By Paul Henebury on
Dispensationalism
Theology
Hermeneutics

A Dispensationalist is a Christian who sees in Scripture certain clear divisions in the progress of revelation in which God governs history. At its best this is done on the basis of the covenants revealed in the Bible. A “dispensation” (Greek, oikonomia) is an administration or economy, wherein, within a certain period of time (known to God, but afterwards revealed to man), God pursues His plan through the lives of men. The term oikonomia is made up of two other words: oikos, meaning house, and nemo, meaning to administer, manage, or dispense. Literally, an oikonomia is a house-management or household administration. In its theological usage it is well suited to describe what we might call a divine economy. This is much the way the word is used in Ephesians 1:10; 3:2, 9; Colossians 1:25-26, and 1 Timothy 1:4. These passages also show that Paul held to the reality of certain dispensations in the broad sense given above.

Not unsurprisingly therefore, even Covenant theologians often speak of dispensations. For example, both Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof employ the term much like Dispensationalists do. Willem VanGemeren speaks of “epochs.” The number of these administrations is open to debate. Though commonly held, the seven dispensations articulated by C. I. Scofield are not the requisite number in order to be admitted into the ranks of Dispensationalist thinkers. The present writer, for instance, questions the theological value of some of these “economies” except perhaps as markers helping one trace the flow of God’s acts in biblical history.

Plain-Sense Interpretation

A characteristic of Dispensational theology is the consistent use of what is called the “grammatico-historical” method of interpretation. Here ‘consistent’ applies in principle, although not always in practice. Whether dealing with biblical narrative, or poetry, or prophetic literature, the Dispensationalist applies the same hermeneutics to each genre. This certainly does not mean that the genre is ignored; clearly, for example, so-called apocalyptic literature is not the same as historical writing or wisdom literature. But Dispensational scholars do not believe that one needs to change hermeneutical horses midstream when one passes, say, from Matthew 23, (Gospel narrative), to Matthew 24-25, (which many scholars would describe as apocalyptic or at least prophetic). They believe that exploring the grammatical sense of a passage within its context, and throwing whatever historical light they can upon a text, will yield the intended meaning. To drift away from this is to get caught up in the currents of the academic fads of the day; whatever is or is not in vogue should not dictate biblical interpretation.

The supposition of the Dispensationalist includes a belief in the full inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, together with a belief that the propositional nature of Scripture. Propositionalism is best adapted when a statement indicates a “literal” or plain sense. Thus, Dispensationalists are adherents of propositional revelation—a position that is being affirmed less and less within the conservative community, as scholars make biblical interpretation more the province of the specialist than the “common man.”

The Importance of the Covenants of Scripture

Essential to the theology of all classic Dispensationalists are the Covenants of Scripture. These are the explicit and clearly recognizable covenants defined in the pages of the Bible. They include the Noahic Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant; the Land Covenant; the Mosaic Covenant (which has been terminated); the Priestly Covenant; the Davidic Covenant; and the New Covenant. The principal biblical covenant for most Dispensationalists is the Abrahamic, out of which come those which follow. Because most of these are unilateral in nature (i.e. they were promises made solely by God and given to men) they cannot be rescinded or altered, since God can always be counted on to do just what He promises. Still, they may, like treaties generally, be supplemented by additional though never contradictory statements. An example of this would be the additional clarifications of the Abrahamic Covenant that one notices when reading Genesis 15 through Genesis 22.

The consistent application of the grammatico-historical method to these biblical contracts made by God with men leads to certain specific and undeniable expectations. Among these expectations is the one which, perhaps more than any other, distinguishes Dispensationalism from its main evangelical alternative, Covenant Theology. This distinguishing feature is the belief that there remains a set of incontrovertible promises given to the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (“the Fathers,” Rom. 11:26-29).

These promises, confirmed as they were by irrevocable Divine Covenant (see especially Gen. 15 and Jer. 33:15-26), must be brought to a literal fulfillment; a fulfillment which includes a physical land, and a king on a literal throne in earthly Jerusalem. As far as Israel’s inheritance of these promises is concerned, any future restoration of Israel to their land will not be apart from the new birth (Ezek. 36:21-28; Rom. 11:5, 25-29). But the Divine favor for this “remnant” of ethnic Israel is based on God’s gracious unconditional promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob mediated through Christ via the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34).

The Name “Dispensationalism”

It is because of the significance of these biblical Covenants that “Dispensationalism” is a rather unfortunate name. If it were not for the fact that it might cause some confusion with what is called “Covenant Theology” Dispensationalism would be more accurately identified as “Biblical Covenantalism.” Indeed, pursuing that idea and its ramifications has been a preoccupation of the present writer for several years.

