 1:4).

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\timage.png Views:\t2 Size:\t293.0 KB ID:\t69601","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"69601","data-size":"custom","height":"938","width":"2447"}[/ATTACH]

 

Going back to the LXX.

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\timage.png Views:\t1 Size:\t300.0 KB ID:\t69602","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"69602","data-size":"custom","height":"938","width":"2447"}[/ATTACH]

 

All of this is to say that the sense of 'age' or 'period' of time is alien to the use of the word - it refers to a stewardship or administration (ie management). The scriptures never use the word οἰκονομία to refer to a period of history.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

:RpS_lol: Is that a dispensational chart?

 

All of this is to say that the sense of 'age' or 'period' of time is alien to the use of the word - it refers to a stewardship or administration (ie management). The scriptures never use the word οἰκονομία to refer to a period of history.

 

Are you suggesting that when a dispensationalist says dispensationalism is scriptural and then tries to point to the word dispensation in scripture that they are actually ignoring the meaning of the word?

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Are you suggesting that when a dispensationalist says dispensationalism is scriptural and then tries to point to the word dispensation in scripture that they are actually ignoring the meaning of the word?

 

Would I do such a thing :RpS_lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

 

Would I do such a thing :RpS_lol:

 

I have ran into Dispensationalist that have done exactly what you're pointing out. They went right to the word dispensation in Scripture. I have said it on this forum a couple of times and was ignored. In response to a dispensationalist going to all those passages that uses dispensation I replied, I have no idea as to why dispensationalist are pointing to the word dispensation in Scripture :RpS_bored:

 

If that's the standard by which we measure something biblical I wonder how many times the word "Covenant" is used throughout Scripture?

 

:RpS_lol: Be neat to see a comparison chart between Dispensationalism use of the word dispensation vs Covenant Theology's use of covenant.

 

We can't expect to win this debate without a chart! :RpS_laugh:

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

 

Would I do such a thing :RpS_lol:

 

I have ran into Dispensationalist that have done exactly what you're pointing out. They went right to the word dispensation in Scripture. I have said it on this forum a couple of times and was ignored. In response to a dispensationalist going to all those passages that uses dispensation I replied, I have no idea as to why dispensationalist are pointing to the word dispensation in Scripture :RpS_bored:

 

If that's the standard by which we measure something biblical I wonder how many times the word "Covenant" is used throughout Scripture?

 

:RpS_lol: Be neat to see a comparison chart between Dispensationalism use of the word dispensation vs Covenant Theology's use of covenant.

 

We can't expect to win this debate without a chart! :RpS_laugh:

 

God bless,

William

But Amillenialism is so simple it doesn't need a chart - this age continues until Jesus Christ returns, which begins the age to come - I suppose I could just draw a straight line :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

 

Would I do such a thing :RpS_lol:

 

I have ran into Dispensationalist that have done exactly what you're pointing out. They went right to the word dispensation in Scripture. I have said it on this forum a couple of times and was ignored. In response to a dispensationalist going to all those passages that uses dispensation I replied, I have no idea as to why dispensationalist are pointing to the word dispensation in Scripture :RpS_bored:

 

If that's the standard by which we measure something biblical I wonder how many times the word "Covenant" is used throughout Scripture?

 

:RpS_lol: Be neat to see a comparison chart between Dispensationalism use of the word dispensation vs Covenant Theology's use of covenant.

 

We can't expect to win this debate without a chart! :RpS_laugh:

 

God bless,

William

As long as the line is of unknown duration!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

Would I do such a thing :RpS_lol:

 

I have ran into Dispensationalist that have done exactly what you're pointing out. They went right to the word dispensation in Scripture. I have said it on this forum a couple of times and was ignored. In response to a dispensationalist going to all those passages that uses dispensation I replied, I have no idea as to why dispensationalist are pointing to the word dispensation in Scripture :RpS_bored:

 

If that's the standard by which we measure something biblical I wonder how many times the word "Covenant" is used throughout Scripture?

 

:RpS_lol: Be neat to see a comparison chart between Dispensationalism use of the word dispensation vs Covenant Theology's use of covenant.

 

We can't expect to win this debate without a chart! :RpS_laugh:

 

God bless,

William

You two sure seem to be having fun with this subject.

