Trying to understand Dispensationalism

[JD731]

Although if you go by DavidTree's reasoning, you could literally have hundreds of such divisions, so the number is totally arbitrary, not Biblical by any stretch. There are other problems with their beliefs about these divisions, however.

1. They believe that each period is totally unlike any other period, which is false right from the start. For example, they would say that there's no Law in the period of Grace and there's no Grace in the period of Law. Both are incorrect. They would say there's no Human government in the period of Promise, also not true. Abraham and his sons came into contact with lots of governments. Or there's no Conscience in the other periods, when in fact, God has always dealt with man, appealing to his conscience.
So there's really only 2 great divisons in the Bible - the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

2. They like to show a diagram of seven horizontal squares, saying that each square represents one of the "seven dispensations" implying that each "dispensation" is 1000 years long. That's very convenient (but it's not true), since the 7th square is the Millennium, which is 1000 years.
The problem is that some of their periods are much less than 1000 years, by several hundreds of years, others are longer than 1000 years.

It is impossible that the "dispensation of Innocence", which is Adam and Eve's time in the Garden of Eden before the fall, was 1000 years long. How do we know this? Because Genesis 5:3 tells us that Adam lived 130 years when he became the father of Seth. Adam was created on the 6th Day, so what recorded events happened between his creation and the time he had his son, Seth? Well God rested on the 7th Day, the fall of Man, their punishment, He kicked them out of Eden, the story of Cain and Abel. Then we read that Adam, at 130, has Seth. So notice that the 7th Day is within the 130 years of Adam's life, so the 7th Day Must be less than 130 years. In fact, I believe the 7th Day was Much less - just 24 hours like the days are today. So the "dispensation of innocence" ended with the Fall of Man, which also occurred during that 130 period of Adam's life, so there's no way it could be anywhere close to 1000 years.
Also the period of the Law was much longer than 1000 years - it lasted around 1300 to 1500 years.

3. Also they say that each "dispensation" has its own method of getting saved. One example is, they say, during the Millennium, people will get saved by obeying the Mosaic Law. How unbelieveable! Man has always been saved by grace through faith - from Abel to us today - that won't change.

These are just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to problems with "dispensationalism".

You are so wrong about the teaching of dispensationalism and also what dispensationalists teach. For instance, quote someone who is a dispensationalist saying that there is no grace under law and no law under grace. The idea is ludicrous yet you affirm this is what dispensationalists teaches.

What is important to know is that God tests men under different principles and those principles have a beginning and an ending. God does not test men under these various principles because he does not know the outcome but because men must know. There is a time when men will be facing the second death in the lake of fire as the penalty for their sins and the history of mankind and how God dealt with them will leave no doubt that God is not condemning any man unjustly. There are heavenly creatures also who are witnesses and they will know that God is just in his sentence of sinners and his salvation of the faithful.

So each transition between dispensations is because of the failure of men and the grace and wisdom of God to give another opportunity until his purpose of the ages is complete. The most simple among us are aware that God uses the number 7 for complete things. It is his way.

So, when Adam was created he was innocent. He was unaware of good and evil and right and wrong. I am not guessing about that because it is what the word of God says. So, the operative principle of God's dealing with the first man was in innocence. This did not mean God did not have any other principles, it just means innocence was the principle before sin came into the world. Every baby born into the world in the family of Adam testifies to a time of innocence when right and wrong is not understood or differentiated. It is the way of God to illustrate his spiritual truths by way of the physical examples. The sons of Adam become sinners when they willingly and with forethought choose to violate their conscience of good and evil and perform evil like Adam did.

Here is what the scriptures says about law.

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

So Adam was given one law. Here it is;

Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is the only law given and Adam and Eve were the only ones who could break this law because they were the only ones in the Garden where the tree was located.

Adam failed and brought the judgement of God against him, which was separation from God and loss of innocence. The judgement was his expulsion from the garden. He is now conscious of sin and he has an understanding of morality and he is responsible to do right even when there is an option of choosing wrong.

It is important to understand that God is condemning no man before the flood outside the Garden for breaking his law. Why? Because he gave them no law. If you disagree with that then kindly state the law so I can read it. They violated their moral conscience.

