Rightly Dividing The Word of Truth

[101G]

Hello @101G,

You have been part of my online experience for more years than I care to innumerate, in many different forums, I under more than one user name, so that you are perhaps unaware of my continued presence throughout the years. Though there are identifying features which mark us, apart from our user names, aren't there.

* Your entries in this thread refer to the Kingdom and the Church, the question being how they differ ( replies #16,#18 ). In reply #21
you referenced the two verses I have quoted above, in which the Kingdom of God is characterised by:- 'righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost' in Romans 14.
* In Luke 17, the Lord Jesus responds to the Pharisees demand to know when the Kingdom of God should come, by saying, 'Behold the kingdom of God is within you', By which He referred to Himself their King, Who was 'within' their company yet unknown and therefore unacknowledged. With the presence of the King, the Kingdom was indeed 'within' there midst corporally. It cannot be referring to the Kingdom of God being within the Pharisees themselves individually (& spiritually), as you suggest, because they were in a state of unbelief, and sought only to find cause to put Him to death.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

GINOLJC, to all
first, thanks for the reply. secondly 101G has watched your replies also over the years. you gave the answer, "because they were in a state of unbelief, and sought only to find cause to put Him to death". see the KING was within their midst physically, but the Holy Spirit was not yet Given because he had not yet been GLORIFIED. upon glorification with the Spirit in the resurrection, now he is given, and this happen on the day of Pentecost. NOTICE what the apostle Peter said, Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

101G

 

[civic]

GINOLJC, to all
first, thanks for the reply. secondly 101G has watched your replies also over the years. you gave the answer, "because they were in a state of unbelief, and sought only to find cause to put Him to death". see the KING was within their midst physically, but the Holy Spirit was not yet Given because he had not yet been GLORIFIED. upon glorification with the Spirit in the resurrection, now he is given, and this happen on the day of Pentecost. NOTICE what the apostle Peter said, Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

101G

quick question on the resurrection of Jesus. Do you affirm or deny what I posted in this thread today ? Thanks

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/gods-grace-to-forgive-and-transform-is-not-conditioned-to-recognizing-jesus-deity-blood-atonement-or-physical-resurrection.2218/page-28#post-133072

 

[dwight92070]

Yes and ?

This was in reference to your post #29 under "Typical Divisions" and then the specific division of "Law":

"Law – From Moses to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Ends with the scattering of Israel in AD 70. Some use the term "Mosaic law" in reference to this period of dispensation."

TomL, I understand that you are delineating the dispensational view, which is not your view, nor mine.

But in my post #33, I am pointing out the pernicious error, by the dispensationalists of saying that the Mosaic Law period extends THROUGH THE LIFE OF JESUS, and then ends at His crucifixion. It DOES NOT. In Luke 16:16 Jesus tells us that the period of the Law and the Prophets extends up to, but not including John the Baptist.

That was my only point.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Hello @praise_yeshua,

Thank you for responding, I am sorry that you have found the teaching you have received questionable. Thankfully the teaching I have received has been such that I have been able to confirm it by the Scriptures themselves, so do not therefore have any reason to call them into question.

My teachers were the works of Dr E.W. Bullinger, Mr Charles Welch, Sir Robert Anderson and Mr Stuart Allen, published and recorded by, 'The Berean Publishing Trust', of Wilson St, London, read, listened to and studied with an open Bible. under the superintendence of The Holy Spirit.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

I look forward to dispelling your confidence in Bullinger and others.

Feel free to reference my responses.

I do have an open question to all Dispensationists. How do you know you've properly recognized ALL of these supposed "Dispensations/Times" that God has purposed.

It has been my experience that most dispensationists just "fabricate" an new dispensation when they need one to support their claims that something was different...

 

[civic]

I look forward to dispelling your confidence in Bullinger and others.

Feel free to reference my responses.

I do have an open question to all Dispensationists. How do you know you've properly recognized ALL of these supposed "Dispensations/Times" that God has purposed.

It has been my experience that most dispensationists just "fabricate" an new dispensation when the need one to support their claims that something was different...

I'm not a traditional dispy with all of their "dispensations " . I see two- the old and new covenant and the difference between Israel and the church. I'm dogmatic about His literal 2nd Coming but not the timing of the resurrection of the saints or rapture timing and whether they are one event or two.