 

I've found an article put out by Pathos ministries -- a pastor by the name of Dr. Michael Williams -- very informative -- printed it out. There are several definitions Of dispensations -- #2 is "a system of order -- government, or organization of a nation , communities , etc. Especially as existing at a particular time. A divinely ordained order prevailing at a particular period of time of history.

 

As to what dispensationalists believe -- there are 9 examples given of time periods. That God gives out knowledge, power, order, procedure, and grace in the context of the time of His choosing.

 

Two parties are always involved --- God gives man certain responsibilities --- God determines what defines a failure of man's responsibility --- God determines what judgement will result from man's failure.

 

And why Not see if the word is actually used in Scripture or is simply 'just' a man-made concept.

 

And, yes, there Are many Covenants in the Bible. The Abrahamic Covenant comes to mind at this moment.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Would I do such a thing :RpS_lol:

 

I have ran into Dispensationalist that have done exactly what you're pointing out. They went right to the word dispensation in Scripture. I have said it on this forum a couple of times and was ignored. In response to a dispensationalist going to all those passages that uses dispensation I replied, I have no idea as to why dispensationalist are pointing to the word dispensation in Scripture :RpS_bored:

 

If that's the standard by which we measure something biblical I wonder how many times the word "Covenant" is used throughout Scripture?

 

:RpS_lol: Be neat to see a comparison chart between Dispensationalism use of the word dispensation vs Covenant Theology's use of covenant.

 

We can't expect to win this debate without a chart! :RpS_laugh:

 

God bless,

William

I just don't believe that Scripture teaches amillennialism. There are times when 1,000 yrs means exactly that and when a 'day' means a 24-hr period of time and nothing else. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Would I do such a thing :RpS_lol:

 

I have ran into Dispensationalist that have done exactly what you're pointing out. They went right to the word dispensation in Scripture. I have said it on this forum a couple of times and was ignored. In response to a dispensationalist going to all those passages that uses dispensation I replied, I have no idea as to why dispensationalist are pointing to the word dispensation in Scripture :RpS_bored:

 

If that's the standard by which we measure something biblical I wonder how many times the word "Covenant" is used throughout Scripture?

 

:RpS_lol: Be neat to see a comparison chart between Dispensationalism use of the word dispensation vs Covenant Theology's use of covenant.

 

We can't expect to win this debate without a chart! :RpS_laugh:

 

God bless,

William

I always try to have fun sister!

 

If you post a link to the article I will have a look at it, but you might have noticed I am not too concerned with the semantic range of the English word, rather my concern is with the semantic range of the underlying Greek word, which is οἰκονομία

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

SCOFIELD’S DEFINITION OF A DISPENSATION, “A PERIOD OF TIME” “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” Sco. Ref. Bible, page 5, note 4.

REFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE USES “Who then is a faithful and wise steward.” (oikonomos) Luke 12:3. “Give an account of thy stewardship” (oikonomia) Luke 16:2. “My Lord taketh away from me the stewardship” (oikonomia) Luke 16:3 “A dispensation (oikonomos) of the gospel is committed unto me” I Cor. 9:17. “..... that in the dispensation (oikonomia) of the fullness of times” Eph. 1:10. “Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation (oikonomia or stewardship) of God” Col. 1:25. “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward (oikonomos) of God” Titus 1:7. “..... as good stewards (oikonomoi) of the manifold grace of God” I Peter 4:10.

 

Added SCOFIELD or The Scriptures A COMPARISON OF CERTAIN NOTES BY C. I. SCOFIELD WITH THE HOLY BIBLE By Paul E. Sisco

Share this post


Link to post
SCOFIELD’S DEFINITION OF A DISPENSATION, “A PERIOD OF TIME” “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” Sco. Ref. Bible, page 5, note 4.

REFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE USES “Who then is a faithful and wise steward.” (oikonomos) Luke 12:3. “Give an account of thy stewardship” (oikonomia) Luke 16:2. “My Lord taketh away from me the stewardship” (oikonomia) Luke 16:3 “A dispensation (oikonomos) of the gospel is committed unto me” I Cor. 9:17. “..... that in the dispensation (oikonomia) of the fullness of times” Eph. 1:10. “Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation (oikonomia or stewardship) of God” Col. 1:25. “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward (oikonomos) of God” Titus 1:7. “..... as good stewards (oikonomoi) of the manifold grace of God” I Peter 4:10.

