Trying to understand Dispensationalism

[dwight92070]

Yeah sure. I get it.


Yeah but I've heard Hagin say many, many times and trust me I've heard so many, tapes of his, "One writer put it this way...."You said that you could not....and doubt rose up like a giant and bound you" and he'd go on. Hagins book to were
transcripts from his sermons that staff would put together. As well he used Kenyon books at least one of them that the students would have in class.

The Name of Jesus book (of Hagin's) was even worked out with Ruth Kenyon working with the editor. You should read what Kenyon's Publishing House says about this issue. Seems they want to back him on the issue.

https://www.kenyons.org/plagiarism-of-ew-kenyons.html

Well as for me I don't think any one should be upset that someone shared a same idea. If an idea is truth and is the truth of God it's owned by God.

Nobody is denying that. Sharing the same true idea is not plagiarism. I think the dictionary makes it clear, as I also tried to, what plagiarism is. Here's a quote from Ruth Kenyon:

They've [the Faith teachers] all copied from my Dad [E. W. Kenyon]. They've changed it a little bit and added their own touch. . . , but they couldn't change the wording. The Lord gave him [Kenyon] words and phrases. He coined them. They can't put it in any other words. . . It's very difficult for some people to be big enough to give credit to somebody else.
Ruth Kenyon Houseworth,
taped interview, Lynnwood, Wash., Feb. 19, 1982.

It doesn't appear that Ruth Kenyon took this issue lightly.

Besides, even if Hagin never plagiarized anyone, his teachings are still false, as were Kenyon's. I remember hearing Hagin say that a preacher strongly disagreed and criticized his teaching. Very soon after that, Hagin claimed that that preacher fell dead - I believe he said that happened to that preacher, while preaching behind his pulpit. The obvious inference is that God struck him dead because he criticized Hagin. This is beyond the pale. Even the apostle Paul never had that happen in his ministry, and many criticized him. I believe that was a lie told by Hagin. Not to mention all the "personal visits" that Hagin claimed Jesus had with him. Again, even the apostle Paul had only one recorded "visit" with Jesus - on his way to Damascus. Paul was caught up into the 3rd heaven, but we aren't told what happened while he was there. Again, Hagin was either lying, or else he was speaking with a demon who was impersonating Jesus.
I don't know as much about Darby as I do Hagin - I have ordered a biography - only enough to know that he appears to have had questionable character, and definitely doctrine that is not Biblical. Whether all of his teaching was unBiblical, I am trying to find out. But I definitely do not see dsp as Biblical.

 

[Rockson]

Nobody is denying that. Sharing the same true idea is not plagiarism. I think the dictionary makes it clear, as I also tried to, what plagiarism is. Here's a quote from Ruth Kenyon:

They've [the Faith teachers] all copied from my Dad [E. W. Kenyon]. They've changed it a little bit and added their own touch. . . , but they couldn't change the wording. The Lord gave him [Kenyon] words and phrases. He coined them. They can't put it in any other words. . . It's very difficult for some people to be big enough to give credit to somebody else.
Ruth Kenyon Houseworth,
taped interview, Lynnwood, Wash., Feb. 19, 1982.

It doesn't appear that Ruth Kenyon took this issue lightly.

Besides, even if Hagin never plagiarized anyone, his teachings are still false, as were Kenyon's. I remember hearing Hagin say that a preacher strongly disagreed and criticized his teaching. Very soon after that, Hagin claimed that that preacher fell dead - I believe he said that happened to that preacher, while preaching behind his pulpit. The obvious inference is that God struck him dead because he criticized Hagin. This is beyond the pale. Even the apostle Paul never had that happen in his ministry, and many criticized him. I believe that was a lie told by Hagin. Not to mention all the "personal visits" that Hagin claimed Jesus had with him. Again, even the apostle Paul had only one recorded "visit" with Jesus - on his way to Damascus. Paul was caught up into the 3rd heaven, but we aren't told what happened while he was there. Again, Hagin was either lying, or else he was speaking with a demon who was impersonating Jesus.
I don't know as much about Darby as I do Hagin - I have ordered a biography - only enough to know that he appears to have had questionable character, and definitely doctrine that is not Biblical. Whether all of his teaching was unBiblical, I am trying to find out. But I definitely do not see dsp as Biblical.