 

[dwight92070]

Hello @praise_yeshua,

Thank you for responding, I am sorry that you have found the teaching you have received questionable. Thankfully the teaching I have received has been such that I have been able to confirm it by the Scriptures themselves, so do not therefore have any reason to call them into question.

My teachers were the works of Dr E.W. Bullinger, Mr Charles Welch, Sir Robert Anderson and Mr Stuart Allen, published and recorded by, 'The Berean Publishing Trust', of Wilson St, London, read, listened to and studied with an open Bible. under the superintendence of The Holy Spirit.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

When judging a belief system, it is always wise to look at the original source of that belief - and NOT just trust teachers of that system, without checking out the founder of that system. The original source of dispensationalism was John Nelson Darby in around 1830, NOT the early church. Yes, apparently there were some similar beliefs in specific areas of doctrine prior to Darby, but J. N. Darby is considered the "father of dispensationalism", because he compiled it together, and added NEW doctrine, to come up with his complete end product. Some originally called it Darbyism. It became known later as "dispensationalism", some say by Philip Mauro, a prominent Christian lawyer who originally followed the belief, but later denounced it as heretical in his book "The Gospel of the Kingdom with an Examination of Modern Dispensationalism" published in 1928. I have read that and it is an excellent source of revealing the many scriptural errors of Dispensationalism.

By the way, J.N. Darby did make the claim that his views WERE the views of the early church, but they quickly lost sight of them. But he, Darby, had rediscovered these truths. - A biography of John Nelson Darby by Max S. Weremchuk. published in 1992 Page 39 (It's interesting that Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, made the same claim at about the same time!) On that same page, the author says "Darby's views, when fully developed later, would prove to be in many points CONTRARY TO THE ONES NORMALLY ACCEPTED BY THE CHURCH AT LARGE.

Probably the main propagator of the doctrine was C. I Scofield, who created the Scofield Study Bible. He was likely the first person to write a "Bible" with his own personal beliefs (they were really Darby's doctrine) and interpretations printed below the text of the Scripture.

Can you scripturally confirm the dispensational belief in a 7-year tribulation? The Bible never mentions a "7-year tribulation. Or the belief that there will be a "secret" rapture, when Christ will come, but will be seen ONLY by believers? Or the belief, that ONLY believers will be resurrected at that secret rapture, not unbelievers? Jesus said that BOTH believers and nonbelievers would be resurrected on that same day - John 5:28-29 Or the belief that there is a 2000+ year gap after the 69th week of Daniel? There's no gap mentioned in the Bible.
In several places Jesus called His 2nd coming "the Last Day". So if He is coming on "the Last Day", how can there be 1,000 years of MORE days after that?
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" and "My kingdom is not of this realm.". So how could he sit as King in Jerusalem for 1000 years, when His kingdom is not a physical kingdom, but it is a spiritual kingdom?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Be careful I’m still a dispensationist as far as end time events are concerned and the difference between Israel and the church.

But I’m not dogmatic nor do I divide over it.

Neither do I. My former "friends" just tend to disappear when I tell them I disagree with them. The separation is not on my part.....

I know you're not that way. We've discussed this before...... I appreciate you brother.

You might could call me a 2 stage dispensationalist.

1. Before Christ.
2. After Christ.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm not a traditional dispy with all of their "dispensations " . I see two- the old and new covenant and the difference between Israel and the church. I'm dogmatic about His literal 2nd Coming but not the timing of the resurrection of the saints or rapture timing and whether they are one event or two.

I was writing something similar....

 

[praise_yeshua]

When judging a belief system, it is always wise to look at the original source of that belief. The original source of dispensationalism was John Nelson Darby in around 1830, NOT the early church. Yes, apparently there were some similar beliefs in specific areas of doctrine prior to Darby, but J. N. Darby is considered the "father of dispensationalism", because he compiled it together to come up with his complete end product. Some originally called it Darbyism. It became known later as "dispensationalism", some say by Philip Mauro, a prominent Christian lawyer who originally followed the belief, but later denounced it as heretical in his book "The Gospel of the Kingdom with an Examination of Modern Dispensationalism" published in 1928. I have read that and it is an excellent source of revealing the many scriptural errors of Dispensationalism.