 

Added SCOFIELD or The Scriptures A COMPARISON OF CERTAIN NOTES BY C. I. SCOFIELD WITH THE HOLY BIBLE By Paul E. Sisco

And that is one reason to discount him - a dispensation most certainly isn't a period of time - which is what i was trying to prove :D

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Yup, you reminded me i have that booklet... it is an eye opener... :RpS_thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post

 

Would I do such a thing :RpS_lol:

 

I have ran into Dispensationalist that have done exactly what you're pointing out. They went right to the word dispensation in Scripture. I have said it on this forum a couple of times and was ignored. In response to a dispensationalist going to all those passages that uses dispensation I replied, I have no idea as to why dispensationalist are pointing to the word dispensation in Scripture :RpS_bored:

 

If that's the standard by which we measure something biblical I wonder how many times the word "Covenant" is used throughout Scripture?

 

:RpS_lol: Be neat to see a comparison chart between Dispensationalism use of the word dispensation vs Covenant Theology's use of covenant.

 

We can't expect to win this debate without a chart! :RpS_laugh:

 

God bless,

William

@rb -- http://www.patheos.com/blogs/chridstiancrier

 

What is Dispensationalism As it Relates To The Bible and the Church?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Would I do such a thing :RpS_lol:

 

I have ran into Dispensationalist that have done exactly what you're pointing out. They went right to the word dispensation in Scripture. I have said it on this forum a couple of times and was ignored. In response to a dispensationalist going to all those passages that uses dispensation I replied, I have no idea as to why dispensationalist are pointing to the word dispensation in Scripture :RpS_bored:

 

If that's the standard by which we measure something biblical I wonder how many times the word "Covenant" is used throughout Scripture?

 

:RpS_lol: Be neat to see a comparison chart between Dispensationalism use of the word dispensation vs Covenant Theology's use of covenant.

 

We can't expect to win this debate without a chart! :RpS_laugh:

 

God bless,

William

@rb -- this comment is for Google -- It Is Too there.

 

So just type in the title of the article. :)

Share this post


Link to post
SCOFIELD’S DEFINITION OF A DISPENSATION, “A PERIOD OF TIME” “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” Sco. Ref. Bible, page 5, note 4.

REFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE USES “Who then is a faithful and wise steward.” (oikonomos) Luke 12:3. “Give an account of thy stewardship” (oikonomia) Luke 16:2. “My Lord taketh away from me the stewardship” (oikonomia) Luke 16:3 “A dispensation (oikonomos) of the gospel is committed unto me” I Cor. 9:17. “..... that in the dispensation (oikonomia) of the fullness of times” Eph. 1:10. “Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation (oikonomia or stewardship) of God” Col. 1:25. “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward (oikonomos) of God” Titus 1:7. “..... as good stewards (oikonomoi) of the manifold grace of God” I Peter 4:10.

 

Added SCOFIELD or The Scriptures A COMPARISON OF CERTAIN NOTES BY C. I. SCOFIELD WITH THE HOLY BIBLE By Paul E. Sisco

If ya'll would look back up to # 4.3 -- the two line paragraph -- part of that has the definition # 2 applies to 'this'.

Share this post


Link to post
SCOFIELD’S DEFINITION OF A DISPENSATION, “A PERIOD OF TIME” “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” Sco. Ref. Bible, page 5, note 4.

REFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE USES “Who then is a faithful and wise steward.” (oikonomos) Luke 12:3. “Give an account of thy stewardship” (oikonomia) Luke 16:2. “My Lord taketh away from me the stewardship” (oikonomia) Luke 16:3 “A dispensation (oikonomos) of the gospel is committed unto me” I Cor. 9:17. “..... that in the dispensation (oikonomia) of the fullness of times” Eph. 1:10. “Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation (oikonomia or stewardship) of God” Col. 1:25. “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward (oikonomos) of God” Titus 1:7. “..... as good stewards (oikonomoi) of the manifold grace of God” I Peter 4:10.