Ro 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Now God did not destroy the first order because men broke his law but God says distinctly why he destroyed men off the earth with the flood. Here it is;

Ge 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Ge 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Grace was present before the flood but it surely was not the operative principle of God's divine dealing with men. Only one man found grace in the eyes of the Lord and all others besides his immediate family were destroyed in the flood. Hardly the operative principle of God.

So we have come to the end of two dispensations along with two judgements because of the failure of men in them and God is ready to begin again. In the next dispensation after the flood he will divide men into families and families into nations and establish human government with moral laws and with men ruling over men. This dispensation is still present in the world but a judgement of the nations is coming because of moral failure. The knowledge of God is now much greater in the earth as he makes this third covenant with men, the Noahic covenant.

The dispensation of human government is now the operative principle of divine dealing with men. It is doomed to fail because of the wickedness and weakness of men and the sovereignty and power of sin in men without God.

God is going to be dealing with nations from the point of the flood on and it is for a reason clearly stated in the scriptures. I will quote it to you along with some of the context. I trust you will read the entire context.

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds (boundaries) of their habitation;

Here it is: This is the reason for his divisions of nations.

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Satan is at this very moment tirelessly attempting to reverse the nations into a one world government that he can control as one and with which he can fight God. This is his only option.

I don't plan on debating this subject much. The people who comes on forums like this already have their minds made up and cannot be taught anything outside their systems.

 

[dwight92070]

You are so wrong about the teaching of dispensationalism and also what dispensationalists teach. For instance, quote someone who is a dispensationalist saying that there is no grace under law and no law under grace. The idea is ludicrous yet you affirm this is what dispensationalists teaches.

What is important to know is that God tests men under different principles and those principles have a beginning and an ending. God does not test men under these various principles because he does not know the outcome but because men must know. There is a time when men will be facing the second death in the lake of fire as the penalty for their sins and the history of mankind and how God dealt with them will leave no doubt that God is not condemning any man unjustly. There are heavenly creatures also who are witnesses and they will know that God is just in his sentence of sinners and his salvation of the faithful.

So each transition between dispensations is because of the failure of men and the grace and wisdom of God to give another opportunity until his purpose of the ages is complete. The most simple among us are aware that God uses the number 7 for complete things. It is his way.

So, when Adam was created he was innocent. He was unaware of good and evil and right and wrong. I am not guessing about that because it is what the word of God says. So, the operative principle of God's dealing with the first man was in innocence. This did not mean God did not have any other principles, it just means innocence was the principle before sin came into the world. Every baby born into the world in the family of Adam testifies to a time of innocence when right and wrong is not understood or differentiated. It is the way of God to illustrate his spiritual truths by way of the physical examples. The sons of Adam become sinners when they willingly and with forethought choose to violate their conscience of good and evil and perform evil like Adam did.

Here is what the scriptures says about law.

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

So Adam was given one law. Here it is;

Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is the only law given and Adam and Eve were the only ones who could break this law because they were the only ones in the Garden where the tree was located.

Adam failed and brought the judgement of God against him, which was separation from God and loss of innocence. The judgement was his expulsion from the garden. He is now conscious of sin and he has an understanding of morality and he is responsible to do right even when there is an option of choosing wrong.

It is important to understand that God is condemning no man before the flood outside the Garden for breaking his law. Why? Because he gave them no law. If you disagree with that then kindly state the law so I can read it. They violated their moral conscience.

Ro 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Now God did not destroy the first order because men broke his law but God says distinctly why he destroyed men off the earth with the flood. Here it is;

Ge 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Ge 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Grace was present before the flood but it surely was not the operative principle of God's divine dealing with men. Only one man found grace in the eyes of the Lord and all others besides his immediate family were destroyed in the flood. Hardly the operative principle of God.

So we have come to the end of two dispensations along with two judgements because of the failure of men in them and God is ready to begin again. In the next dispensation after the flood he will divide men into families and families into nations and establish human government with moral laws and with men ruling over men. This dispensation is still present in the world but a judgement of the nations is coming because of moral failure. The knowledge of God is now much greater in the earth as he makes this third covenant with men, the Noahic covenant.

The dispensation of human government is now the operative principle of divine dealing with men. It is doomed to fail because of the wickedness and weakness of men and the sovereignty and power of sin in men without God.

God is going to be dealing with nations from the point of the flood on and it is for a reason clearly stated in the scriptures. I will quote it to you along with some of the context. I trust you will read the entire context.