By the way, J.N. Darby did make the claim that his views WERE the views of the early church, but they quickly lost sight of them. But he, Darby, had rediscovered these truths. - A biography of John Nelson Darby by Max S. Weremchuk. published in 1992 Page 39 (It's interesting that Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, made the same claim at about the same time!) On that same page, the author says "Darby's views, when fully developed later, would prove to be in many points CONTRARY TO THE ONES NORMALLY ACCEPTED BY THE CHURCH AT LARGE.

Probably the main propagator of the doctrine was C. I Scofield, who created the Scofield Study Bible. He was likely the first person to write a "Bible" with his own personal beliefs and interpretations printed below the text of the Scripture.

In my mind, I agree that Scofield was certainly the most influential. He said some good things. Dispensationalism is good in that it tries to establish an order to understanding the Scriptures.

 

[TomL]

This was in reference to your post #29 under "Typical Divisions" and then the specific division of "Law":

"Law – From Moses to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Ends with the scattering of Israel in AD 70. Some use the term "Mosaic law" in reference to this period of dispensation."

TomL, I understand that you are delineating the dispensational view, which is not your view, nor mine.

But in my post #33, I am pointing out the pernicious error, by the dispensationalists of saying that the Mosaic Law period extends THROUGH THE LIFE OF JESUS, and then ends at His crucifixion. It DOES NOT. In Luke 16:16 Jesus tells us that the period of the Law and the Prophets extends up to, but not including John the Baptist.

That was my only point.

Ok understood

 

[TomL]

Replies:- #2, #6. #8, #10, #12, #14, #26. #27, #29, #30. #34

Hello @TomL,

Thank you for your input into the thread regarding what you have observed concerning dispensationalism in reply #29.. I did not intend seeking to support pre-millennialism by this thread, but as you have raised it then why not.

There are at least seven distinct administrations found in Scripture, Characterised by the principles of God's administration which are revealed

1) The Theocratic Administration, covering the time of innocence before the fall. (Gen.1:26 - Gen.2)
2) The Patriarchal Administration, for mankind after the fall, but before the law was given.
3) The Legal Administration, for Israel governed by the law.
4) The present Administration Of Grace, which is for Jew and Gentile alike, for individuals out of both without distinction.
5) Following this will come The Judicial Administration, Israel judged by the law prior to the restoration of all things, as prophesied
6) This is followed by The Millennial Dispensation -
7) Ending with the Administration of Glory in the eternal state.

* The past and coming dispensations concern the Kingdom, this present dispensation concerns the Church of God. The former relates to the law, the future dispensation with judgement, but the present dispensation with grace. Praise God!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Thank you as well, but nothing there shows dispensational premillenialism is scripturally true

 

[dwight92070]

Reply to Complete's post #51:

Wow, now we've moved from dispensations to administrations - the number is the same, but the categories are different. All this does, IMO, is muddy the waters. Why don't we just stick to the divisions that the actual word of God gives us: The Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

Reply to Praise Yeshua in #49
He said: " Dispensationalism is good in that it tries to establish an order to understanding the Scriptures."

I don't call that order. I call that disorder. If you want order, how about just going by what the Scriptures say, instead of reading into them a so-called "division" or "administration"?

 

[TomL]

Reply to Complete's post #51:

Wow, now we've moved from dispensations to administrations - the number is the same, but the categories are different. All this does, IMO, is muddy the waters. Why don't we just stick to the divisions that the actual word of God gives us: The Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

Reply to Praise Yeshua in #49
He said: " Dispensationalism is good in that it tries to establish an order to understanding the Scriptures."

I don't call that order. I call that disorder. If you want order, how about just going by what the Scriptures say, instead of reading into them a so-called "division" or "administration"?

There is always danger in using external guideposts to scripture

 

[praise_yeshua]

Reply to Complete's post #51:

Wow, now we've moved from dispensations to administrations - the number is the same, but the categories are different. All this does, IMO, is muddy the waters. Why don't we just stick to the divisions that the actual word of God gives us: The Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

Reply to Praise Yeshua in #49
He said: " Dispensationalism is good in that it tries to establish an order to understanding the Scriptures."

I don't call that order. I call that disorder. If you want order, how about just going by what the Scriptures say, instead of reading into them a so-called "division" or "administration"?

"Context" is "king" here. There are circumstances throughout history that dictate that we not take the Scriptures at "face value". We must understand that human language has been marred by our sinful human history. The languages of men can not properly apply the "Words of God" solely at the "face value" of the words of human language. Don't get me wrong. I taking a nuanced approach to discussing this topic. It is much more complicated than most people realize. I wish I could get a discussion going on this topic (taking the Scriptures at "face value").