 

Added SCOFIELD or The Scriptures A COMPARISON OF CERTAIN NOTES BY C. I. SCOFIELD WITH THE HOLY BIBLE By Paul E. Sisco

@Sue D. many people define words to mean what they want them to mean (it's a form of post post modernism) however that doesn't mean those definitions are valid - in the OP i have established the semantic range of οἰκονομία - your argument isn't with me, it is with the Greek language :D

Share this post


Link to post

 

Would I do such a thing :RpS_lol:

 

I have ran into Dispensationalist that have done exactly what you're pointing out. They went right to the word dispensation in Scripture. I have said it on this forum a couple of times and was ignored. In response to a dispensationalist going to all those passages that uses dispensation I replied, I have no idea as to why dispensationalist are pointing to the word dispensation in Scripture :RpS_bored:

 

If that's the standard by which we measure something biblical I wonder how many times the word "Covenant" is used throughout Scripture?

 

:RpS_lol: Be neat to see a comparison chart between Dispensationalism use of the word dispensation vs Covenant Theology's use of covenant.

 

We can't expect to win this debate without a chart! :RpS_laugh:

 

God bless,

William

@Sue D. Got it - thanks

Share this post


Link to post

@Sue D. said:

 

I've found an article put out by Pathos ministries -- a pastor by the name of Dr. Michael Williams -- very informative -- printed it out. There are several definitions Of dispensations -- #2 is "a system of order -- government, or organization of a nation , communities , etc. Especially as existing at a particular time. A divinely ordained order prevailing at a particular period of time of history.

 

The article can be found here:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2015/04/11/what-is-dispensationalism-as-it-relates-to-the-bible-and-the-church/

 

In this post I intend to interact with this article - I will be quoting (but not in full) the link above is so that you check me out :RpS_thumbup:

 

A common definition

 

The author states:

"Dispensationalism is an extension of the word dispensation. A dispensation is commonly defined as
(1)
:

  1. Exemption from a rule or usual requirement; permission to be exempted from the laws or observances of a church.


  2. A system of order, government, or organization of a nation, community, etc., especially as existing at a particular time. A divinely ordained order prevailing at a particular period of history noun: dispensation; plural noun: dispensations (in Christian theology) Archaic: an act of divine providence.


  3. The action of distributing or supplying something."


A reliable source?

 

Notice the writer has foot noted his source for this definition. Examining footnotes is often very telling, it often tells us how much research has been put into what is being said. The amount of research put in relates dircetly to the credibility of the author. So what is source of this common definition:

(1) Google. (2015). “Dispensation”. Retrieved from Google,

Read more at

 

It's a google search :RpS_sad:

 

The author has gone to lengths of typing in a search string on google to come up with this common definition. His source is not a dictionary or lexicon. He hasn't interacted with scholarly material that has been peer reviewed - he has gone to the internet where anyone can post anything they like. The internet is full of people who define terms as they wish them to be defined.

 

A true definition?

 

in this definition the author has merely regurgitated what dispensationalism actually teaches - he hasn't challenged the definition (either to prove or disprove it). In short this is the type of article that preaches to the choir, but falls far short of convincing others.

 

So, let's do this properly, and by that I mean, let's use a dictionary!

 

 

dis•pen•sa•tion \ˌdis-pən-ˈsā-shən, -ˌpen-\ noun

14th century

1 a: a general state or ordering of things specifically: a system of revealed commands and promises regulating human affairs

b: a particular arrangement or provision especially of providence or nature

2 a: an exemption from a law or from an impediment, vow, or oath

b: a formal authorization

3 a: the act of dispensing

b: something dispensed or distributed—dis•pen•sa•tion•al \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ adjective

 

Source: Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 

Now, please notice the differences, when we look at the dictionary we see that the specifically 'dispensational' meaning ("especially as existing at a particular time. A divinely ordained order prevailing at a particular period of history") is alien to the semantic range of the word. However the dictionairy definition is entirely in keeping with what I specified in the OP.

 

An appeal to scripture

 

The author writes:

"The Bible uses the word dispensation in several places as follows:

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


  2. Ephesians 1:10 (KJV) “That in the dispensation 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:”


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


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


We see from the context of these passages that God is the person doing the dispensing or giving. In the first example, God gave Paul the gospel. In the second example, God gave a period of time that would conclude with the resurrection. In the third example, God gave Paul a revelation concerning the Gentiles receiving the gospel. In the last, God gave Paul the power to preach the Word of truth to the Gentiles about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit."