This covenantal aspect of Dispensational theology can lend to it a powerful eschatological and teleological force, but this has not always been placed under the correct theological or hermeneutical controls. One example of this is the popular success of writers like Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye, authors who concentrate only on a populist approach to eschatology and who do not do justice to the whole discipline which is (or at least could be) Dispensational systematic theology.

Sad to relate, but much of Dispensationalism over the past fifty years has been held captive to this type of non-technical eschatological treatment. This has meant that serious development of Dispensational theology at the levels of exegesis, theological method, and philosophical explication has suffered greatly. Perhaps the most detrimental outcome of all this in terms of the thinking of many Dispensationalists has been the lack of exploration of the worldview implications of a full-orbed Dispensational systematic theology. This will be treated in another post.

Discussion

Wed, 02/26/14

It seems no one is looking to ban me just yet, so I am open to your peppering me.

Dr. Beacham’s article offered an overview of ANE covenants and was useful to me. I do not see how it supports the position that The New Covenant is not in effect. I probably need to read some of the articles from the conference. Certainly, the conference didn’t prove conclusive or else someone would appeal to the arguments that were made.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Wed, 02/26/14

No brother, I believe the Scripture is self-attesting and the canon is “imposed” as Warfield put it.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Wed, 02/26/14

Paul,

Thanks for the conversation.

For His glory,

KML

Wed, 02/26/14

You wrote:

I see continuity through the past ages not a slice and dice packaging of them.

I am a dispensationalist, and I see marvelous continuity of purpose on God’s part throughout the entire march of Biblical history! I know the issue is sometimes presented as continuity vs. discontinuity, and a good volume has been put out with that precise title, but I believe the truth lies somewhere in-between. There is discontinuity, in that Goid has altered man’s worship responsibilities periodically throughout the Scriptures. There is also amazing continuity, because all of Scripture is marching towards an identifiable goal.

The entire arc of Scripture is God setting right what was ruined, of restoring a creation that has fallen. Each way God has worked with man throughout the Biblical record is an integral stage in that goal. We learn something about man’s sinfulness and God’s grace from the failures in each:

  • Adam, in an untested state of holiness, chose rebellion and autonomy over God
  • The generations after the Fall chose, despite having knowledge of both good and evil, also choose rebellion over worship of God with a pure heart
  • The post-flood generations likewise rebelled, ignoring God’s command to scatter and multiply. They built themselves a city for self-glorification and ignored God.
  • The election of Abraham shows us God’s grace. He now began to work through a specific people group, an intermediary, rather than with all of humanity indiscriminately.
    • The promise of salvation in Christ is here (Gen 12:1-3; Mt 1:1), not just for Jews but for all who have the faith of Abraham (Gal 3:9).
    • There are also inviolate promises to physical descendants of Abraham for both a land and a nation of their own.
  • This culminated with the establishment of the nation at Sinai, and Israel’s agreement with her covenant responsibilities.
    • Her subsequent failure, despite ironclad guarantees of blessing, prosperity and protection in exchange for loving obedience to the Law, shows us the depths of man’s sin.
    • The fact that built into the Law itself were provisions for atonement and forgiveness for sin, shows us that man will always choose light over darkness
    • Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
  • Christ’s ministry fulfilled all the Law, in that He was the final, definitive, perfect sacrifice for sin. Now, with the most clear revelation of God to men (Jn 1:18), all mankind is without excuse and has no cloak for their sin:
    • John 15:22-34 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
    • Yet, men still love darkness rather than light (Jn 1:5) and the days will wax worse and worse (2 Tim 3:13)
  • In the Millennium, despite the binding of Satan and the personal, bodily rule of Christ for 1000 years, men will still choose to rebel and join Satan when he is loosed! This, above all things, shows us how sinful we are. When faced with a choice between the personal rule of Christ and that of Satan, men will choose Satan!
  • In the eternal state, all things will be created new, and sin will be vanquished. What was ruined in the beginning has been restored.

Throughout this admittedly brief and very superficial sketch, there is both continuity and discontinuity. God has changed man’s obligations for proper worship periodically, but (1) salvation has always been by faith, (2) there has always been provision and atonement for sin, and (3) men have always chosen darkness over light, and consistently rejected God in any age. And yet, God has bothered with us anyway!

Habakkuk figuratively asked God why He bothered to show His power and glory to men:

Hab 3:8 Was the LORD displeased against the rivers? was thine anger against the rivers? was thy wrath against the sea, that thou didst ride upon thine horses and thy chariots of salvation?

He answered his own question:

Hab 3:12a Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed

I’m not sure why you feel the dispensationalist framework doesn’t present continuity.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Wed, 02/26/14

[TylerR]

You wrote:

I see continuity through the past ages not a slice and dice packaging of them.

I am a dispensationalist, and I see marvelous continuity of purpose on God’s part throughout the entire march of Biblical history! I know the issue is sometimes presented as continuity vs. discontinuity, and a good volume has been put out with that precise title, but I believe the truth lies somewhere in-between. There is discontinuity, in that Goid has altered man’s worship responsibilities periodically throughout the Scriptures. There is also amazing continuity, because all of Scripture is marching towards an identifiable goal.

The entire arc of Scripture is God setting right what was ruined, of restoring a creation that has fallen. Each way God has worked with man throughout the Biblical record is an integral stage in that goal. We learn something about man’s sinfulness and God’s grace from the failures in each:

  • Adam, in an untested state of holiness, chose rebellion and autonomy over God
  • The generations after the Fall chose, despite having knowledge of both good and evil, also choose rebellion over worship of God with a pure heart
  • The post-flood generations likewise rebelled, ignoring God’s command to scatter and multiply. They built themselves a city for self-glorification and ignored God.
  • The election of Abraham shows us God’s grace. He now began to work through a specific people group, an intermediary, rather than with all of humanity indiscriminately.
    • The promise of salvation in Christ is here (Gen 12:1-3; Mt 1:1), not just for Jews but for all who have the faith of Abraham (Gal 3:9).
    • There are also inviolate promises to physical descendants of Abraham for both a land and a nation of their own.
  • This culminated with the establishment of the nation at Sinai, and Israel’s agreement with her covenant responsibilities.
    • Her subsequent failure, despite ironclad guarantees of blessing, prosperity and protection in exchange for loving obedience to the Law, shows us the depths of man’s sin.
    • The fact that built into the Law itself were provisions for atonement and forgiveness for sin, shows us that man will always choose light over darkness
    • Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
  • Christ’s ministry fulfilled all the Law, in that He was the final, definitive, perfect sacrifice for sin. Now, with the most clear revelation of God to men (Jn 1:18), all mankind is without excuse and has no cloak for their sin:
    • John 15:22-34 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
    • Yet, men still love darkness rather than light (Jn 1:5) and the days will wax worse and worse (2 Tim 3:13)
  • In the Millennium, despite the binding of Satan and the personal, bodily rule of Christ for 1000 years, men will still choose to rebel and join Satan when he is loosed! This, above all things, shows us how sinful we are. When faced with a choice between the personal rule of Christ and that of Satan, men will choose Satan!
  • In the eternal state, all things will be created new, and sin will be vanquished. What was ruined in the beginning has been restored.

Throughout this admittedly brief and very superficial sketch, there is both continuity and discontinuity. God has changed man’s obligations for proper worship periodically, but (1) salvation has always been by faith, (2) there has always been provision and atonement for sin, and (3) men have always chosen darkness over light, and consistently rejected God in any age. And yet, God has bothered with us anyway!

Habakkuk figuratively asked God why He bothered to show His power and glory to men:

Hab 3:8 Was the LORD displeased against the rivers? was thine anger against the rivers? was thy wrath against the sea, that thou didst ride upon thine horses and thy chariots of salvation?

He answered his own question:

Hab 3:12a Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed

I’m not sure why you feel the dispensationalist framework doesn’t present continuity.

The emphasized part you misspoke, I believe.

Essentially, Tyler, I agree with all you said. I think there is a Covenant of Works and Grace also. I think the Hab. passage might even portray the Covenant of Grace. I am not convinced that a D. framework is needed as I have seen it too radically applied while ignoring the continuity.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Wed, 02/26/14

You wrote:

Essentially, Tyler, I agree with all you said. I think there is a Covenant of Works and Grace also.

Here is the rub:

  • The Covenant of Grace is not found in Scripture - it is an inference
  • The Covenant of Works is not found in Scripture - it is an inference.

On the other hand:

  • The fact that God has changed His program throughout the ages is clearly in Scriptures.
  • The lessons I briefly sketched from these changes are drawn from the Scriptures
  • The fact that God made literal, ironclad, unconditional promises to Israel are clearly taught in the Scriptures
    • The fact that the original audience took them literally is clearly taught in Scripture
    • The fact that God keeps His promises is clearly taught in Scriptures

You say your problem with DT is that you have “seen it too radically applied while ignoring the continuity.” Is that a reason to eschew something? I’m a Baptist, but I haven’t dropped the label because of the excesses of Landmark Baptists! We already agree on the continuity aspect; surely you must admit there is some discontinuity, as well? As Dr. Henebury has said, you can junk the dispensations themselves as a framework and use the covenants themselves - you’ll still end up with a dispensationalist framework!

I’ll close with an analogy from Michael Vlach (Has the Church Replaced Israel? :[Nashville, TN: B&H, 2010] , 99):

… the supercessionist view is best illustrated by the following: In order to celebrate the good work of his son who is going to college, the father promises his son some wheels. On the son’s birthday, the father reveals the presence of a recently adopted son to whom a $200,000 Ferrari is given. The father turns to the first son and declares, ‘I am sorry, but my true son is this adopted son who represents everything our family name stands for.’ The first son says, ‘But Father, you made a promise to me! I don’t mind if our of your wealth you give great gifts to this new adopted member of the family, but giving blessings to this new son does not mean you fulfilled what you promised me.

