Basic Introduction to Dispensationalism

My last post was in response to a blog that was against Dispensationalism, but since there are a lot of readers/friends that might not be entirely or accurately familiar with what Moderate Dispensationalism teaches, or at least what I believe, I decided to put together a post to help explain what Dispensationalism.

Explaining Dispensational theology in one post is about as explanatory as describing an internal combustion engine by saying that it burns gas and turns a shaft to run a car. By that, I mean that Dispensationalism is such a vast and complex topic that a cursory explanation does little more than create a thousand questions in the minds of the readers, and in this case, almost every reader is going to have a thousand different questions than any other reader! However, I think it is important to make an attempt, if simply to help provide a well-rounded experience when it comes to Bible doctrine, as well as to open up dialogue with people who have never seen the Bible in this light.

Buckle up: here we go!

A Response to Anti-Dispensationalism

I know of few people that describe themselves as "anti-dispensationalists." Many I know would distance themselves from Dispensationalism, calling it "Ruckmanism," of all things, but until recently I had heard of very few people that would actually believe that Dispensational theology is unbiblical. For instance, the church I grew up in did not teach what I call Rightly Dividing, that God dealt with different people differently at different times in history: i.e. Adam was given different commands than Noah who was given different commands than Abraham, etc. Israel was unquestionably required to keep the WORKS of the Law: yes they were a picture of Christ, but they had absolutely no clue about that! Also, Jesus taught meekness and non-violence, but to Jews only, while Paul taught forbearance as much as possible and called people fools, directly contrary to Christ's command in Matthew 5:22.

Then, even more recently, I saw a link to a blog posted by someone: the title of the blog actually stated that they were against Dispensationalism. I eventually came to find that they were post-milleniallists, which started to make sense, and I was asked by a couple of people to respond to the blog post in question. This is that response: I hope you can at least learn something of my stance, even if I'm not able to change your doctrinal stance.

The sons of God

I love deep, complex topics. I really enjoy digging deep within the passages of the Bible, finding deep meaning and uncovering personal truths. I even enjoy when a book expounds something to me that I'd never noticed about the Bible. It's true that there are more books written about the Bible than any single other topic, yet there's always something new to be found within its pages.

I firmly believe that there is a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; I do NOT believe in evolution, "Theistic" evolution, the "Day-Age" theory or any of that other nonsense. I do not believe in pre-Adamic death or human races; to believe such things is to go against clear Scriptures about death, sin and God's creation. What I DO believe, however, is that God's first earth (and heaven-SINGULAR) was inhabited by a race of spiritual beings, known in the Bible as the "sons of God." Today we know them as angels and devils: angels are the perfect beings that have served God from the Creation, and devils are those that rebelled against God and were cast out with Satan. In the cataclysmic battle that followed (paralleled in Rev. 12), the entire creation of God was destroyed: i.e. "without form and void." I believe this whole occurence was likely less than 1,000 years long; perhaps it parallels in reverse the Tribulation period (1,000 years of peace, 7 year rebellion, destruction and recreation?).

Regardless, we know that these "sons of God" were present at the creation, even before Adam.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

(emphasis mine)

Obviously these creatures, whoever they were, were present at the creation and beheld God's wondrous power that fashioned the earth out of nothing. These same beings show up in the first part of Job:

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

and again:

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

These creatures are obviously spiritual, for one cannot physically present himself before God and converse with Him vocally, nor was that possible in those days. They also show up in Genesis 6 (don't give me this "godly line of Seth" nonsense; that's completely retarded), so these guys are rather well-known. But the question anyone might ask is "why are they called 'sons of God'?" Well, I'm glad you asked.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Here, Adam is called the "son of God." Why?

Gen. 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Why is that relevant, you ask? Well let's see: Adam was made in God's image, a trichotomy. The other "sons of God" (Angels and fallen angels; sorry, spoiler) were also made in God's image, though they were completely spiritual (though able to take physical form). So we've established that the "sons of God" are those that have the image of God.

Today, mankind is made in the "image" of ADAM, NOT God. When Adam fell, the part of him that communed with God died, and his soul became inextricable with his body: i.e. for the rest of the Old Testament, until the writings of Paul, "soul" and "body" are completely, 100% synonomous. Therefore, anyone who is born today is a son of ADAM (C. S. Lewis had that right, messed up though he was!), NOT a son of God!

Why then are we called "sons of God"?

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Rom. 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Phil. 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Why? Well, at Salvation, something unusual (and a little "odd-sounding") happened to you: you were circumcised. Yes, even you ladies. Verses? OK.

Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

(emphasis mine)

This circumcision had nothing to do with the "privy member," as the Bible says: it had to do with your SOUL and your BODY. Your body, or flesh, is permanently wicked: "in me, that is in my FLESH, dwelleth NO GOOD THING." Your OLD NATURE is perverse, wicked and vile, and all it wants to do is SIN. However, when you get saved, God performs an OPERATION without hands on you. Verse again? OK. Next verse, actually, so still in the same context:

Col. 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Amazing, isn't it? When that spiritual circumcision takes place, you are then a NEW CREATURE, created in the IMAGE of GOD. Therefore, you are now a son of God, made in His likeness and not Adam's! God cuts away your justified soul from your grave-bound body; the body returns to the dust, but your SOUL will now go to be with God forever when you die.

Oh the riches of the fulness of His grace!! Amazing love, how can it be, that THOU my GOD should'st die for ME!

Romans Road vs. Straight and Narrow

Occasionally someone shows up on the forum from whence I was last banned and starts arguing Salvation from Matthew or Hebrews or even the OT. It's hilarious, to be honest. They fall all over themselves, arguing Scriptures and trying to explain things away, while the heretic runs roughshod over them and makes them look like fools. Don't get me wrong, there are several nice, Godly people there, and I like several of them, but 98% of the people there can't answer a man like that.

The current fiasco is a "WWJD" type of guy, the kind that doesn't pay attention to mail addresses (see my earlier posts on that). He likes Jesus' message. Who doesn't? Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the peacemakers, etc. His message, while hard, is nice for the most part. And it's Jesus, so we should obey Him, right?

I Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

I Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me,

THREE times, Paul tells the CHURCH to follow him. Yes, the final object is Christ, because Paul followed Christ, but he commanded the Church to follow HIM three times. That's an indisputable fact, unless you like to argue with the Bible (not a smart thing to do).

So let's back up a little. Why Paul and not Jesus? Well, who was Jesus speaking to? Who did Jesus preach to? Most importantly, who did Jesus NOT preach to? Remember the Cyro-phonecian woman? Jesus called her a DOG! He said that it's not right to give the childrens' bread unto DOGS!! How's that for racial equality? Jesus didn't go to the Gentiles: He didn't preach to them, He didn't waste time on their ailments, He didn't try to convert them. He said that He was sent not but to the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL!

Who was Paul sent to? Who did he preach and write to? God said that Paul was to be a witness to the Gentiles. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and also the messenger to the Church (9 books addressed to churches?).

So, are you going to take a Jewish gospel, from a Jewish preacher, to a Jewish nation, and believe that, when God Himself said that Paul was the preacher to the Gentiles, and in turn the church? So, Romans or the Sermon on the Mount? Chop off your hand or live peaceably as much as lieth in you? Endure to the end or He'll keep us from falling?

Your choice. God, however, is right and true, and His word never faileth.

Looked for a City

For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

I just love the Bible. It pops out and gets you sometimes! The other night, I was laying in bed with my wife just chatting about stuff (we couldn't get to sleep) and I was thinking about a discussion I've had in the past with certain people about Abraham and his Sanctification and Justification. I've dealt with that quite a few times, though those who fight with me about it never seem to get it, but that's fine: I can go over it again sometime.

Anyhow, I was thinking about Hebrews 11 and its relationship to Romans 4, and I couldn't remember whether Hebrews 11 said "foundation" or "foundations." Now, to the average Christian, that wouldn't make a bit of difference. However, to the avid Bible Believer, that changes everything! That single "s" means that Abraham wasn't looking for any old city: he was looking for the New Jerusalem!! I got really excited when I saw that: here's Abraham, in 1200+ BC, looking for the New Jerusalem that STILL hasn't shown up!

You might be thinking, "doesn't that create a big problem for you Dispensationalists that don't think Abraham was saved by grace through faith plus nothing else?" Well...nope. See, WE know that that is what Abraham was looking for. After the fact, when Hebrews was written, God revealed it to the author of that book and in turn to us. But, where does it say that Abraham knew what he was looking for? Hmm, good question! If you look through the Old Testament, almost every passage deals with physical blessing and curses; only Psalms and the Prophets really get deep into spiritual stuff. Why? Because the jews look for a sign! The Jews have ALWAYS been a sight-oriented people. They want to SEE something before they believe it. (sounds like Missouri!)

Basically, Abraham was just following God around, going where He said to go, doing what He said to do. He never found anything, and according to Hebrews 11, what he was looking for (whether he knew it or not) wasn't even around to be found!! God gave the promises to Abraham then, which he took as physical blessing, but in fact God was looking toward the day when the Jews will be given an enormous inheritance among the people of the earth! In fact, it's not Abraham's physical descendants that will inherit the New Jerusalem: it's the Church, the SPIRITUAL children of Abraham that will live in the New Jerusalem!