 

A word search

 

This line of reasoning is very much int he camp of 'oh look dispensationalism must be true, we read the word 'dispensation' in the bible!

 

That is NOT how we do theology.

 

An anachronism

 

Notice that the author is rooting his argument in the word 'dispensation' as found in the AV. Interestingly in his own definition he has noted that the archaic meaning of the term is "Archaic: an act of divine providence." - why does this matter?

 

The writer is quoting from a document published first in 1611 and applying a meaning to a word that was unknown at the time of publication.

 

English only

 

In the OP I highlighted that the frequency of the use of a specific word depends on your bible version (in the NKJV 'dispensation' is used twice, in the AV it is used 4 times). Clearly then, it is not enough to simply look at the English, we must dig a little deeper (and we don't need to be an expert in the original languages to do that) a simple search of Strong's concordance will reveal all 7 verses of the word οἰκονομία (ie Luke 16:2; 3; 4; 1 Cor 9:17; Eph 1:10; Eph 3:2; Col 1:25) - I know because I have just done it (it took me all of 30 seconds!)

 

However if the author cannot do that - he cannot do that because the underlying term οἰκονομία does have the sense of meaning he is forcing anachronistically onto the word 'dispensation' - even Strongs gloss shows this clearly:

3622 oivkonomi,a oikonomia {oy-kon-om-ee'-ah}

Meaning: 1) the management of a household or of household affairs 1a) specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property 1b) the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship 1c) administration, dispensation

Origin: from 3623; TDNT - 5:151,674; n f

Usage: AV - dispensation 4, stewardship 3; 7

There are no notes for this verse.

 

Source: strongs concordance [bible works 9]

 

This level of research is attainable by any pastor, and in my opinion anyone who isn't willing to go to even this basic lenght to ensure that their theology is biblical and that they are using scripture properly doesn't deserve to be in the pulpit.

 

Eisegesis

 

The author isn't stupid (that is clear) and he has been building to one specific statement that he slips in, namely; "God gave a period of time that would conclude with the resurrection." - this is a key statement. The whole argument rotates on this phrase. The author has been building to it (and ignoring everything that mitigates against it) and everything he goes to say will flow from it. He is taking this statement from Eph 1:10 which (in the AV) reads: “That in the dispensation 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:”

 

Now, notice that:

 

1) If a 'dispensation' refers to a period of time then this verse reads: “That in the period of time [dispensation] 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:” - that is utter nonsense!

 

2) The word 'times' is plural - how can this refer to one period of time?

 

3) This 'dispensation' does not conclude with "the resurrection," it concludes with the gathering together in one of all things in Christ, things that are in heaven and earth - now that phrase might refer to "the resurrection" - but what the author mean, dispenstaionalism does not have a single resurrection.

 

This is esiegesis - the text does have the sense of a period of time, but that isn't derived from the word 'dipsenation'.

 

A definition of what dispensationalism teaches

 

It is not my task here to comment on all that dispensationalism teaches - so I won't interact with anything in this paragraph of his article (other then to say that in my opinion it has no biblical warrant) - instead i want to come onto the next point and comment on some of what he says under the heading: "How does Dispensationalism relate to the Bible and the church?"

 

so:

 

"How does Dispensationalism relate to the Bible and the church?"

 

Fifteen factors

 

The author writes: "There are about 15 factors that we should consider when we study the Bible. These factors help us properly understand the message of the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21)."

 

2 Pet 1:20-21 does not tell us there are about 15 factors we should consider, it says: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2Pe 1:20-21 NKJ) - in factI don't know what relevance a text about the source of scripture has to do with the author's point at all.

 

Furthermore, why does the author state this, then only give one argument?

 

His one factor

 

The author states:

One factor involves dividing the Bible into time periods. We see this as follows: Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV)

This verse tells us that several things:

  1. We are to study the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17)


  2. We study the Bible to demonstrate that we are approved or pleasing to God (Romans 14:17-18; 2 Corinthians 10:12-18)


  3. We study the Bible by rightly dividing the Word



    1. Dividing the Word means to cut or separate into pieces (Isaiah 28:9-10)


    2. Studying these pieces in the context of time helps us to know God’s plan for humanity past, present, and future


    [*]

    We study the Bible by working at it

    [*]

    We study the Bible so that we will not be ashamed or hesitant to do God’s Work

    When there is a proper understanding of Biblical dispensations people will not be deceived when it comes to theological truth. We no longer sacrifice Passover lambs or have to make weekly sacrifices for sin. Yet, many people do not have the discernment to understand why (Ephesians 4:12-14). Likewise, some churches teach that there will not be a time of resurrection, yet the Bible warns us about this too (2 Timothy 2:16-18; 2 Peter 3:3-9).

     

    Today, we see the signs that this church age will soon be over (Matthew 24). Knowing these signs can help us to share the gospel to people in a way that is relative to current events so they understand that time is running out (Acts 17:29-31; 2 Corinthians 6:1-7).

     

    Notice the verse actually says we must rightly divide the word - and we show ourselves approved of God by being able to do that. Notice again that there is no attempt to actually deal with the word ὀρθοτομέω (dividing) instead the idea of time is forced into the text - Paul isn't telling Timothy to split the bible into specific time periods so that he can teach the people in his day from the bits that are relevant to them - if Paul was saying that then in the very next verses he would be contradiction himself. No - Paul is saying that Timothy needs to demonstrate that he has nothing to be ashamed of and that he is approved of by God through teaching the scriptures faithfully, all of which have been given to us by God and all of which are useful to us (that is everyone in every time)

     

    My conclusion

     

    Far from being an informative article this is one of those arguments that only preaches to the choir - it fails on every level to make any kind of convincing argument. I am glad there are dispensationals out there who can do a much better job of defending their position then this (including some of those on this forum). What it does show though is the fact that dispensational 'exegesis' relies heavily on the lens of tradition - the author is not interacting with scripture (as is sen by the utter lack of research) instead he is merely parroting what he has been told the text means.

     

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Can one be dispensation and a Calvinist?

      The Synod of Dort met between 1618-1619 and its task was to respond to certain statements made by the remonstrants that departed from reformed soteriology. It is from that response that the modern acrostic TULIP was derived. Sadly, in the modern church that acrostic has become synonymous with Calvinism – if you hold to the 5 points you’re a Calvinist. Even more sadly today we have people who claim to be 4 pointers, or 3 pointers etc. To my mind using the TULIP acrostic to identify a person as a Calvinist is both simplistic and erroneous.   Maybe the origins of this problem are the good intentions of Christians in expressing their desire to demonstrate unity. The reformed have, historically, been open to fellowship with other evangelical groups. However, returning to the acrostic TULIP which is, as already stated, a fairly recent construction (a little over 100 years old). TULIP is a modern summary of the statements made in response to this historical soteriological disagreement within the protestant reformed movement. Therefore properly understood TULIP is not a positive assertion of Calvinism, rather it is a negative polemical tool designed as a response, and correction of specific errors in the soteriology of the Remonstrants. Hence TULIP is only useful in that specific arena of discussion within the reformed movement. It is not a positive a statement of 'Calvinism' or Biblical soteriology, and it should never be used outside of this specific area of debate in which it has, historically, been applied. If we merely teach our people the five points, we are not doing them any favours, we need to build from the ground up, establishing the sovereignty of God, as understood in the reformed faith.   