Well I know what you put down from Ruth Kenyon. And we know what their web site says. Perhaps they modified and changed the thoughts on what they should think about it. As they said on Kenyon's web site they concluded Hagen was a great man of God and thought Kenyon would have life him a lot. They were on the same line of things. As I said many times on his tapes he'd say one writer has said this.............didn't necessary always claim he made things up.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Good points, although I would say most of the Calvinist beliefs are not accurate.

Since I'm a Charismatic, non-systematic, eclectic, I don't really even KNOW (academically) what the Calvinist package contains in total, and I personally couldn't care less. I'm JUST as ignorant of the "Arminian package", and don't have any plans to change that. What I DO KNOW is that I was Convicted of my SIN by the Holy SPirit, and of my own free will, Surrendered to God, and repented (as best as I could) of my SIN, and then everything changed, and I was clean and new.

I've been a member in good standing of the "Assemblies of God" Denomination for most of the last 60 years, and I find them to be acceptable theologically, so I'm not planning to go anywhere else (although their "Contemporary worship" soft-rock music does drive me up the wall).

 

[dwight92070]

I never have cared for Study Bibles with notes on every page. They seem just too much in making one think they're equal with the actual scriptures. I don't mind commentary notes just don't have them blended in with a Bible.

Buy a Scofield Bible? Now THAT is worse than a waste of time. If you want to be totally confused and deceived about what the scripture says, then you could get Scofield's and/or Dake's "Bible". Either one will do the trick - no pun intended.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Buy a Scofield Bible? Now THAT is worse than a waste of time. If you want to be totally confused and deceived about what the scripture says, then you could get Scofield's and/or Dake's "Bible". Either one will do the trick - no pun intended.

That's one point on which we agree. My first Bible was a Scofield Study Bible. I found some of the notes to be complete hogwash. Then I got a NIV Study Bible. It amazed me to see that the "study notes" in the NIV contradicted other "study notes", literally from one epistle to the next.

Then I realized that what I really needed was a Bible with no notes or commentary, and I've never gone back.

 

[civic]

That's one point on which we agree. My first Bible was a Scofield Study Bible. I found some of the notes to be complete hogwash. Then I got a NIV Study Bible. It amazed me to see that the "study notes" in the NIV contradicted other "study notes", literally from one epistle to the next.

Then I realized that what I really needed was a Bible with no notes or commentary, and I've never gone back.

Yes just like I find the reformed bible's to be full of the same you described above.

On the second part we agree get rid of the notes, the biased commentary.

 

[dwight92070]

Who are God's chosen people today?
God's chosen people today are the same as they've always been. Those who have faith in Him. Those who obey Him. Those who follow Him. And later, those who receive the Messiah, Jesus. In the Old Testament, they are called the remnant, which were the followers of God within Israel, because most of Israel did not follow God, throughout their history. God's not a racist, giving special privileges to certain people, even though they don't follow and obey Him. God does have a favorite nation, but they're not one race. They consist of all the races and specifically the people within those races who have faith in Him and obey Him and follow Him and receive the Messiah, Jesus. Paul calls them "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:15-16 "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation (both Jews and Gentiles). And all who will follow this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God."

Hosea told the northern kingdom, Israel, "You are not My people, and I am not Your God."(Hosea 1:9) Why? Because they didn't have faith in Him, they didn't obey Him. They didn't follow Him. Most of the people of Israel today fit into that same category. So does God still call them His chosen people, even though they reject their Messiah, who God sent to save them, as well as all mankind? Of course not. If He told Israel in Hosea's day, "You are not My people, and I am not your God.", because of their apostasy, why would He do any different today, with Jews who have rejected Jesus?

Peter makes it very clear, speaking to the body of Christ (1 Peter 2:9):

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, ..."

Paul also made it very clear in Romans 9:6:

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." and
" ... it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants" (of Abraham)

Also Romans 2:28-29: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God."

Not only that, but the promises of God to Israel were given ONLY to the remnant, not the whole nation. When God promised Israel that He would restore them back to their own homeland, after being taken to Babylon, who returned to Israel? All the Jews? No, only the remnant. Most of the others were content in Babylon, serving idols.
Not the remnant, they wanted to return to Israel, to Jerusalem, to the true God, to the temple, to a godly community, a godly nation. But even after they returned, many of them still apostatized, and removed themselves from being God's chosen.

Last edited: Today at 11:07 AM
Quote Reply
Report

 

[dwight92070]

The Bible meaning of the word "dispensation" is radically different from the dsp teaching of J.N. Darby.