Interpretation is needed that includes context revolving around the circumstances of the total revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Without this, all a person can ever have is an "empty suit" theology.

Dispensationalism tries to provide "order" to "context". I believe it does a poor job at this but it is a valid attempt to systematically reconcile the entirety of the extant information relating to God's revelation to the descendants of Adam.

Just dealing with a proper methodology to address all the information that remains for us to consume.

 

[dwight92070]

"Context" is "king" here. There are circumstances throughout history that dictate that we not take the Scriptures at "face value". We must understand that human language has been marred by our sinful human history. The languages of men can not properly apply the "Words of God" solely at the "face value" of the words of human language. Don't get me wrong. I taking a nuanced approach to discussing this topic. It is much more complicated than most people realize. I wish I could get a discussion going on this topic (taking the Scriptures at "face value").

Interpretation is needed that includes context revolving around the circumstances of the total revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Without this, all a person can ever have is an "empty suit" theology.

Dispensationalism tries to provide "order" to "context". I believe it does a poor job at this but it is a valid attempt to systematically reconcile the entirety of the extant information relating to God's revelation to the descendants of Adam.

Just dealing with a proper methodology to address all the information that remains for us to consume.

You said, " It is much more complicated than most people realize. I wish I could get a discussion going on this topic (taking the Scriptures at "face value").

I believe it's just the opposite. I don't believe God is playing a game with us - challenging us to see what we can figure out. I believe He wants us to understand the scripture, but if our hearts are in the wrong place - that is arrogant, hateful, hardened, we won't be able to understand it.
Also I think we SHOULD take the Scriptures at "face value". To me, that means a LITERAL understanding unless the context demands something else, like much of the prophets and Revelation, the books of poetry, etc. Mankind seems to LOVE to make things complex - and then boast of how most people don't understand it - but, (Thank God) THEY DO!

You imply that God's word is disorderly and that dispensationalism provides some order. On the contrary, whenever you make up doctrine, as John Nelson Darby did, you can't help but spread DISORDER, because invented doctrine will always contradict the Scriptures - and his DOES.

 

[Complete]

You imply that God's word is disorderly and that dispensationalism provides some order. On the contrary, whenever you make up doctrine, as John Nelson Darby did, you can't help but spread DISORDER, because invented doctrine will always contradict the Scriptures - and his DOES.

Hello :dwight92070,

I am not acquainted with the works of John Nelson Darby. Would you please give me an example of the 'invented doctrine' you refer to.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[TomL]

Hello :dwight92070,

I am not acquainted with the works of John Nelson Darby. Would you please give me an example of the 'invented doctrine' you refer to.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern dispensationalism and futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren,[1] and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.[2]

He produced translations of the Bible in German, the "Elberfelder Bibel", in French, the "Pau" Bible, the Dutch New Testament, and the famous and influential English translation (finished posthumously) based on the Hebrew and Greek texts called The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby. It has furthermore been translated into other languages in whole or part.

The invented doctrine would be the pre-tribulation rapture.

Margaret McDonald, a fifteen-year-old girl living in Scotland, experienced a "vision" of the end of the world in 1820. In McDonald's vision, the chosen few are saved from a "purifying" fire. This is not exactly the disappearance in the middle of the day that popular culture views as the Rapture, but an early prototype1. McDonald said the rapture would only take those that were filled with the Holy Spirit2.

Some say he got it from her others say he had a belief in a pretrib rapture previously as the refernce below claims

Meanwhile, London-born evangelist John Darby and members of his flock, the Irish-born Plymouth Brethren, popularized and molded the idea of Judeo-Christians being removed from the Earth, prior to an unknown period of strife. But McDonald had no influence on Darby’s views, since Darby apparently espoused this idea as early as 1827. But McDonald’s visions, and their later publication, no doubt further popularized the idea of the Rapture in Europe.


Popping up in publication

Darby traveled to North America on several occasions during the mid-19th Century, teaching his theory of the Rapture. On one of these trips, Darby met with James Brookes, a prominent preacher and writer in Missouri — and, most importantly, the mentor of Cyrus Ingerson Scofield.