Properly understood and positively stated Calvinism is the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty over his creation to order it as he sees fit for his own Glory (it is not limited to the soteriological discussion) – and it is a position established through a reformed (covenant) hermeneutic of scripture. All this is to say that simple agreement with the five points is not enough to make a person a Calvinist (it simply means they are a monergist).   Whilst the larger debate regarding synergism/ monergism has raged since the days of Pelagius the soteriological debate between ‘Armenians’ and ‘Calvinists’ was (until recently) an ‘in house’ discussion within the protestant reformation movement. It is my contention that it should remain inhouse, and that those outside of the reformed faith should be understood to stand with the broader and more general categories. When it comes to dispensationalism, we trace its roots back through the Brethren movement, to the Anabaptists and the radical reformation. In 1525 Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, George Blaurock (and others) separated from Ulrich Zwingli and formed their own groups (the believed the reformation was not going fast enough, or in the right direction). The radical reformation became a separate stream of Christianity that the reformers separated themselves from. They were never part of the reformed movement after that, and they were not part of the inhouse discussion between ‘Calvinists’ and ‘Arminians.’   All of this is to say that to embrace dispensationalism is to step outside of the historic reformed faith and to embrace the radical reformation. In doing that one steps outside of the Calvinist/ Arminian discussion, into the broader and more general monergism/ synergism discussion.   Just as it is impossible to consistently hold to Presbyterian and Dispensational beliefs (one stressing the unity between the old and New covenant, whilst the other demands a separation of these covenants). So also, whilst a dispensational believer might have much in common with a Baptist and Congregationalist (for example some areas of ecclesiology) they cannot be Baptist or congregationalist, and they are not part of the in house debate between Arminianism and Calvinism. I suppose one might be considered a dispensational and ‘baptistic’ or ‘Calvinistic’ as that does emphasize the similarities – but it is to be straddling two camps.   None of this is to suggest that my dispensational brethren are not dear and valuable brothers and sisters in Christ – they are! I don’t know John MacArthur personally, but I have benefited from his writings on several occasions. I do know Phil Johnson a little. He used to come and guest lecture at my seminary when I was training and I always enjoyed his lectures and fellowship however on this point I do think they are both misguided. This idea that one can separate eschatology and soteriology, or ecclesiology and soteriology is alien in reformed thought – they hang or fall together – and they are born out of our hermeneutic. What I perceive within MacArthur’s theology is what has been called a ‘blessed inconsistency’ that puts himself outside of mainstream dispensationalism (a ‘leaky dispensationalist’ as he calls himself) but it is not enough to put within the reformed camp doctrinally speaking. That being said I will continue to listen to his sermons and read his books and benefit greatly from them – and I very much look forward to sharing glory with him. MacArthur is a gospel dominated man, and he has been used greatly by God – his ministry is far more blessed then mine, and his gifts are far greater than mine – so this is not an attack, more an expression of what I understand it takes to own the labels of ‘reformed’ and ‘Calvinist’

      in Calvinism

    • Singer Sinéad O'Connor Becomes A Muslim: 'All Scripture Study Leads To Islam'

      Irish singer Sinéad O'Connor has announced her conversion to Islam, calling it the "natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian's journey." View the full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Practicing the Principles of Scripture in the Home

      “We don’t come to this session with any sense that we’ve got it all figured or out or, certainly, that we have the perfect marriage. . . . We do think that God has a lot of wisdom in his Word, and we have seen that wisdom played out in our marriage and in our family.” — Michael Kruger Date: June 15, 2018 Event: The Gospel Coalition 2018 Women’s Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana You can listen to this episode of The Gospel Coalition podcast here. Related: Confessions of a Reluctant Complementarian (Rebecca McLaughlin) 3 Ways to Pass on the Faith for the Next Generation (Tim Keller) 20 Quotes from Ray Ortlund on Marriage and the Mystery of the Gospel (Ivan Mesa) Find more audio and video from the 2018 Women’s Conference on the conference media page. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Do Inconsistencies in the Gospels Undermine Scripture’s Inerrancy?

      We know the words of Scripture were written or recited by human prophets or apostles, but were they also the exact words God wanted written down? Yes. If you look at the book of Hebrews, the author will refer to Psalm 95, for example, and apply two authors to the psalm. We first read “David said,” then later “the Holy Spirit said.” Both are true. Hebrews accents the dual authorship, or concurrent authorship, of Scripture. Because God is the perfect truth-teller, he cannot lie. Everything Scripture affirms is completely true. While Christians acknowledge this truth, we also understand that if you were to put the four Gospels side-by-side, you would find some surface-level incongruities. A perceptive reader might ask, “Well, what’s going on here? Did this happen this way or that way?” But this seeming incongruity is what we’d expect of any historical retelling of an event by different eyewitnesses. Every eyewitness account will involve summarizing, partial reporting, paraphrasing, or rearranging of the material chronologically. In Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we find exactly this type of eyewitness testimony. Don’t the Gospels Contain Contradictions? First-century church figure Papias of Hierapolis provides insight into the origins of the Gospels. He recounts, for example, that Mark wrote in his Gospel what he heard Peter preach. Mark was not a follower of Jesus during his earthly ministry; however, Papias said Mark recorded everything Peter preached, just not in chronological order. The notable lack of chronological order is significant: the earliest generation of Christians recognized that the Gospels weren’t intended to be strictly chronological. Therefore, when modern readers assume the Gospels are strictly chronological, they perceive “mistakes” in the Gospel accounts. But these readers are asking something of the Gospels the inspired authors never intended to give. Compare, for example, the temptation narratives in Luke 4 and Matthew 4. The same temptations are presented in both, but in Matthew the final temptation occurs on a high mountain, whereas in Luke it occurs on the pinnacle of the temple. By choosing two different presentations, the Gospel writers are emphasizing different facts. Matthew employs mountains as a prominent motif; his Gospel recounts the Sermon on the Mount in chapters 5–7 and ends on a mountaintop with Jesus saying, “Go make disciples of all nations.” So Matthew also presents the final temptation on a mountain. On the other hand, because Luke is concerned with the temple’s relevance in light of its new-covenant fulfillment in Jesus, he makes Christ’s temple temptation the final temptation. Matthew and Luke simply emphasize different aspects of Jesus’s temptation. Neither Gospel claims chronological specificity for its reporting, and so modern readers shouldn’t demand something the inspired authors didn’t intend to give. Truth ≠ Precision: An Illustration A while back the battery in my wife’s minivan gave out in the Walgreens parking lot. I took her my Corolla so she could go home with our three kids. I stayed with the minivan and waited on the repairman. Now, in recounting this event the next day, several things might happen. I could write an email and say, “My wife’s minivan broke down in the parking lot.” In talking to someone, I could say, “I’m sorry I couldn’t make the meeting; my car broke down yesterday.” To someone else I might explain, “My wife was driving the Corolla because her car broke down.” Hundreds of years later, one might look at this account and think I was being deceptive. “Does his wife have a minivan or a car? Is it his car or her car, and which car broke down?” In colloquial English, “car” can designate any vehicle a family owns. Also, we’re married, so what belongs to me also belongs to her. My name is on her minivan’s title. Technically, the minivan belongs to me, but she drives it all the time. When you look into the details of this story, there seems to be partial reporting or different emphases. But no one is being deceptive. This illustrates why we have different details in the Gospels. Notice the genealogy of Matthew versus the one in Luke. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 will include different names in the genealogy of Jesus, especially beginning with Joseph and the generations right after him. Christians during the earliest years of the church discussed these differences in detail. Eusebius, a famous church historian who wrote in the early 300s, discusses various views, and seems to favor that of Julius Africanus. Julius was born around 160, and he cites testimony even earlier of people who visited Israel and conducted interviews with the physical descendants of Jesus’s half-brothers and -sisters. According to Africanus, the reason for this discrepancy in the genealogies is a Levirate marriage in the lineage of Joseph. The Old Testament law made provision for a widowed woman—a reality that seems strange to modern readers. If a husband died, his brother could marry the widow, and the children from that marriage would carry on the deceased brother’s name. This arrangement created both a legal and a biological lineage. Julius Africanus argues there is a discrepancy in the genealogies because one follows the legal lineage and one follows the biological lineage. Take a Closer Look   The genealogies in Matthew and Luke illustrate two things. First, this intricacy is what we should expect from the complexity of life. We  shouldn’t be surprised to find surface-level discrepancies clarified by closer study. Second, early Christians didn’t hide these seeming incongruities; rather, they formulated possible solutions and weighed them on the scales of the reliability and authority of Scripture. If you’re a skeptical reader of Scripture, be honest about your questions. Pray about the concern, study the text carefully, and pose questions to a trusted source. Don’t be afraid to ask honest questions of the text, and to seek help answering if you need it. Remember: God is a loving heavenly Father. He’s not trying to trick you or hide things from you, but he hears when you call to him. He has given to us a reliable and trustworthy account of his revelation in history, preeminently in sending his Son to live a perfect life and to die in place of sinners like us. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Falwell Jr. Quotes Scripture, Blames Sessions, After Trump Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Porn Star Payoff

      Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. quoted the Bible and blamed Attorney General Jeff Sessions in response to news that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to paying off a porn star and Playboy playmate at the direction of Donald Trump. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.