To Darby and Scofield "a dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to some specific revelation of the Will of God." (Scofield's note on Gen. 1:28)

1.But in 1 Cor. 9:17, Paul said, " ... I have a stewardship (dispensation in the Greek and the KJV) entrusted to me." The gospel had been entrusted to him to be dispensed by him.

2.Eph. 1:10 "with a view to the administration (dispensation in the KJV) of the fullness of the times (the era when God sent forth His Son - Gal. 4:4;
God's purpose was the dispensing (of the gospel) of the life and death of Jesusl

3.Eph. 3:2 "if indeed you have heard of the stewardship (dispensation in the KJV) of God's grace which was given to me for you."
Paul's ministry was to dispense the grace of God to the Gentiles.

4.Col. 1:25 "Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship (dispensation KJV) from God bestowed on me ... "
God had made Paul responsible to dispense God's previously concealed purpose to save the Gentiles.

It is deplorable that dispensationalists have taken a biblical word, with the above meaning, and chosen it to name this relatively new system of doctrine, with a radically different meaning assigned to it.

 

[dwight92070]

Dispensationalists say that God has divided all time, past, present, and future, into seven distinct "dispensations". In each of these "dispensations" God deals with mankind in a totally different way from each of the other "dispensations". When one "dispensational" time period succeeds another, there is a complete and radical change in the character and principles of God's dealing with the world. In fact, Steve Gregg has said that dispensationalists teach that in each of the seven "dispensations", there is a different way to get saved! This is blasphemous - ONLY Christ is our Savior! But really no less blasphemous than their teaching that the Jews will be saved during the so-called Millennium by reverting back to animal sacrifices and keeping the Law of Moses again!
There is nothing in Scripture to support such statements.

On the contrary, in every age and era, God has always accepted those who believed Him and refused those who did not believe Him.
Salvation has always been "by grace, through faith", based upon the sacrifice of Christ, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Whether it was Adam and Eve, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, or David, etc. , all were saved the exact same way we are today."

Also, why were there seven chosen dispensations? Scofield said "seven such dispensations are distinguished in the Scripture." (Scofield Bible - note on Gen 1:28) Really, where does the Scripture say one period ends and the next one is beginning? Nowhere! The number seven is entirely arbitrary.
Actually, pick a number. It's possible to divide history into any desired number of periods that one wishes to.

This is just the tip of the iceberg! Dispensationalism, as it is mistakenly named, is riddled with error and falsehoods from beginning to end. And yet they claim that they are the ones who "rightly divide the Word of truth"! That phrase, by the way, I have come to realize, is just a dispensational talking point. 2 Timothy 2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling (rightly dividing in the KJV) the word of truth." The only words the dispensationalists are accurately handling are the words of C.I. Scofield, and J.N. Darby, NOT THE WORD OF TRUTH, the Scripture itself.

 

[Rockson]

ONLY Christ is our Savior! But really no less blasphemous than their teaching that the Jews will be saved during the so-called Millennium by reverting back to animal sacrifices and keeping the Law of Moses again!
There is nothing in Scripture to support such statements.

No there isn't. It doesn't make any sense for men to embrace this way of thinking. They would have been a lot better if they just admitted they have to get back to the drawing board and admit there's no way they can be interpreting the animal sacrifice scriptures correctly or that is one's they thought were speaking of the end times.

 

[dwight92070]

Another HUGE error of Dispensationalism is that they lump Jesus' life and teaching under the "dispensation" of Law, possibly because the scripture says that He was born under the Law. Yes, He was born to parents who kept the Law, but He Himself, when He began His ministry, was not subject to the Law. Remember He said, "The law and the prophets were until John (the Baptist). Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, ..." Also the apostle John said in John 1:17 -"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

Did you catch that? The gospel of grace and truth and the gospel of the kingdom of God ARE THE SAME GOSPEL.
And the gospel of Jesus and the gospel of Paul ARE THE SAME GOSPEL. Dispensationalists often say they are two different gospels - wrong.

Acts 20:24-25 Paul is speaking:
" ... so that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD. And now, behold, I know that all of you, among who I went about PREACHING THE KINGDOM, will no longer see my face."

Paul equated the gospel of the grace of God and the gospel of the kingdom, as we should too.

 

[dwight92070]

Not only that but the law of God did not cease to exist during the New Covenant time of grace and truth Yes, the necessity to keep the ceremonial laws was done away with. No longer were those who loved God required to keep the Sabbath, or circumcision, or the Jewish feasts, or animal sacrifices, or ANY laws related to the temple. All of these were ceremonial. But the moral laws of forbidding idolatry, using God's name in vain, honoring parents, murder, adultery, coveting, stealing, and lying etc. were all still in effect, and still are today.