This is a good comparison to what replacement theology offers. It just doesn’t do justice to God’s promises, which were made to a specific people at a specific point in time, and were understood literally by them and their descendants, all the way until after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:6).

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Wed, 02/26/14

I lost a post as I got disconnected or something. Anyway I will not re-type it as I am too busy.

Ethnic Israel, I believe, will again be dealt with, I am not so much a replacement guy.

I need to post another reply in this thread and then I will look in Monday. I have much on my plate so to speak.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Wed, 02/26/14

Yesterday I posted too soon after reading Roy Beacham’s article. I usually need some time to mull over what was said. If I understand him, he needs an explicit oath for the covenant and since he sees none at from either party in the 1st century, therefore The New Covenant is not in force.

The oath was given in Jeremiah’s time is my thinking when the promise was made. There doesn’t need to be such an overt and concrete statement at the time of enactment of this covenant. I’ll look in again Monday.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Wed, 02/26/14

Of course, it’s hard to argue that there is no covenant of works and no covenant of grace when many dispensationalists hold to “Adamic” and “Edenic” covenants (e.g. Scofield, Fruchtenbaum). One of the problems here is trying to read some ill-defined idea of “covenant” back into passages which do not themselves speak of covenants. When that is done the content of the supposed covenant can be manipulated to fit a theological agenda. Eisegesis follows eisegesis. It’s no good running to a hotly disputed verse like Hos. 6:7 because the exegetical case for a covenant with the man Adam is so tortuous. What we need is biblical warrant for a covenant, including its content!

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Wed, 02/26/14

Alex:

  • You’re right, I’m not sure why that point, above, was put in bold!

Paul:

  • I have been pondering studying for and preaching a series on the covenants throughout Scripture, essentially using the covenants to sketch the Biblical storyline. I am becoming more and more convinced they may be a better framework than a rigid adherence to the “dispensations.” The end result will be the same. I
  • It is odd to me that, unless I’m mistaken, dispensationalism hasn’t produced any major, systematic works beyond the second generation of Dallas scholars (e.g. Walvoord, Ryrie, Pentecost and McClain [I know he was from Grace] ). There have been excellent supporting works, but nothing I am aware of that has advanced the system as a whole in a very long time.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Wed, 02/26/14

Tyler, see Blaising, Bock, and Saucy. It is an advance as an upgrade.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Wed, 02/26/14

I knew I’d stick my foot in my mouth on that one! I was referring to traditional dispensationalism.

  • Admission of Guilt:
    • I don’t remember a whole lot about progressive dispensationalism from Seminary, other than Maranatha is strongly against it.
    • That doesn’t mean Maranatha didn’t cover PD; it just means I don’t remember much! I’ll take a look at Ryrie’s critique next week; I know he addressed it in his book.

In what way do you feel that PD addresses some of the problems Dr. Henebury brings up in his article? Or, do you feel it advances dispensationalism in a different sort of way? How is it an improvement on the original system? Do you feel PD has gone some way towards developing a fully-orbed BT, or is it mired in ecclesiology and eschatology?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Wed, 02/26/14

Paul hinted that a previous writer in Bib Sac did a good job on the covenants, and he happened to lean toward PD.

PD sees more continuity than the traditional DT of Chafer/Scofield and also more than the revised DT of Ryrie/Walvoord/Pentecost. It recognizes that the NC has indeed begun and that there is only one people of God. If those were the only improvements, then that would be enough.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Wed, 02/26/14

I have noticed, almost to my horror, that Chafer emphasizes discontinuity so much in his Christology and Ecclesiology that he repeatedly refers to the Mosaic Covenant as a “merit system.” This is, no doubt, why earlier dispensationalism is open to the charge of positing multiple ways of salvation. Chafer certainly did not teach this, (I’ve read his entire soteriology), but he makes numerous careless statements.

If I remember rightly, there is a major rift between DT and PD over the nature of the Kingdom.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Wed, 02/26/14

Jim and I jested about this subject earlier, but what are the essentials that need to be held to make one acceptable among dispensationalists? Is holding to a grammatico-historical method of interpretation of the Scripture, a difference between the nation of Israel and the Church, and premillenialism enough? I remember when strict adherence to Scofield’s notes and Larkin’s charts was required. I also recall the necessity of holding to the exact 7 dispensations (I’ve seen 5, 6, and 8 variations), of redeemed people of other ages not being part of the Body of Christ, of no Gospel message in the Old Testament, not to mention various intricacies of eschatology too numerous to mention.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Wed, 02/26/14

[Ron Bean]

Jim and I jested about this subject earlier, but what are the essentials that need to be held to make one acceptable among dispensationalists? Is holding to a grammatico-historical method of interpretation of the Scripture, a difference between the nation of Israel and the Church, and premillenialism enough? I remember when strict adherence to Scofield’s notes and Larkin’s charts was required. I also recall the necessity of holding to the exact 7 dispensations (I’ve seen 5, 6, and 8 variations), of redeemed people of other ages not being part of the Body of Christ, of no Gospel message in the Old Testament, not to mention various intricacies of eschatology too numerous to mention.

I found Michael Vlach’s Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths most helpful.

Re Larkin and his charts …. I love ‘em but he went way weird with the Great Pyramid,

Sample:

The “Grand Gallery” is supposed to represent the Dispensation from the Birth of Christ to the Rapture of the Church. Measured in Pyramid inches the length of the Grand Gallery is 1882 inches, and if each inch stood for a year, that would make this Dispensation 1882 years long. But it is already 1920+ years long, and this shows us that we have not yet discovered the unit of measurement if we are going to use the measurements of the interior passageways and chambers to set dates. There are, however, several striking things connected with the “Grand Gallery.” If the commencement of the “Grand Gallery” indicates the Birth of Christ, we have to measure but about 30 inches before we come to the mouth of an open well, that leads downward by a serpentine passage to the chamber “H.” At “S” this well opens into a wide cavern.

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Wed, 02/26/14

You missed the most enlightening part of Larkin’s dissertation on the pyramid:

The Great Pyramid is built on the solid rock. The rock was leveled around the base lines, and cornerstones (X), sunk 8 inches in the rock, were placed in position. The cubit of measurement is the Hebrew cubit of 25 - 025 inches. The length of each side of the base is 365-367 cubits, the exact number of days in the SOLAR year, including the extra day every 4 years, and also allowing for the periodical dropping of a leap year at intervals. The slope of the sides of the Pyramid is of such an angle that they meet at the apex at the predetermined height of 232 - 52 cubits. Why this fraction of a cubit? So that if twice the length of a side at the base, be divided by the height of the Pyramid, we shall have the figures 3 - 14159, (365 - 242X 2 232 - 52=3 - 14159), which, when multiplied by the diameter of a circle, gives its circumference. Now the perimeter of the base of the Pyramid (365 - 242X 4=14609 - 68) is exactly equal to the circumference of a circle whose diameter is twice the height of the Pyramid (232 - 52X 2X 3 - 1416=14609 - 68). So we see in the equality of these figures the solution of the mathematical problem of how to SQUARE THE CIRCLE.

And now, for the best part:

Whence came it? It must have come from some source not Egyptian. Why? Because there was a purpose in its building. It was built to record mathematical, astronomical, and Scriptural knowledge, that should bear witness to the inspiration of the Scriptures in these last days. That accounts for its peculiar architectural shape, and the character of its interior construction. To that end it was scaled up that in the closing days of this Dispensation it might disclose its message to an unbelieving world.

Yikes.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Wed, 02/26/14

http://www.ifca.org/site/cpage.asp?sec_id=140006911&cpage_id=140032338

Dispensationalism
We believe that the Scriptures interpreted in their natural, literal sense reveal divinely determined dispensations or rules of life which define man’s responsibilities in successive ages. These dispensations are not ways of salvation, but rather divinely ordered stewardships by which God directs man according to His purpose. Three of these — the age of law, the age of the Church, and the age of the millennial kingdom — are the subjects of detailed revelation in Scripture (John 1:17; 1 Corinthians 9:17; 2 Corinthians 3:9-18; Galatians 3:13-25;Ephesians 1:10; Colossians 1:24,25; Hebrews 7:19; Revelation 20:2-6).

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Wed, 02/26/14

I think Dallas’ statement captures the essence very well:

  • We believe that the dispensations are stewardships by which God administers His purpose on the earth through man under varying responsibilities. We believe that the changes in the dispensational dealings of God with man depend on changed conditions or situations in which man is successively found with relation to God, and that these changes are the result of the failures of man and the judgments of God. We believe that different administrative responsibilities of this character are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entire history of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under the respective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive.
  • We believe that the dispensations are not ways of salvation nor different methods of administering the so-called Covenant of Grace. They are not in themselves dependent on covenant relationships but are ways of life and responsibility to God which test the submission of man to His revealed will during a particular time. We believe that if man does trust in his own efforts to gain the favor of God or salvation under any dispensational test, because of inherent sin his failure to satisfy fully the just requirements of God is inevitable and his condemnation sure.
  • We believe that according to the “eternal purpose” of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always “by grace through faith,” and rests upon the basis of the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 3:9, asv; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4, asv).
  • We believe that it has always been true that “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6), and that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. We believe also that they did not understand the redemptive significance of the prophecies or types concerning the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 1:10–12); therefore, we believe that their faith toward God was manifested in other ways as is shown by the long record in Hebrews 11:1–40. We believe further that their faith thus manifested was counted unto them for righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:3 with Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5–8; Heb. 11:7).

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Wed, 02/26/14

[Paul Henebury]

Of course, it’s hard to argue that there is no covenant of works and no covenant of grace when many dispensationalists hold to “Adamic” and “Edenic” covenants (e.g. Scofield, Fruchtenbaum). One of the problems here is trying to read some ill-defined idea of “covenant” back into passages which do not themselves speak of covenants. When that is done the content of the supposed covenant can be manipulated to fit a theological agenda. Eisegesis follows eisegesis. It’s no good running to a hotly disputed verse like Hos. 6:7 because the exegetical case for a covenant with the man Adam is so tortuous. What we need is biblical warrant for a covenant, including its content!

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Wed, 02/26/14

It posted without me!

Anyway, what I wanted to say in response to Paul Henebury: If a covenant is defined in the bible by an oath from God, and it seems to be valid, then the statement: “In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die” functions as an oath. Romans 5 spells out in strategic terms Christ’s redemptive work towards humanity’s need.

It is a glorious message indeed that Christ fulfilled the need for righteousness and it can be applied to the lost sinner’s account to have peace with God.

Another problem I see with slicing and dicing the ages is for some to view the O.T. as something outdated and only focus on a narrow set of self-defined responsibilities for themselves and not learn from the O.T. The writers of the N.T. wrote with the O.T. in mind.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Wed, 02/26/14

[alex o.]

It posted without me!

Anyway, what I wanted to say in response to Paul Henebury: If a covenant is defined in the bible by an oath from God, and it seems to be valid, then the statement: “In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die” functions as an oath. Romans 5 spells out in strategic terms Christ’s redemptive work towards humanity’s need.

It is a glorious message indeed that Christ fulfilled the need for righteousness and it can be applied to the lost sinner’s account to have peace with God.

Another problem I see with slicing and dicing the ages is for some to view the O.T. as something outdated and only focus on a narrow set of self-defined responsibilities for themselves and not learn from the O.T. The writers of the N.T. wrote with the O.T. in mind.

Alex, this is like a Burning Man series or something with the size of this pyre.

Adam was not promised anything. He was only warned of consequences for failure. There was no benefit except to keep what he was already given. If that is a covenant, it isn’t a covenant of works, but a covenant of death.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Wed, 02/26/14

[alex o.]

It posted without me!

Anyway, what I wanted to say in response to Paul Henebury: If a covenant is defined in the bible by an oath from God, and it seems to be valid, then the statement: “In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die” functions as an oath. Romans 5 spells out in strategic terms Christ’s redemptive work towards humanity’s need.

It is a glorious message indeed that Christ fulfilled the need for righteousness and it can be applied to the lost sinner’s account to have peace with God.

Another problem I see with slicing and dicing the ages is for some to view the O.T. as something outdated and only focus on a narrow set of self-defined responsibilities for themselves and not learn from the O.T. The writers of the N.T. wrote with the O.T. in mind.

Alex, I’m sorry but it assuredly not the case that ‘a covenant is defined in the Bible by an oath from God.’ A covenant is sealed by an oath, but an oath does not necessarily imply a covenant. To give one human example, in 2 Cor. 1:23 Paul makes an oath concerning his intentions towards the Corinthians, but he makes no covenant. In an associated thread a Divine promise does not necessarily indicate a covenant. Just look at what God says concerning Ishmael in Genesis 17. He makes promises concerning him, but it is crystal clear that God’s covenant is not with Ishmael but Isaac.

Next, what ‘seems to be valid’ often depends on the assumptions one brings to the table. In truth, the only measure of validity is exegetical, and the exegetical case for a specific and definitive covenant before Genesis 6 is scant and often question-begging. N.B. If an oath is needed to insure a covenant then the case for covenants in Genesis 2 & 3 is further reduced.

But there arises a more pertinent issue, and that has to do with the verbal content of a covenant. I alluded to this above but you did not join it. If the Bible provides no propositional content to fill out a pre-flood covenant with then it will be painted the color each proponent prefers. Dispensationalists who hold to such things say they mean one thing. Covenant theologians say they mean something else. In truth, both are reading their own theological preferences into the passages. Eisegesis follows eisegesis.

Finally, as for the OT being outdated, it is covenant theology which essentially reinterprets the OT by the NT. John Sailhamer speaks to this tendency of CT in The Meaning of the Pentateuch.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Wed, 02/26/14

It is better in my view to come to the scriptures humbly and without unwarranted constructs of how God deals in covenants. You seem to need concrete propositions for a covenant and I don’t (at this stage).

God promised eternal life to mortal humans before the ages began (Ti. 1.2). Where is the explication of this? In my mind it is implicit in the tree of life. I would contend some things are not concretely stated propositionally and yet true and very significant. After all, God doesn’t owe us a thing in His disclosure. The call for the necessity of “definitive and specific” or rejection seems too philosophically Greek to me. I have seem too much bibliolitry (worship of naked explication) to insist on clear propositions when dealing with biblical covenants.

Why were fig leafs not enough for Adam and Eve? Why the animal skins? I do not want to build too much on this, but it is intriguing. How did Abel know to bring a firstborn? Again, we should be cautious but not everything that happened has been fully explicated for us to build unnecessary theologies upon what has been written. I am wary of over-systemizing the revelation. Its a matter of degree and not about having systems or not.

The rebuke of Jesus toward the two at Emmaus (fools and slow to believe) about Christ is to be taken to heart by the church today. Jesus began with the prophet Moses (probably starting with Gen. 3.15) and explained the suffering and subsequent glory revealed about the Christ in the O.T.

Colin Kruse (Romans) does not know whose genealogy it is in Luke 3 (Mary’s). Doug Moo (Galatians) thinks Gal. 4.4 speaks of merely a natural birth (born of a woman) instead of rightly, I believe, linking the statement to “the seed of the woman.”

The NT explains the OT not reinterprets it.

You may have a good point in thinking that Jesus was the New Covenant. It seems to fit in the whole scheme of redemption to me also but I need to read more and see if it integrates more fully in my mind. The verse in Isaiah you gave in the other thread I had not thought about in relation to the NC.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Wed, 02/26/14

I see a lot of you reading your own assumptions into the text. You stated what you believed a covenant was and I corrected you. You state:

It is better in my view to come to the scriptures humbly and without unwarranted constructs of how God deals in covenants. You seem to need concrete propositions for a covenant and I don’t (at this stage).

This statement is packed with assumptions on what coming to the Scriptures “humbly” and “without unwarranted constructs” is. I gave warrant Alex. I’m afraid it was your constructs (of a covenant before Noah, or your definition of a covenant) which were unwarranted. I derive my propositions from the text. God takes clear covenant oaths in Gen. 9 (Noahic), Gen. 15 (Abrahamic), David (Psa. 89), etc. No such thing occurs in Gen. 1-3. You are correct that you don’t need concrete propositions. You simply imply what you think needs to be there without solid exegetical basis for it.

You say,

God promised eternal life to mortal humans before the ages began (Ti. 1.2). Where is the explication of this? In my mind it is implicit in the tree of life. I would contend some things are not concretely stated propositionally and yet true and very significant. After all, God doesn’t owe us a thing in His disclosure. The call for the necessity of “definitive and specific” or rejection seems too philosophically Greek to me. I have seem too much bibliolitry (worship of naked explication) to insist on clear propositions when dealing with biblical covenants.

But again this is full of lacunae to be filled by your own predispositions. Your juxtaposing “eternal life” with mortality and connecting the former with the tree of life hides just such an inference. The tree of life would have permitted them to “live forever” by eating from it, but it had nothing to do with salvation, as per the so-called covenant of grace, and as is necessary to make sense of Titus 1:2. The tree of life would have extended life (probably by repeated eating from its fruit), but salvation is more than prolonged existence, as you know.

Next, you need to show what kind of things aren’t stated propositionally but are significant and where. You then say “God doesn’t owe us a thing is His disclosure.” Well, He does if He expects us to understand Him. He does unless He wants us to swan off in our own ingenuity. An important point of mine is that revelation which is obscure does not reveal! If God is not “definitive and specific” (which He is in His covenants, which is my whole point), then what is He? Ill-defined and non-specific? But that just allows us to provide the definition and specificity WE prefer! The covenants rule this sort of thing out. Bringing in the Greeks diverts the issue. The issue is what does Scripture say?

Quote:

I have seem too much bibliolitry (worship of naked explication) to insist on clear propositions when dealing with biblical covenants.

Note how you define “bibliolatry’. For you it is not worship of the Bible but “worship of naked explanation’ (whatever that is). Then you use this definition to excuse yourself from the clear propositions in the biblical covenants. If you wish to do that you will have to uncover a biblical rationale for it, not a personal hang-up.

I’m not sure of the argument you are trying to make with Abel etc., but the text does not provide us with explicit explanations to it. But the biblical covenants do, and they are right there on the surface of the covenant terms! Perhaps your problem is you don’t like what they say or you think they have been reinterpreted by the NT? Yes, “reinterpretation” is the right word if you believe the NT transforms the original wording and gives it interpretations not clear in the original wording to in the OT. My article shows that.

Your reasoning revolves a lot around your own ideas that you come across (not deliberately I’m sure) as something of a subjectivist in interpretation. You need to prove your contentions; yes, propositionally, not just with “for me.”

God bless,

Paul H.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Wed, 02/26/14

I appreciate the interaction of your thoughts Paul.

You still want to chop up revelation by your viewing disparate covenants it seems to me. I see more of a connection of the redemptive history back to the Judgment in Eden (Ge.3.15).

Also, the Mosaic Covenant had the Law of the sacrifice and Temple not only the commandments (do this and live). They could never do the commandments perfectly, therefore, a sacrifice was needed. God chose some Israelites (not all) in the OT the same as throughout the Bible in all ages. It makes sense to me that a Covenant of Grace exists. Gal.4.4-5 tells us that Christ was born under the Law to redeem those under the Law. This makes sense with a Covenant of Works which Christ fulfilled and Adam did not as Paul tells us that Christ was the Last Adam. Where is this explicated in the OT? We have to wait for the NT to discover what was going on, so to say, in the OT.

All in all, I am finding these concepts make much sense and I am certainly not alone or idiosyncratic in my views. I think more Christians hold to Works and Grace as Covenants than to seeing different content of redemption through the ages.

Additionally, God speaks in parables both in the NT as well as the OT and chooses to keep some things secret. He chooses to save some though by His grace and not by keeping a covenant contra what it seems you are trying to say with the covenants.

Again, it is not my own subjectivity in seeing redemption as similar throughout revelation. While not CT, I think they have it right, or better that the discontinuity of DT or your scheme.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Wed, 02/26/14

Alex,

DT’s and myself believe salvation is “by grace through faith” in all ages after the fall.

The Law was given at Sinai (cf. Jn. 1:17; Heb.9:19-23). It was not given in Eden. There one reads of a single prohibition. Reading the Law into Eden is clearly discontinuous with the text. The discontinuities of CT (which you tend to) are hermeneutical ones. God says things in equivocating terms. This leads to a problem in the character of the picture of God in CT. The unity of the Bible in CT is a metaphorical unity, not one which can be predicated of the words of Scripture themselves.

Our duty is not to believe something because it seems better to us. That is acting like Eve. What I am trying to do is ground belief in explicit terminology. I do not divide up biblical history any more than the likes of Berkhof and others. I’m not sure which discontinuities of mine you are talking about.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Wed, 02/26/14

[Paul Henebury]

Alex,

DT’s and myself believe salvation is “by grace through faith” in all ages after the fall.

The Law was given at Sinai (cf. Jn. 1:17; Heb.9:19-23). It was not given in Eden. There one reads of a single prohibition. Reading the Law into Eden is clearly discontinuous with the text. The discontinuities of CT (which you tend to) are hermeneutical ones. God says things in equivocating terms. This leads to a problem in the character of the picture of God in CT. The unity of the Bible in CT is a metaphorical unity, not one which can be predicated of the words of Scripture themselves.

Our duty is not to believe something because it seems better to us. That is acting like Eve. What I am trying to do is ground belief in explicit terminology. I do not divide up biblical history any more than the likes of Berkhof and others. I’m not sure which discontinuities of mine you are talking about.

DT theology is man-centric whereas CT recognizes that God is the sole agent in redemption. Look at your statement: “grace through faith” of course in some sense I believe it too but not your way. You have it that God gives people formulas and the ball is in their court. You have it that God only made salvation possible but didn’t act in anyone’s salvation it sounds to me. DT has big people and a small god, whereas CT has a true and lofty concept of God.

DT is a subtle attempt to control what should be regarded in the bible as redemptive. It may not be direct control, but it is control none-the-less. You say it is only your defined explicit formulas you have derived. You are limiting revelation to explicitness and have no warrant to do so. You are putting an interpretive gird upon scripture of your own making.

God did give a law in one command in Eden and Adam failed. The Last Adam kept every Mosaic command perfectly and then provided Himself a sacrifice of atonement. Adam was a type: this is explicit. Adam broke a covenant: this is explicit also. What is not explicit is your saying that God is limited in His dealings with humans to only His explicit covenants that you can find. You should not limit divine revelation or how God relates to His creation. Yes, explicit truth is wonderful, but don’t discount the implications of scripture.

When I say “seems better to me”, I mean it is more plausible. CT is more plausible to me than DT. Anyway, I am done, your thread, so you can speak the last word.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Wed, 02/26/14

DT theology is man-centric whereas CT recognizes that God is the sole agent in redemption. Look at your statement: “grace through faith” of course in some sense I believe it too but not your way. You have it that God gives people formulas and the ball is in their court. You have it that God only made salvation possible but didn’t act in anyone’s salvation it sounds to me. DT has big people and a small god, whereas CT has a true and lofty concept of God.

Where did you come up with this? I know a number of dispensationalists that are Calvinist in their soteriology, even five-point Calvinists who would have no idea that they are man-centric, or that God doesn’t act in anyone’s salvation.

Wed, 02/26/14

You and your opinions are welcome to each other!

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.