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds (boundaries) of their habitation;

Here it is: This is the reason for his divisions of nations.

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Satan is at this very moment tirelessly attempting to reverse the nations into a one world government that he can control as one and with which he can fight God. This is his only option.

I don't plan on debating this subject much. The people who comes on forums like this already have their minds made up and cannot be taught anything outside their systems.

Of course that last sentence applies to you too, doesn't it?
Philip Mauro was a dispensationalist and he even tried to convince others of it. But after fifteen years of following that false teaching, he saw the many errors in it. In his book "The Gospel of the Kingdom with an examination of modern dispensationalism" on page 34, in the last paragraph, he says: "the strongest exception is to be taken to the teaching that grace was entirely absent from the era of law, even as law is said to be absent from the era of grace; this being a two-fold error." What is ludicrous is the idea that you think no dispensationalist teaches this.

 

[dwight92070]

The Bible only recognizes two great divisions: The Old Covenant and the New Covenant. To support a false doctrine that preaches seven divisions and puts the ministry of Christ under the division of LAW is indeed ludicrous.

 

[JD731]

Of course that last sentence applies to you too, doesn't it?

Yes!

Philip Mauro was a dispensationalist and he even tried to convince others of it. But after fifteen years of following that false teaching, he saw the many errors in it. In his book "The Gospel of the Kingdom with an examination of modern dispensationalism" on page 34, in the last paragraph, he says: "the strongest exception is to be taken to the teaching that grace was entirely absent from the era of law, even as law is said to be absent from the era of grace; this being a two-fold error." What is ludicrous is the idea that you think no dispensationalist teaches this.

No self respecting dispensationalist teaches such nonsense.

Phillip Mauro was obviously not a dispensationalist for 15 years by conviction from his study and seeking light from God. He was following a teacher/teachers and happened upon someone with a different idea and he liked it better. I do not know him but if one could read his new replacement theology system it would likely be no different than his new teachers. It surely isn't true. Men like this have taken a confrontaional posture against the truth of God and are denying a good majority of the words of God, claiming they are untrue. They should be marked and avoided.

Phillip was either lying for 15 years of his teaching dispensational truths , or he was lying afterwards. Who called such a double minded man as this to the ministry of God's words? My best guess is that he called himself.

 

[dwight92070]

No self respecting dispensationalist teaches such nonsense.

Dwight That's their problem. They respect themselves more than the word of God.

Phillip Mauro was obviously not a dispensationalist for 15 years by conviction from his study and seeking light from God.

Dwight - So you're calling him a liar with no evidence or proof.

He was following a teacher/teachers and happened upon someone with a different idea and he liked it better.

Dwight - You mean like you following "dispensational" teachers who have a different idea from what the Bible teaches, and yet you like that better?

Dwight -Total speculation again.

I do not know him but if one could read his new replacement theology system it would likely be no different than his new teachers.

Dwight - You won't really know until you read his books, will you?

It surely isn't true. Men like this have taken a confrontaional posture against the truth of God and are denying a good majority of the words of God, claiming they are untrue.

Dwight - From my own reading of Mauro, I know what you say is not true. He backs up everything he says with the word of God. In fact, I have noticed some "dispensational teachers" often refer to a long list of the "addresses" of many verses that they claim supports their doctrine. Then instead of quoting those verses and explaining how each one supports their teaching, they just list the addresses and say "See, these verses prove my point." Mauro doesn't do that. When he gives you a verse, he quotes it and shows how it says what he interprets it to say. If that's not enough, he quotes related verses, and shows plainly how they do not support "dispensationalism" either. You are the one taking a confrontational posture against this godly man and speaking lies about him, even though you know nothing about him, because you can't tolerate anyone who interprets the Bible differently than you and or the false teachers of "dispensationalism".

They should be marked and avoided.

Dwight -I "mark" Mauro as a man who loves Jesus and loves intense study of the scripture and loves to speak truth to the common man.

Phillip was either lying for 15 years of his teaching dispensational truths , or he was lying afterwards. Who called such a double minded man as this to the ministry of God's words? My best guess is that he called himself.

Dwight - Once again, you condemn someone you know nothing about, as a liar and a double-minded man. That, in itself, says that you are the one who should be "marked". You have called yourself to falsely accuse a man that you don't know, as being a liar - with no proof whatever.