It never ceases to amaze me how deep and complex the Bible is! I can't wait to get to Heaven and know the mind of God....that thought is almost enough to fry your brain!!

Basic Grammar...continued

Ok, so let's see how far I can get with this.

Samer is a guy I've known for quite a while. I don't mean to smear him, though I probably could rather easily, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to be a little blunt about him. He doesn't like me. He finds every possible excuse that he can to disagree with me. And now he's deleted a thread with my previous article on it. AFTER he found out that the owner of the site had ok'd the post. If that's not abusing one's power, then I don't know what is!!

So every time I bring up Biblical Dispensationalism, he immediately quotes the whole of Romans 4 and expects all the Dispensationalists to drop dead on the spot. Strangely enough they don't, which I'm sure is a bit of a quandary to him. I'm going to try to clear up any questions that he may have about the issue here and now.

"is" denotes being, in the present. "The pizza IS cold" meaning the pizza currently is cold.

"was" denotes past tense, as in a past point in time. "The pizza was hot" meaning the pizza at one point was hot, and by implication is no longer hot.

Rom. 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Ok, good verse. Now let's see what it says. "...is the reward not reckoned of grace...." Notice the tense? That's an important word: "Tense."

tense 2 |tɛns| |tɛns|
noun Grammar
a set of forms taken by a verb to indicate the time (and sometimes also the continuance or completeness) of the action in relation to the time of the utterance : the past tense

Ok, so a tense denotes in which time or times a certain occurrence...occurs. Simple enough, right? Ok so I'm going to throw a few things out here and see what happens.

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom. 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Always watch those slippery tenses. Is, are, etc. are rather complicated unless you pay close attention. Notice that Paul in Romans 4 is making a comparison, using Old Testament occurrences and making them fit the doctrine that he is teaching right now. Let's see something else that gets changed to fit what the author needs it to say!

Rom. 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Gal. 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Heb. 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Good verses! These verses, or at least the first two, show that we are to live by the faith of Christ, which faith is really the gift of Ephesians 2:8-9, if you pay attention. The third verse is applicable to the HEBREWS in the Tribulation (does His soul really have no pleasure in you if you draw back??) and therefore is not DOCTRINALLY applicable to us.

The funny thing about these passages is that they're quoting an Old Testament verse. Wanna' see what it is?

Hab. 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Cool! See what a little Bible study...um, wait a second...reread that verse. Another time. Once more for good measure. Look at the word ALL THREE of the NT verses leave out!! The OT passage that's being quoted says that a just man lives by HIS faith, speaking of his own, while the NT verses say that a just man shall live by CHRIST'S faith!! Rather interesting predicament, eh? PAUL JUST MISQUOTED THE BIBLE!!!

So? Ok, so Paul misquoted the Bible to make a point. Your problem? See, the Bible doesn't have to make sense to you. The authors, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, didn't have to wait for your opinion to write what they did. They just did it and God blessed it. No, that missing word isn't a scribal error. It's missing on purpose.

So, what have we learned from this? That God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on men, can write what He wants to, to make what points He wants to, and it doesn't matter a bit what you or anyone else thinks about it. Ok, hopefully that's clear enough.

Next point: debunking the myth that Romans 4 proves that everyone got saved by repenting of their sins and trusting Christ. Sorry, but that in and of itself is laughable! If the DISCIPLES didn't know that Jesus was going to rise again, then how on God's green earth could DAVID have known? Or anyone before the actual resurrection?? Come on now, use that brain God benevolently placed within your skull!

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom. 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Quick question: does this passage say that Abraham was not justified by works? Yes or no answer; it's really quite simple. In fact, if you pay attention, Paul's making a rather misleading question here. He asks if Abraham was justified by his works, and then instead of answering the question, he turns it around and talks about glorifying before God, when that wasn't even part of the original question! In fact, Paul just avoided answering his own question, because it would have totally messed up his point! Don't believe me? Well read the next verse.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Everyone likes to try to do away with this little problem to their theology by making this "justification before man," but they don't realize that it's their theology at fault. Abraham WAS justified by his works. He was NOT sanctified by his works, but he WAS justified. That verse says so. So basically, Paul's premise in Romans 4:1 is correct, just misleading. He WAS justified by his works, but he does NOT have whereof to glory before God. See? Again, simple English grammar. An understanding of the difference between Sanctification and Justification helps too.

See, the simple explanation is that Paul is writing to one group of people, namely the Church, of which you and I are a part, and James is writing to someone else, or a group of someone elses. Which theory makes sense, since Paul addresses all of the letters with "To the church which is at (insert city here)" and James starts his epistle with "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." See, when viewed from a literal, grammatical, logical perspective, the Bible makes complete and perfect sense.

It just doesn't agree with you.