Nor was the grace of God nonexistent during the Law. God is ALWAYS GRACIOUS to those who humbly obey Him.
Exodus 33:19 "And He (God) said, 'I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion."

 

[Rockson]

But the moral laws of forbidding idolatry, using God's name in vain, honoring parents, murder, adultery, coveting, stealing, and lying etc. were all still in effect, and still are today.

Sure these things were in the Old Testament law for the reason they reflect what LOVE does. or does not do. They didn't have a heart or the nature of capacity to really hold back all the time from those things though they needed the new heart that Eze 36:26 spoke of. Jesus said men needed to become born again or a spiritual rebirth which brings with it the nature of Christ we become a partaker of. When you say there's till in effect today YES but it's a different capacity men now have. What we have now is the perfect law of liberty Jm 1:25 which the OT didn't provide.

 

[Frank Russell]

In the first era, there was a rule of death, people did as they pleased and the world was destroyed as God repented creating anything at all.

This rule of death continued until the time of the law.

understand that some places in the world still exist in a state where the fear and rule of death is very real. So to them consistently applied laws would seem a "salvation."

Because of this, only a select few are given the opportunity to experience grace, because humanity in it's fallen sinful state will never be able to create a balanced, functioning society based on grace.

However, onward with the dispensations.

Grace is the next era, treating people kindly even when they're cruel to you - or being gullible to the rest of the world. perhaps there will be an actual millennium, or that isn't meant to be taken literally. For some reasons all three eras are intertwined into the fabric of life.

And then there is love, sacrificing your own life for people who are your enemies. Jesus did it.

The society of love is another era. However, to those who seek self gain, love and death aren't all that different. Thus the era where God's presence is experienced everywhere is called the second death for those who cannot trust Him, and to those who do trust in Him, it is the entering of a new world.

The hope I read of in the bible is that on the throne after the second death is initiated, the king says .. behold, I make all things new. Would all mean all in this instance?

Since we are judged the way we judge others, how will we judge God? A God of death, law, grace, love?

So this is our judgment, how we see God, and how we judge how awesome He is - this becomes our eternity.

 

[dwight92070]

Sure these things were in the Old Testament law for the reason they reflect what LOVE does. or does not do. They didn't have a heart or the nature of capacity to really hold back all the time from those things though they needed the new heart that Eze 36:26 spoke of. Jesus said men needed to become born again or a spiritual rebirth which brings with it the nature of Christ we become a partaker of. When you say there's till in effect today YES but it's a different capacity men now have. What we have now is the perfect law of liberty Jm 1:25 which the OT didn't provide.

Can you explain what you mean by a different capacity? We know that there were Jews and maybe even Gentile proselytes who kept the law blamelessly. The parents of John the Baptist, Zacharias and Elizabeth, were "both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." Luke 1:6 So it was possible to fully obey the law. This includes making the appropriate sacrifices, restitutions, etc. when they sinned. So completely obeying the law didn't mean they were sinless, but they took the appropriate actions commanded by God, when they sinned. But we know that Zacharias was rebuked and blinded when he fell short in faith, i.e. believing what Gabriel had told him.

Even Job was called blameless before the law was given, and from his words, he displayed faith in God. Also Abraham, before the law, had faith in God. So did Abel and Enoch and all those mentioned in Hebrews 11. The law itself says that the commandments were not too difficult for them to keep, saying the righteous man could live by faith. But the difference is that today, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit, which obviously is a huge difference, but we still must walk in faith, which doesn't happen automatically - we must decide to be filled and led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rockson]

Can you explain what you mean by a different capacity?

In the new covenant we become a partaker of the divine nature. They didn't have that in the Old Covenant.

We know that there were Jews and maybe even Gentile proselytes who kept the law blamelessly.

In proper context though it means the system that God had set up they adhered to it to the best of their ability. If they were able to keep the law blamelessly in a total sense Jesus would never have had to come and die. They'd be sinless.

The parents of John the Baptist, Zacharias and Elizabeth, were "both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." Luke 1:6

Same answer as above.

So it was possible to fully obey the law.

But they didn't have the capacity within them to keep the law in the total sense of the word.

Even Job was called blameless before the law was given, and from his words, he displayed faith in God.

It means Job was sincerely seeking to carry out obedience to the measure where God counted him as blameless. If he were absolutely blameless as you're suggesting he wouldn't have even needed a redeemer.

 

[dwight92070]

In the new covenant we become a partaker of the divine nature. They didn't have that in the Old Covenant.

In proper context though it means the system that God had set up they adhered to it to the best of their ability. If they were able to keep the law blamelessly in a total sense Jesus would never have had to come and die. They'd be sinless.


Same answer as above.

But they didn't have the capacity within them to keep the law in the total sense of the word.

It means Job was sincerely seeking to carry out obedience to the measure where God counted him as blameless. If he were absolutely blameless as you're suggesting he wouldn't have even needed a redeemer.

I see that differently. Keeping the law blamelessly did not mean that they did not sin. God made provision in the law as to what they were to do WHEN they sinned, i.e. repentance, restitution (or other requirements), certain animal sacrifices,etc. If they obeyed God and did what He commanded and/or required WHEN they sinned "walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord" (Luke 1:6) then He considered them blameless.

But even then, their sins were not taken away, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Heb. 10:4, nor were they justified (Romans 4:5), sanctified (Hebrews 10:10), or made perfect (Hebrews 10:1). Rather, in addition to offering their animal sacrifices, they had to have the same kind of faith that Abraham had ("But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." Romans 4:5)

Thank God they were saved the same way we are today, by believing in Him (God) who justifies the ungodly. "but He (Jesus), having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, ... For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." Hebrews 10:12,14

As you said, we have become partakers of the divine nature, by being born of the Spirit, which they did not have, except for prophets, priests, and kings. Of course, Abraham was a prophet. Gen. 20:7 Since we have the indwelling Holy Spirit and if we choose to walk in the Spirit, we will not fulfill the desires of the flesh. " ... so that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:4

 

[Rockson]

As you said, we have become partakers of the divine nature, by being born of the Spirit, which they did not have, except for prophets, priests, and kings.

I do;n't believe the OT prophets, priests and kings were born again either nor did they have the divine nature of God imparted. They do now after the resurrection of Christ, one thing Jesus did when he led captivity captive......

I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John, yet even the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. Lk 7:28

So John the Baptist was the greatest OT Prophet (that really was OT times in the gospels) but notice the least in the kingdom of God is greater then he.

 

[SteveB]

Is there any justification for recognizing the time in which a Christian now lives as different from the time in which Adam and Eve lived prior to the fall? Well, of course it is, how is it different? The same questions might be asked in regard to other times as well. What about the time prior to Noah’s flood?… They were like totally running amok. The time Israel was in Egypt?… Israel’s conquest of Canaan?… Israel under the Judges and Kings?… Daniel’s day?… When Israel was under Babylonian captivity?

In Dispensationalism I see that there are at least five different periods with their own distinctiveness:

1. Man in a period prior to the fall
2. Man as fallen
3. Man under the old covenant, before the Cross
4. Man since the historic fact of Christ’s Cross and resurrection
5. Redeemed man as ruling with Christ over a changed earth.

I think it would be hard to find any sincere Bible-believer who is willing to raise issue against such clear and basic divisions in the Word of God, whether they are called dispensations or not. In this sense, every true believer of Bible-truth is a dispensationalist even when the kindred camp most sharply contrasted with dispensationalism—namely, Covenant Theology Is introduced to the conversation.

Hi.
I think the problem here is that to "make sense" of the biblical narrative, a group of people decided to work through it and break up the history of the human race into time periods, epochs, or dispensation, based on what God did through or in the lives of people in whose lives he worked.

At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

In my mind, as a younger believer, it was helpful to understand the difference in each period of time.
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Judges, David, the prophets, Jesus, the Church, the tribulation, the millennium and the new heaven and earth.

While I can see the benefit of doing so, I'm no longer focused on it.

Remember what Paul said about the importance of a tutor, until the time of adulthood, in Galatians.


For me, it's a tutor.

The Bible is a huge book/compendium of books, and it's an overwhelming collection to read.

But as I've grown older, read more, and had time to learn, it's not quite as overwhelming as it once was.

Take what you have learned so far, set it aside (don't let it get you stuck) and keep learning.

Dispensationalism is a good framework to develop a basic understanding, but it's only a framework or scaffolding. It's not the sum total of the biblical narrative.

Hope that helps.

 

[civic]

Not all who believe in a literal millennium and Christ 2nd Coming at the end of the great tribulation believe everything taught by dispensationalism . Just like many Calvinists see things differently and don’t agree on many things Calvin taught. So you can’t throw the baby out with the bath water and lump everyone into one pile.