Dwight - Mauro's mind is on the word of God, He has written more than 25 books on several different Bible topics. He is an excellent Bible teacher. He exposes the doctrines of men, which have little of no scriptural support.

 

[dwight92070]

It appears you're really upset, because I actually came up with a quote saying exactly what you thought didn't even exist.

 

[JD731]

It appears you're really upset, because I actually came up with a quote saying exactly what you thought didn't even exist.

According to you this man was a dispensational teacher for 15 years. Fifteen years is a long time in a mans life. I know nothing about him except what you have said about him. You say he is a godly man.

Here is something else you said about him;

"Mauro's mind is on the word of God, He has written more than 25 books on several different Bible topics. He is an excellent Bible teacher. He exposes the doctrines of men, which have little of no scriptural support."

" He backs up everything he says with the word of God."

You are condemning the dispensational teaching of the scriptures and this man taught them, you say, for 15 years. Is that when he is a good teacher in your estimation?

When I said he was not a dispensation teacher "by conviction" that is what I meant. Obviously he was not convinced of its truth by the scriptures but what someone else said, otherwise he would not have begun to teach something else.

Please deliver me from such argumentation as you are presenting here and the double mindedness of people like Phillip Mauro.

 

[JD731]

The Bible only recognizes two great divisions: The Old Covenant and the New Covenant. To support a false doctrine that preaches seven divisions and puts the ministry of Christ under the division of LAW is indeed ludicrous.

I would like to show in a single post how out of literary touch the above statement is. I will not spend a lot of time since I believe in the intelligence and cognitive abilities of some men.

This statement above attempts to refute the doctrine that the ministry of Christ was under the Law of Moses.

Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

I am going to assume for the sake of this post that ones reading He 9 has ability to follow the logic that is being presented here. The author is addressing Hebrews here, not gentiles.

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

So for those who cannot grasp this, we are being told that the New Testament went into effect at the death of Jesus Christ when he shed his blood.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world (Kosmos = the earth): but now once in the end of the world (aion = age of law = see verses 16-17 above) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

If one believes Jesus came to earth as a Jew to fulfill the law like he said he did, logic and reason will dictate that one must believe that he lived under the law by which he was judged to be without sin. And if the New Testament was in force at his death, then under what testament did he minister beforehand?

Moses made the covenant of law as a temporary addendum to the Abrahamic Covenant 430 years later. It did not change or alter or negate the Abrahamic Covenant. It was given to teach Israel their sinfulness and to prepare them to receive Christ their savior from sin. It ended when Jesus Christ made the blood sacrifice for them and then rose from the dead.

 

[dwight92070]

God Himself put a divison between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant or between the Old Testament and the New Testament - it's often called 400 years of silence between Malachi and Matthew. The last time I checked, the life and teaching of Jesus are placed in the New Testament, not the Old Testament, even the story of His birth. So right there, we have the witness of God and whoever put the Bible together, that Jesus' entire life, ministry, death, and resurrection, comes under the division called the New Covenant or New Testament.

I understand what you said about Hebrews and I believe that the cross of Jesus did truly end the Old Covenant, so yes, the Old Covenant definitely was followed by godly New Testament people, and Jesus did not discourage that. But at the same time He introduced the New Covenant starting with His baptism, which was the beginning of His ministry.

I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but it seems that there was an overlapping of the New and the Old. Jesus said you don't put new wine into old wineskins. Yes, He was born under the Law, but when He began His ministry, He was not primarily preaching the Law of Moses, He was primarily preaching the New Covenant of the Kingdom of God.

Luke 16:16 - "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John (the Baptist); since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, ..." This is why the New Covenant story begins with John the Baptist. He was NOT an Old Covenant prophet - He was a New Covenant prophet. The Law was proclaimed UNTIL him.

From that verse, we see that Jesus was NOT preaching the Law and the Prophets - He was NOT preaching the Old Covenant. He was preaching the New Covenant, the gospel of the kingdom of God.

Jesus did NOT discourage any who were obeying the Law. He even told them, at times, to obey what Moses told them to do. But His primary message was NOT keep the Law. His primary message was "the kingdom of God is at hand", and He wanted them to realize that He was the King.
He was guiding them gently and patiently into the New Covenant and away from the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was gradually being phased out and the New Covenant was gradually replacing it. Yes, His cross "officially" ended the Old and "officially" began the New. But, in a sense, Jesus WAS the New Covenant, even from His birth, but most people did not understand that until He began His ministry of preaching the New Covenant, after His baptism.

Jesus was born and raised under the Law, but His ministry was under the New Covenant.

 

[dwight92070]

Here's an interesting fact, showing that His entire life, from birth to death, to resurrection, was, in a sense, the beginning of the New Covenant. Look how Mark opens his gospel:
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Then he immediately starts with the ministry of John the Baptist. John's ministry is included as part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Think of the things that John said about Jesus, even before Jesus ministry began. Also, think of what Gabriel said about Jesus, even before He was born, and what angels proclaimed to the shepherds, shortly after his birth. Think of what Jesus, at 12 years old, told his parents when they were frantically searching for him in Jerusalem. Think about what the wise men told His parents, when they came to worship Him. All of this is part of the gospel of Jesus, and part of the New Covenant. So Jesus was truly ministering to people even before He was born, and also before His ministry "officially" started at His baptism.
Remember, Jesus didn't have to wait until after His death, to forgive sins. He forgave many people, some of them as He healed them. Jeremiah 31:34 tells us that forgiving sins was included in the New Covenant. The Old Testament sacrifices could NOT remove sin, but Jesus COULD, even BEFORE His crucifixion.
"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." John 1:17 Jesus displayed BOTH grace and truth, even at the age of 12, when He answered His mother, who was essentially scolding Him for not staying close to them in Jerusalem. He was the embodiment of the New Covenant, the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:31, but He Himself was not subject to the Law of Moses.
He was not only Lord of the Sabbath, He was Lord of the entire Law of Moses.

 

[JD731]

Here's an interesting fact, showing that His entire life, from birth to death, to resurrection, was, in a sense, the beginning of the New Covenant. Look how Mark opens his gospel:
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Then he immediately starts with the ministry of John the Baptist. John's ministry is included as part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Think of the things that John said about Jesus, even before Jesus ministry began. Also, think of what Gabriel said about Jesus, even before He was born, and what angels proclaimed to the shepherds, shortly after his birth. Think of what Jesus, at 12 years old, told his parents when they were frantically searching for him in Jerusalem. Think about what the wise men told His parents, when they came to worship Him. All of this is part of the gospel of Jesus, and part of the New Covenant. So Jesus was truly ministering to people even before He was born, and also before His ministry "officially" started at His baptism.
Remember, Jesus didn't have to wait until after His death, to forgive sins. He forgave many people, some of them as He healed them. Jeremiah 31:34 tells us that forgiving sins was included in the New Covenant. The Old Testament sacrifices could NOT remove sin, but Jesus COULD, even BEFORE His crucifixion.
"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." John 1:17 Jesus displayed BOTH grace and truth, even at the age of 12, when He answered His mother, who was essentially scolding Him for not staying close to them in Jerusalem. He was the embodiment of the New Covenant, the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:31, but He Himself was not subject to the Law of Moses.
He was not only Lord of the Sabbath, He was Lord of the entire Law of Moses.

You have been taught that it is okay to mishandle the words of God in order to make them prove your theological system and the proper description for this action is blaspheming (speaking ill of) the word of God. This is a horrible thing to do.

The gospel of Jesus Christ, according to Mark began at the baptism of Jesus Christ. The gospel means the good news, glad tidings. It began here because John was chosen 700 years before to introduce him to Israel. From this point on his was a public ministry. Now, from the words of Jesus Christ himself he stated exactly why he came to Israel. You are probably not going to believe this but it is what he said.

Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

This generation of Jews were tasked with recognizing their Messiah via the scriptures and receiving him. They did not. Instead, they put him to death. and thus they committed the unpardonable sin.

Mt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (aion = age), neither in the world to come.

This demonstrates that Jesus Christ believed in successive ages whether you do or not.

Lu 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Here are your words from your post:

Think of what Jesus, at 12 years old, told his parents when they were frantically searching for him in Jerusalem. Think about what the wise men told His parents, when they came to worship Him. All of this is part of the gospel of Jesus, and part of the New Covenant.

Here are the words of scripture:
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Here are your words from your post:

Remember, Jesus didn't have to wait until after His death, to forgive sins.

Here are the words of scripture:
Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

According to Strong's, remission means forgiveness;

AV-remission 9, forgiveness 6, deliverance 1, liberty 1; 17
1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty


Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Your words and the words of scripture do not match.

What about the sins of the believers before the cross?

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

See the context - there is no difference between those of the OT times who believed God and the NT times, all had their sins remitted by the blood of Jesus Christ. His blood was a satisfactory offering for the great Judge, God.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

It takes the blood of an eternal sacrifice to wash away sins;

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

This is some serious error you are in here. I am trying to be a help. You must believe the words of scripture and allow them to correct you where you are wrong.

 

[dwight92070]

First off, it's ironic that you would refer to my "theological system", since I have none, but you do - it's called "dispensationalism". I am not a dispensationalist, nor a Calvinist, nor an Arminian. I grew up going to a Baptist church, but didn't get born again there. When I was 16, I stopped going to church altogether, until I was born again in my Air Forces barracks room at the age of 23. After being saved, my first "church" was meeting with other soldiers who loved Jesus, from all kinds of different backgrounds. Almost a year later, I was baptized in the Holy Spirit at a Christian coffee house in Udorn, Thailand, still in the Air Force.

After leaving the service, I began to fellowship in a non-denominational charismatic church. Currently my wife and I go to a non-denominational homechurch, where we have been for about 22 years now. Our pastor also is not dispensational, not Calvinist, and not Arminian.
I have not been taught to, nor do I, mishandle the word of God. I love God and His word. And I love the body of Christ. I have never spoken ill of His word, but I do condemn false teachings of the word. Your false criteria seems to be: If anyone disagrees with dispensationalism, they are blaspheming God's word.
That is arrogance, which itself, is condemned by scripture.

We were discussing the question of whether the ministry of Christ was under the Law of Moses or not. You and other dispensationalists say that it was. I disagree and say that it was not, that Jesus was born, lived about 33 1/2 years, was crucified, and then resurrected - ALL during what the Bible calls the New Covenant of the New Testament.

One reason dispensationalists want to relegate the life and teachings of Jesus to the Old Covenant - especially the Sermon on the Mount - is because they say that we are no longer required to obey His teachings, because they were all part of the Old Covenant. To put it generously, this is hogwash. In fact, this itself would fit the description of not blaspheming, but presenting a different gospel, other than the one that Paul preached. Galatians 1:6-9 Paul pronounced a curse on anyone, even an angel, who did such an evil thing.

The very lasts words of Jesus in His sermon on the mount (Matthew 7:24-29) tells us that if we DO what He commands, then we will be like a wise man who builds his house on the rock. When the storm comes, our house will stand. If we DON'T do what He command, then we will be like a foolish man who builds his house on the sand. When the storm comes, our house will fall. We will be lost now and in the next life. So we ARE supposed to read and obey ALL of Jesus commands throughout the New Testament.

You mention Mark 1:1 where Mark says that he is presenting the "beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" which, you say, began at His baptism. But you didn't even get that right. You totally skipped over Mark 1:2-8, which explains how Isaiah prophesied that God would send His messenger ahead of His Messiah. It goes on to identify John the Baptist as this messenger and describe how he was preaching a baptism of repentance and how the Messiah would be coming soon. This, TOO, is PART of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In fact the other three GOSPELS, Matthew, Luke, and John, give many more things that happened in Jesus' life BEFORE His baptism - ALL of those things are also part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If that were not true, then they would not be called "Gospels".
The gospel of Jesus Christ is simply the good news of Jesus Christ, from before His birth to His ascension. It appears that Mark did not have personal knowledge of those thing that happened to Jesus prior to John's ministry.

Matthew 12:32 says nothing about "successive ages", like the (made-up) seven "dispensations" that you believe in. That is total speculation and even adding to the scripture. Jesus is simply speaking of only two "ages" - "this age", i.e. the age in which we are alive, "or in the age to come" i.e. the age in which become part after we die.

Luke 11:32 I see no reason why you even quote this verse, unless it is because it speaks of different generations, which has nothing to do with seven "dispensations".

Heb. 9:16-17 You're implying from these verses, that the New Covenant could not be in effect, while Jesus was still alive.

Three answers to that:
First in Revelation 13:8 speaks of "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." In God's eyes He was crucified before the world began - in fact, His death was so certain, that God speaks of it as already having happened.

Second, on the night before He was crucified, Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood .." How could it be the new covenant on the night before He died? Well, if God chooses to implement new covenant principles before Jesus is killed, that's His prerogative.

Third, Jesus forgave the sins of many people long before He was crucified. But forgiveness of sins was something that was supposed to happen during the new covenant. Jeremiah 31: 34 And we know that forgiveness of sins never happened under the Mosaic Law - the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. My second answer also applies here, God is not limited. If He wishes to bless someone even before Christ dies, that's His privilege.

Matthew 26:28 and Acts 10:43 - These verses support my previous point. The Matthew verse - Jesus is speaking of the forgiveness of sins BEFORE He died the next day. Also He forgave many during His 3 1/2 ministry LONG BEFORE He died, so that blessing from the new covenant was already being freely given out, whenever He chose.
The Acts verse also shows that whenever someone believed, Jesus forgave them. He didn't say, "Sorry but I'm not going to be crucified for another year and a half. So come back after that, and then I'll forgive your sins." This was not only the new covenant, it went way beyond the blessing of the new covenant.

You said it yourself. That God could forgive anyone's sins that He chose to, whether Jesus had died yet or not. For example, He chose to forgive David for his sins. However, if an old covenant person offered a sacrifice for his sins, his sins were only covered, they were not taken away. unless He had the kind of faith that Abraham had, who believed in Him who justifies the ungodly. (which would happen when Jesus was crucified)

Jesus is more than a messenger of the gospel; He is the gospel. The good news of God was present in His life, teaching, and atoning death. Therefore the gospel is both a historical event and a personal relationship. He is more than a messenger of the new covenant. He IS the new covenant. Therefore the gospel, i.e. the new covenant goes all the way back to the earliest event in the New Testament, when Jesus appeared on the scene- that would be His birth. When He was born, the New Covenant was born, because He was the new covenant.

Therefore we know that His whole life WAS the NEW Covenant. His parents and all godly Jews were under the Mosaic Law and He encouraged them in that regard, but He Himself was NEVER under the Mosaic Law. He was not only Lord of the Sabbath, He was Lord of the Mosaic Law. He had the authority to keep or break the Law - He chose many time to break the Sabbath law, which irritated the Jews, because He wanted to show them that He was above the Law. He chose many times to touch dead bodies, even though that violated the Law. He touched lepers, which was a violation of the Law. He commanded the man that He healed, to pick up his pallet (on the Sabbath), and go home. That was a violation of the Law.
However, He NEVER broke a moral law. He never murdered, committed fornication, lied, stole, coveted, dishonored His parents, committed idolatry, or took God's name in vain. However, He freely broke ceremonial Law. WE NEVER hear of Him going to the temple to offer animal sacrifices, either for sin (since He never sinned), or to obey the law in some ritual. His parents did, He told others at times to do that, but He never did. He had no problems violating ceremonial laws, because He had fulfilled them - that is, brought them to an end.
This is why His life is recorded in the New Testament division of your Bible, NOT the Old Testament.

 

[dwight92070]

The dispensationalists can't seem to make up their minds about the Sermon on the Mount. Scofield says it has two applications. Number one, it is "the principles of the kingdom", speaking of the Millennial kingdom, where these principles will be how a person should live during that 1000 year period. He also calls this sermon "pure law". He says, "the sermon on the mount in it's primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the church. These are found in the Epistles." Scofield Bible pages 999 and 1000

So, according to Scofield, obeying this sermon is "neither the privilege nor the duty of the church." Yet Jesus said that anyone who does NOT obey His commands in this sermon will be like a man who built his house on the sand, and great was its ruin. Matthew 7:26-29

Also, according to Scofield, any privileges mentioned in the sermon (and there are MANY) are NOT for the church.

On this matter, I don't know if the dispensationalists of today agree with Scofield (Darby) or not, or is this part of dispensationalism something that they are ashamed to claim as their own belief?

But Scofield goes on to give a second application: "But there is a beautiful moral application to the Christian." Then he goes on to pretty much praise all of the moral teachings in the Beattitudes, even though he has already said, there are NO promises here for the church, nor is it the church's duty to obey these principles.

So is he speaking out of both sides of his mouth, or what?

Maybe a dispensationalist of today can clarify?

 

[dwight92070]

Jesus, at 12, was found by His "parents" in the temple sitting in the middle of teachers, listening to them, asking them questions, and also answering questions. "Did you not know that I had to be in the affairs of My Father?"
Notice that He knows Who His Father is - also He says nothing about the Law of Moses, although they may have been discussing that. This is an indication, at least, that He wasn't bringing Himself under the authority of the Law, but under the affairs and authority of His Father. He was born under the Law, which speaks primarily of His "parents" obeying the Law. Before His ministry began, He apparently submitted to the Law. But after His ministry started, He seemed to keep the Law at times, and break the Law at times. The only Laws He broke were ceremonial laws

 

[TomL]

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.

By an opposing source


What is dispensationalism?
by Matt Slick
Dispensationalism is an approach to biblical interpretation which states that God uses different means of working with people (Israel and the Church) during different periods of history, usually seven chronologically successive periods. However, the dispensational division of history varies among its adherents from three periods, to four, seven, and eight dispensations. Seven is the most common.
1. Innocence (Genesis 1 -3) - Adam and Eve before they sinned
2. Conscience (Genesis 3-8) - First sin to the flood
3. Civil Government (Genesis 9-11) - After the flood, government
4. Promise (Genesis 12-Ex. 19) - Abraham to Moses, the Law is given
5. Law (Exodus 20 - Acts 2:4) - Moses to the cross
6. Grace (Acts 2:4 - Revelation 20:3) - Cross to the millennial kingdom
7. Millennial Kingdom (Rev. 20:4-6) – The rule of Christ on earth in the millennial kingdom

Though dispensationalists share common opinions about interpreting scripture, there are different types of dispensationalist positions.

1. Classical Dispensationalism
1. God has different purposes at different times
2. The Church is a parenthesis in history between the times of God dealing with Israel
3. There will be a literal Kingdom in heaven and also a Kingdom on earth during the millennial period

2. Modified Dispensationalism
1. Two peoples of God: Israel and the Church
2. Different roles
3. Salvation is the same for both groups
4. Church and Israel exist together during the millennium

3. Progressive Dispensationalism
1. Israel and the Church are both the people of God
2. It relies more on covenantal interpretations
3. Old Testament promises expanded to include the Church
4. There are still distinctions between Israel and the Church
5. Israel is still God’s chosen people with a plan from God
6. Pre-trib rapture is generally held, but not necessary

Dispensationalists, as a whole, seek to interpret the scripture as literally as
possible. The positions hold that salvation has always been by faith, but it is manifested differently between Old and New Testaments (Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4; Rom. 4:1-5; John 3:16). It accepts God’s covenants as vital parts of dispensational activity, but the primary unit of division is the dispensation (i.e., period of time). There are promises to Israel that are yet to be fulfilled. Israel will be completely restored and be prominent in the world as it carries out God’s promises. The Church may replace Israel to some extent, but not fully. The Church did not exist in O.T. times.

Premillennial held by all dispensationalists. Pre-tribulation rapture held by almost all dispensationalists.

Dispensationalism summary
Literal interpretation of the Bible
God works via different arrangements in distinct periods of history
Israel is the literal descendants of Abraham, not spiritual ones
Israel is the heir to the promises made to Abraham about the seed being blessed
Participation in the Abrahamic Covenant is “mainly” by physical birth in Jewish lineage
Two distinct people groups: Israel and the Church
Church began at Pentecost
Salvation is by faith in accordance to the revelation given in a particular dispensation
The Holy Spirit did not indwell people in all dispensations, only during the dispensation of the Church Age
Christ will reign in the future 1000 year period which occurs after the rapture

 

[Obadiah]

Good old Matt Slick. I took a couple courses at his online school about 10 years ago.

 

[TomL]

Good old Matt Slick. I took a couple courses at his online school about 10 years ago.

I would not normally recommend him but he was accurate in defining dispensationalism.

 

[Obadiah]

I hear you, He's not my go-to guy, but neither is RC scroll and I think I've pretty much taken all of his courses at Ligonier Connect.

 

[TomL]

I hear you, He's not my go-to guy, but neither is RC scroll and I think I've pretty much taken all of his courses at Ligonier Connect.

RC Scroll?

A deliberate mis-spelling?

 

[Obadiah]

RC Scroll?

A deliberate mis-spelling?

No I forgot to correct it. RC Sproul. He used to joke about it his wife calling him Docky. DR. RC Sproul