Scofield, influenced by Darby’s teachings via his mentor, published the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. The Scofield Reference Bible went on to become one of the best selling religious texts of the early 20th Century, one that continues to sell extremely well in the United Kingdom. Scofield’s text displays his personal notes and explanations right next to the King James translation of the Judeo-Christian Bible. The proximity of Scofield’s notes to the religious text no doubt lent credence to his words, especially in a world lacking widespread communication systems. As individuals emigrated to the United States in the early 20th Century, this helped spread the belief that Darby had already put in place, during his visits to North America.

 

[Johann]

Jesus plainly told us, "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached. ..." So clearly the lifetime of Christ was not during the Law. Luke 16:16 If it had been, then Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would have been the last books of the Old Testament, instead of the first books of the New Testament. Remember, "For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (NOT Law). John 1:17

Your statement is not entirely correct, as it misrepresents the transitional nature of Jesus’ ministry and the relationship between the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel.

1. Luke 16:16 – The Law and the Prophets Until John

The verse says, "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it" (Luke 16:16, KJV).

This does not mean the Law ceased to exist or was no longer relevant during Jesus' lifetime. Instead, it signals a shift in emphasis with the coming of John the Baptist, who introduced the message of repentance and prepared the way for Jesus and the kingdom of God (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).

Jesus' ministry was still under the framework of the Law. He stated in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

His teaching and actions often interpreted or deepened the Law’s meaning rather than discarding it.

2. John 1:17 – Law Versus Grace and Truth
"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17, KJV).

This verse does not imply that Jesus rejected the Law during His ministry. Instead, it highlights the contrast between the covenant mediated by Moses and the fulfillment of God's promises in Jesus Christ. The grace and truth revealed in Jesus complete and surpass the Mosaic Law but do not nullify its significance for that time.

3. Placement of the Gospels in the New Testament
The placement of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the first books of the New Testament reflects their role in presenting the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. However, the events they describe occurred during the time when the Mosaic Law was still in effect.

The New Covenant, as inaugurated by Jesus' death and resurrection, did not formally replace the Mosaic Law until after His sacrifice, as stated in Hebrews 9:16-17, where a testament is established only upon the death of the testator.

4. Did Jesus Operate Outside the Law?
Jesus actively lived within the framework of the Law, observed it, and taught its true spiritual intent.

His challenges to religious leaders were not a rejection of the Law but a critique of legalistic interpretations that missed its deeper purpose (Matthew 23:23-24; Mark 7:8-9).

The lifetime of Christ was indeed during the period of the Law, which remained in effect until His atoning death and resurrection.

Luke 16:16 and John 1:17 emphasize the transition toward the kingdom of God and the New Covenant but do not negate the relevance of the Law during Jesus’ earthly ministry.

Thus, your statement as presented oversimplifies and misinterprets the relationship between the Law, the Prophets, and Jesus’ mission.

@Complete do you agree, or want to add more?

J.

 

[Johann]

'Of these things put them in remembrance,
charging them before the Lord
that they strive not about words to no profit,
but to the subverting of the hearers.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.
But shun profane and vain babblings:
for they will increase unto more ungodliness.'
(2Tim 2:14-16)

Hello there,

I found this relatively short explanation (below), of what it means to rightly divide the word of truth,
please take a look and make comment if you wish:-

Right Division Unlocks The Bible - Believer.com

The One Great Requirement of the Word: 'Rightly Dividing' It. The one great requirement of the Word is grounded on the fact that it is 'the Word of Truth.' And ...

believer.com

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Keep doing what you’re doing, @Complete, as I know your deep love for the Scriptures and our Lord Jesus Christ.

J.

 

[Complete]

'But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned
and hast been assured of,
knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
.All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
.. for doctrine,
.... for reproof,
...... for correction,
........ for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works.'
(2Tim. 3:15-17)

Hello @Johann,

I have cause to be grateful for the teaching that I have received concerning the need to 'rightly divide the word of truth' ( 2 Tim. 2:15): For it has led me to know and acknowledge Christ Jesus the risen Lord not only as my Saviour and Lord; but as the Head of the Church which is The Body of Christ, of which I believe myself to be a member. For by God's grace I can now differentiate between what is 'about' me, as a member of that blessed company: and what is, though for my learning, not directly 'for' me by way of application. Bringing clarity of thought and dispelling any ground for confusion or wrong application of truth. Praise God!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris