"A look at Dispensationalism"

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Some Dispensationalists do not go quite so far as others in arbitrarily erecting notice-boards over large sections of Scripture, warning Christians not to tread on ground which belongs to others, yet there is general agreement among them that the Gospel of Matthew—though it stands at the beginning of the New Testament and not at the close of the Old!—pertains not to those who are members of the mystical body of Christ, but is "entirely Jewish," that the sermon on the mount is "legalistic" and not evangelistic, and that its searching and flesh-withering precepts are not binding upon Christians. Some go so far as to insist that the great commission with which it closes is not designed for us today, but is meant for "a godly Jewish remnant" after the present era is ended. In support of this wild and wicked theory, appeal is made to and great stress laid upon the fact that Christ is represented, most prominently, as "the son of David" or King of the Jews; but they ignore another conspicuous fact, namely that in its opening verse the Lord Jesus is set forth as "the son of Abraham," and he was a Gentile! What is still more against this untenable hypothesis—and as though the Holy Spirit designedly anticipated and refuted it—is the fact that Matthew’s is the only one of the four Gospels where the Church is actually mentioned twice (16:18; 18:17)!—though in John’s Gospel its members are portrayed as branches of the Vine, members of Christ’s flock, which are designations of saints which have no dispensational limitations.

Equally remarkable is the fact that the very same Epistle which contains the verse (2 Tim. 2:15) on which this modern system is based emphatically declares: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (3:16,17). So far from large sections of Scripture being designed for other companies, and excluded from our immediate use, ALL Scripture is meant for and is needed by us.

First, all of it is "profitable for doctrine," which could not be the case if it were true (as Dispensationalists dogmatically insist) that God has entirely different methods of dealing with men in past and future ages from the present one. Second, all Scripture is given us "for instruction in righteousness" or right doing, but we are at a complete loss to know how to regulate our conduct if the precepts in one part of the Bible are now outdated (as the teachers of error assert) and injunctions of a contrary character have displaced them; and if certain statutes are meant for others who will occupy this scene after the Church has been removed from it. Third, all Scripture is given that a man of God might be "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"—every part of the Word is required in order to supply him with all needed instructions and to produce a full-orbed life of godliness.

When the Dispensationalist is hard pressed with those objections, he endeavors to wriggle out of his dilemma by declaring that though all Scripture be for us much of it is not addressed to us. But really, that is a distinction without a difference. In his exposition of Hebrews 3:7-11, Owen rightly pointed out that when making quotation from the Old Testament the Apostle prefaced it with "the Holy Spirit saith" (not "said"), and remarked, "Whatever was given by inspiration from the Holy Spirit and is recorded in the Scriptures for the use of the Church, He contrived to speak it to us unto this day. As He liveth for ever so He continues to speak for ever; that is, whilst His voice or word shall be of use for the Church—He speaks now unto us . . . .Many men have invented several ways to lessen the authority of the Scriptures, and few are willing to acknowledge an immediate speaking of God unto them therein." To the same effect wrote that sound commentator Thomas Scott, "Because of the immense advantages of perseverance, and the tremendous consequences of apostasy, we should consider the words of the Holy Spirit as addressed to us."

But are there not many passages in the Old Testament which have no direct bearing upon the Church today? Certainly not.

In view of 1 Corinthians 10:11—"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples [margin, "types"]: and they are written for our admonition"—Owen pithily remarked: "Old Testament examples are New Testament instructions." By their histories we are taught what to avoid and what to emulate. That is the principal reason why they are recorded: that which hindered or encouraged the Old Testament saints was chronicled for our benefit. But, more specifically, are not Christians unwarranted in applying to themselves many promises given to Israel according to the flesh during the Mosaic economy, and expecting a fulfillment of the same unto themselves? No indeed, for if that were the case, then it would not be true that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). What comfort can I derive from those sections of God’s Word which these people say "do not belong to me"? What "hope" (i.e. a well-grounded assurance of some future good) could possibly be inspired today in Christians by what pertains to none but Jews? Christ came here, my reader, not to cancel, but "to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy" (Rom. 15:8,9)!

It must also be borne in mind that, in keeping with the character of the covenant under which they were made, many of the precepts and the promises given unto the patriarchs and their descendants possessed a spiritual and typical significance and value, as well as a carnal and literal one. As an example of the former, take Deuteronomy 25:4, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn," and then mark the application made of those words in 1 Corinthians 9:9,10: "Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope." The word "altogether" is probably a little too strong here, for pantos is rendered "no doubt" in Acts 28:4, and "surely" in Luke 4:23, and in the text signifies "assuredly" (Amer. RV) or "mainly for our sakes." Deuteronomy 25:4 was designed to enforce the principle that labour should have its reward, so that men might work cheerfully. The precept enjoined equity and kindness: if so to beasts, much more so to men, and especially the ministers of the Gospel. It is a striking illustration of the freedom with which the Spirit of grace applies the Old Testament Scriptures, as a constituent part of the Word of Christ, unto Christians and their concerns.

But surely we must draw a definite and broad line between the Law and the Gospel. It is at this point that the Dispensationalist considers his position to be the strongest and most unassailable; yet nowhere else does he more display his ignorance, for he neither recognizes the grace of God abounding during the Mosaic era, nor can he see that Law has any rightful place in this Christian age. Law and grace are to him antagonistic elements, and (to quote one of his favorite slogans) "will no more mix than will oil and water." Not a few of those who are now regarded as the champions of orthodoxy tell their hearers that the principles of law and grace are such contrary elements that where the one be in exercise the other must necessarily be excluded. But this is a very serious error. How could the Law of God and the Gospel of the grace of God conflict? The one exhibits Him as "light," the other manifest Him as "love" (1 John 1:5; 4:8), and both are necessary in order fully to reveal His perfections: if either one be omitted only a one-sided concept of His character will be formed. The one makes known His righteousness, the other displays His mercy, and His wisdom has shown the perfect consistency there is between them.

Excerpt taken from "A study of dispensationalism" by AW Pink

 

[jiggyfly]

What do you understand this scripture to mean?
Just as no one can set aside or amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case.16 God gave the promises to Abraham and his child. And notice that the Scripture doesn’t say “to his children, ” as if it meant many descendants. Rather, it says “to his child”—and that, of course, means Christ.17 This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise.18 For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it would not be the result of accepting God’s promise. But God graciously gave it to Abraham as a promise.19 Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people.20 Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham.21 Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it.22 But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ.

Gal 3:15-22 (NLT)

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

What do you understand this scripture to mean?
Just as no one can set aside or amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case.16 God gave the promises to Abraham and his child. And notice that the Scripture doesn’t say “to his children, ” as if it meant many descendants. Rather, it says “to his child”—and that, of course, means Christ.17 This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise.18 For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it would not be the result of accepting God’s promise. But God graciously gave it to Abraham as a promise.19 Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people.20 Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham.21 Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it.22 But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ.

Gal 3:15-22 (NLT)

I think Mathew Henry sums this up best.

The apostle having just before been speaking of the promise made to Abraham, and representing that as the rule of our justification, and not the law, lest they should think he did too much derogate from the law, and render it altogether useless, he thence takes occasion to discourse of the design and tendency of it, and to acquaint us for what purposes it was given. It might be asked, “If that promise be sufficient for salvation, wherefore then serveth the law? Or, Why did God give the law by Moses?”

To this he answers,
I. The law was added because of transgressions, Gal_3:19. It was not designed to disannul the promise, and to establish a different way of justification from that which was settled by the promise; but it was added to it, annexed on purpose to be subservient to it, and it was so because of transgressions. The Israelites, though they were chosen to be God's peculiar people, were sinners as well as others, and therefore the law was given to convince them of their sin, and of their obnoxiousness to the divine displeasure on the account of it; for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom_3:20), and the law entered that sin might abound, Rom_5:20. And it was also intended to restrain them from the commission of sin, to put an awe upon their minds, and be a curb upon their lusts, that they should not run into that excess of riot to which they were naturally inclined; and yet at the same time it was designed to direct them to the true and only way whereby sin was to be expiated, and wherein they might obtain the pardon of it; namely, through the death and sacrifice of Christ, which was the special use for which the law of sacrifices and purifications was given.

The apostle adds that the law was given for this purpose till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; that is, either till Christ should come (the principle seed referred to in the promise, as he had before shown), or till the gospel dispensation should take place, when Jews and Gentiles, without distinction, should, upon believing, become the seed of Abraham. The law was added because of transgressions, till this fulness of time, or this complete dispensation, should come. But when the seed came, and a fuller discovery of divine grace in the promise was made, then the law, as given by Moses, was to cease; that covenant, being found faulty, was to give place to another, and a better, Heb_8:7, Heb_8:8. And though the law, considered as the law of nature, is always in force, and still continues to be of use to convince men of sin and to restrain them from it, yet we are now no longer under the bondage and terror of that legal covenant. The law then was not intended to discover another way of justification, different from that revealed by the promise, but only to lead men to see their need of the promise, by showing them the sinfulness of sin, and to point them to Christ, through whom alone they could be pardoned and justified.

As a further proof that the law was not designed to vacate the promise, the apostle adds, It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. It was given to different persons, and in a different manner from the promise, and therefore for different purposes. The promise was made to Abraham, and all his spiritual seed, including believers of all nations, even of the Gentiles as well as the Jews; but the law was given to the Israelites as a peculiar people, and separated from the rest of the world. And, whereas the promise was given immediately by God himself, the law was given by the ministry of angels, and the hand of a mediator. Hence it appeared that the law could not be designed to set aside the promise; for (Gal_3:20), A mediator is not a mediator of one, of one party only; but God is one, but one party in the promise or covenant made with Abraham: and therefore it is not to be supposed that by a transaction which passed only between him and the nation of the Jews he should make void a promise which he had long before made to Abraham and all his spiritual seed, whether Jews or Gentiles. This would not have been consistent with his wisdom, nor with his truth and faithfulness. Moses was only a mediator between God and the spiritual seed of Abraham; and therefore the law that was given by him could not affect the promise made to them, much less be subversive of it.

II. The law was given to convince men of the necessity of a Saviour. The apostle asks (Gal_3:21), as what some might be willing to object, “Is the law then against the promises of God? Do they really clash and interfere with each other? Or do you not set the covenant with Abraham, and the law of Moses, at variance with one another?” To this he answers, God forbid; he was far from entertaining such a thought, nor could it be inferred from what he had said. The law is by no means inconsistent with the promise, but subservient to it, as the design of it is to discover men's transgressions, and to show them the need they have of a better righteousness than that of the law. That consequence would much rather follow from their doctrine than from his; for, if there had been a law given that could have given life, verily righteousness would have been by the law, and in that case the promise would have been superseded and rendered useless. But that in our present state could not be, for the scripture hath concluded all under sin (Gal_3:22), or declared that all, both Jew and Gentile, are in a state of guilt, and therefore unable to attain to righteousness and justification by the works of the law. The law discovered their wounds, but could not afford them a remedy: it showed that they were guilty, because it appointed sacrifices and purifications, which were manifestly insufficient to take away sin: and therefore the great design of it was that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those that believe, that being convinced of their guilt, and the insufficiency of the law to effect a righteousness for them, they might be persuaded to believe on Christ, and so obtain the benefit of the promise.

III. The law was designed for a schoolmaster, to bring men to Christ, Gal_3:24. In the foregoing verse, the apostle acquaints us with the state of the Jews under the Mosaic economy, that before faith came, or before Christ appeared and the doctrine of justification by faith in him was more fully discovered, they were kept under the law, obliged, under severe penalties, to a strict observance of the various precepts of it; and at that time they were shut up, held under the terror and discipline of it, as prisoners in a state of confinement: the design of this was that hereby they might be disposed more readily to embrace the faith which should afterwards be revealed, or be persuaded to accept Christ when he came into the world, and to fall in with that better dispensation he was to introduce, whereby they were to be freed from bondage and servitude, and brought into a state of greater light and liberty. Now, in that state, he tells them, the law was their schoolmaster, to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. As it declared the mind and will of God concerning them, and at the same time denounced a curse against them for every failure in their duty, so it was proper to convince them of their lost and undone condition in themselves, and to let them see the weakness and insufficiency of their own righteousness to recommend them to God. And as it obliged them to a variety of sacrifices, etc., which, though they could not of themselves take away sin, were typical of Christ, and of the great sacrifice which he was to offer up for the expiation of it, so it directed them (though in a more dark and obscure manner) to him as their only relief and refuge. And thus it was their schoolmaster, to instruct and govern them in their state of minority, or, as the word paidagōgos most properly signifies, their servant, to lead and conduct them to Christ (as children were wont to be led to school by those servants who had the care of them); that they might be more fully instructed by him as their schoolmaster, in the true way of justification and salvation, which is only by faith in him, and of which he was appointed to give the fullest and clearest discoveries. But lest it should be said, If the law was of this use and service under the Jewish, why may it not continue to be so under the Christian state too, the apostle adds (Gal_3:25) that after faith has come, and the gospel dispensation has taken place, under which Christ, and the way of pardon and life through faith in him, are set in the clearest light, we are no longer under a schoolmaster - we have no such need of the law to direct us to him as there was then. Thus the apostle acquaints us for what uses and purposes the law served; and, from what he says concerning this matter, we may observe,

1. The goodness of God to his people of old, in giving the law to them; for though, in comparison of the gospel state, it was a dispensation of darkness and terror, yet it furnished them with sufficient means and helps both to direct them in their duty to God and to encourage their hopes in him.
2. The great fault and folly of the Jews, in mistaking the design of the law, and abusing it to a very different purpose from that which God intended in the giving of it; for they expected to be justified by the works of it, whereas it was never designed to be the rule of their justification, but only a means of convincing them of their guilt and of their need of a Saviour, and of directing them to Christ, and faith in him, as the only way of obtaining this privilege. See Rom_9:31, Rom_9:32; Rom_10:3, Rom_10:4.
3. The great advantage of the gospel state above the legal, under which we not only enjoy a clearer discovery of divine grace and mercy than was afforded to the Jews of old, but are also freed from the state of bondage and terror under which they were held. We are not now treated as children in a state of minority, but as sons grown up to a full age, who are admitted to greater freedoms, and instated in larger privileges, than they were. This the apostle enlarges upon in the following verses. For, having shown for what intent the law was given, in the close of the chapter he acquaints us with our privilege by Christ, where he particularly declares,

(1.) That we are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, Gal_3:26. And here we may observe, [1.] The great and excellent privilege which real Christians enjoy under the gospel: They are the children of God; they are no longer accounted servants, but sons; they are not now kept at such a distance, and under such restraints, as the Jews were, but are allowed a nearer and freer access to God than was granted to them; yea, they are admitted into the number, and have a right to all the privileges, of his children. [2.] How they come to obtain this privilege, and that is by faith in Christ Jesus. Having accepted him as their Lord and Saviour, and relying on him alone for justification and salvation, they are hereupon admitted into this happy relation to God, and are entitled to the privileges of it; for (Joh_1:12) as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to those that believe on his name. And this faith in Christ, whereby they became the children of God, he reminds us (Gal_3:27), was what they professed in baptism; for he adds, As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Having in baptism professed their faith in him, they were thereby devoted to him, and had, as it were, put on his livery, and declared themselves to be his servants and disciples; and having thus become the members of Christ, they were through him owned and accounted as the children of God. Here note, First, Baptism is now the solemn rite of our admission into the Christian church, as circumcision was into that of the Jews. Our Lord Jesus appointed it to be so, in the commission he gave to his apostles (Mat_28:19), and accordingly it was their practice to baptize those whom they had discipled to the Christian faith; and perhaps the apostle might take notice of their baptism here, and of their becoming the children of God through faith in Christ, professed therein, to obviate a further objection, which the false teachers might be apt to urge in favour of circumcision. They might be ready to say, “Though it should be allowed that the law, as given at mount Sinai, was abrogated by the coming of Christ the promised seed, yet why should circumcision be set aside too, when that was given to Abraham together with the promise, and long before the giving of the law by Moses?” But this difficulty is sufficiently removed when the apostle says, Those who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ; for thence it appears that under the gospel baptism comes in the room of circumcision, and that those who by baptism are devoted to Christ, and do sincerely believe in him, are to all intents and purposes as much admitted into the privileges of the Christian state as the Jews were by circumcision into those of the legal (Phi_3:3), and therefore there was no reason why the use of that should still be continued. Note, Secondly, In our baptism we put on Christ; therein we profess our discipleship to him, and are obliged to behave ourselves as his faithful servants. Being baptized into Christ, we are baptized into his death, that as he died and rose again, so, in conformity thereunto, we should die unto sin, and walk in newness of life (Rom_6:3, Rom_6:4); it would be of great advantage to us did we oftener remember this.

(2.) That this privilege of being the children of God, and of being by baptism devoted to Christ, is now enjoyed in common by all real Christians. The law indeed made a difference between Jew and Greek, giving the Jews on many accounts the pre-eminence: that also made a difference between bond and free, master and servant, and between male and female, the males being circumcised. But it is not so now; they all stand on the same level, and are all one in Christ Jesus; as the one is not accepted on the account of any national or personal advantages he may enjoy above the other, so neither is the other rejected for the want of them; but all who sincerely believe on Christ, of what nation, or sex, or condition, soever they be, are accepted of him, and become the children of God through faith in him.

(3.) That, being Christ's, we are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Their judaizing teachers would have them believe that they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, or they could not be saved: “No,” says the apostle, “there is no need of that; for if you be Christ's, if you sincerely believe on him, who is the promised seed, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, you therefore become the true seed of Abraham, the father of the faithful, and as such are heirs according to the promise, and consequently are entitled to the great blessings and privileges of it.” And therefore upon the whole, since it appeared that justification was not to be attained by the works of the law, but only by faith in Christ, and that the law of Moses was a temporary institution and was given for such purposes as were only subservient to and not subversive of the promise, and that now, under the gospel, Christians enjoy much greater and better privileges than the Jews did under that dispensation, it must needs follow that they were very unreasonable and unwise, in hearkening to those who at once endeavoured to deprive them of the truth and liberty of the gospel.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

God himself is a disponsationalist
Disposationalists tend to be the most accurate biblical scholars
Anti-disposationalists prefer to mix mash and mush scriptures to please their own beliefs

That pretty well sums it up.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

God himself is a disponsationalist
Disposationalists tend to be the most accurate biblical scholars
Anti-disposationalists prefer to mix mash and mush scriptures to please their own beliefs

That pretty well sums it up.

LOL! I appreciate your candor.

 

[IAmAWitness]

Keep your dispensation to yourself. There are children reading this.

 

[jiggyfly]

I think Mathew Henry sums this up best.

The apostle having just before been speaking of the promise made to Abraham, and representing that as the rule of our justification, and not the law, lest they should think he did too much derogate from the law, and render it altogether useless, he thence takes occasion to discourse of the design and tendency of it, and to acquaint us for what purposes it was given. It might be asked, “If that promise be sufficient for salvation, wherefore then serveth the law? Or, Why did God give the law by Moses?”

To this he answers,
I. The law was added because of transgressions, Gal_3:19. It was not designed to disannul the promise, and to establish a different way of justification from that which was settled by the promise; but it was added to it, annexed on purpose to be subservient to it, and it was so because of transgressions. The Israelites, though they were chosen to be God's peculiar people, were sinners as well as others, and therefore the law was given to convince them of their sin, and of their obnoxiousness to the divine displeasure on the account of it; for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom_3:20), and the law entered that sin might abound, Rom_5:20. And it was also intended to restrain them from the commission of sin, to put an awe upon their minds, and be a curb upon their lusts, that they should not run into that excess of riot to which they were naturally inclined; and yet at the same time it was designed to direct them to the true and only way whereby sin was to be expiated, and wherein they might obtain the pardon of it; namely, through the death and sacrifice of Christ, which was the special use for which the law of sacrifices and purifications was given.

The apostle adds that the law was given for this purpose till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; that is, either till Christ should come (the principle seed referred to in the promise, as he had before shown), or till the gospel dispensation should take place, when Jews and Gentiles, without distinction, should, upon believing, become the seed of Abraham. The law was added because of transgressions, till this fulness of time, or this complete dispensation, should come. But when the seed came, and a fuller discovery of divine grace in the promise was made, then the law, as given by Moses, was to cease; that covenant, being found faulty, was to give place to another, and a better, Heb_8:7, Heb_8:8. And though the law, considered as the law of nature, is always in force, and still continues to be of use to convince men of sin and to restrain them from it, yet we are now no longer under the bondage and terror of that legal covenant. The law then was not intended to discover another way of justification, different from that revealed by the promise, but only to lead men to see their need of the promise, by showing them the sinfulness of sin, and to point them to Christ, through whom alone they could be pardoned and justified.

As a further proof that the law was not designed to vacate the promise, the apostle adds, It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. It was given to different persons, and in a different manner from the promise, and therefore for different purposes. The promise was made to Abraham, and all his spiritual seed, including believers of all nations, even of the Gentiles as well as the Jews; but the law was given to the Israelites as a peculiar people, and separated from the rest of the world. And, whereas the promise was given immediately by God himself, the law was given by the ministry of angels, and the hand of a mediator. Hence it appeared that the law could not be designed to set aside the promise; for (Gal_3:20), A mediator is not a mediator of one, of one party only; but God is one, but one party in the promise or covenant made with Abraham: and therefore it is not to be supposed that by a transaction which passed only between him and the nation of the Jews he should make void a promise which he had long before made to Abraham and all his spiritual seed, whether Jews or Gentiles. This would not have been consistent with his wisdom, nor with his truth and faithfulness. Moses was only a mediator between God and the spiritual seed of Abraham; and therefore the law that was given by him could not affect the promise made to them, much less be subversive of it.

II. The law was given to convince men of the necessity of a Saviour. The apostle asks (Gal_3:21), as what some might be willing to object, “Is the law then against the promises of God? Do they really clash and interfere with each other? Or do you not set the covenant with Abraham, and the law of Moses, at variance with one another?” To this he answers, God forbid; he was far from entertaining such a thought, nor could it be inferred from what he had said. The law is by no means inconsistent with the promise, but subservient to it, as the design of it is to discover men's transgressions, and to show them the need they have of a better righteousness than that of the law. That consequence would much rather follow from their doctrine than from his; for, if there had been a law given that could have given life, verily righteousness would have been by the law, and in that case the promise would have been superseded and rendered useless. But that in our present state could not be, for the scripture hath concluded all under sin (Gal_3:22), or declared that all, both Jew and Gentile, are in a state of guilt, and therefore unable to attain to righteousness and justification by the works of the law. The law discovered their wounds, but could not afford them a remedy: it showed that they were guilty, because it appointed sacrifices and purifications, which were manifestly insufficient to take away sin: and therefore the great design of it was that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those that believe, that being convinced of their guilt, and the insufficiency of the law to effect a righteousness for them, they might be persuaded to believe on Christ, and so obtain the benefit of the promise.

III. The law was designed for a schoolmaster, to bring men to Christ, Gal_3:24. In the foregoing verse, the apostle acquaints us with the state of the Jews under the Mosaic economy, that before faith came, or before Christ appeared and the doctrine of justification by faith in him was more fully discovered, they were kept under the law, obliged, under severe penalties, to a strict observance of the various precepts of it; and at that time they were shut up, held under the terror and discipline of it, as prisoners in a state of confinement: the design of this was that hereby they might be disposed more readily to embrace the faith which should afterwards be revealed, or be persuaded to accept Christ when he came into the world, and to fall in with that better dispensation he was to introduce, whereby they were to be freed from bondage and servitude, and brought into a state of greater light and liberty. Now, in that state, he tells them, the law was their schoolmaster, to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. As it declared the mind and will of God concerning them, and at the same time denounced a curse against them for every failure in their duty, so it was proper to convince them of their lost and undone condition in themselves, and to let them see the weakness and insufficiency of their own righteousness to recommend them to God. And as it obliged them to a variety of sacrifices, etc., which, though they could not of themselves take away sin, were typical of Christ, and of the great sacrifice which he was to offer up for the expiation of it, so it directed them (though in a more dark and obscure manner) to him as their only relief and refuge. And thus it was their schoolmaster, to instruct and govern them in their state of minority, or, as the word paidagōgos most properly signifies, their servant, to lead and conduct them to Christ (as children were wont to be led to school by those servants who had the care of them); that they might be more fully instructed by him as their schoolmaster, in the true way of justification and salvation, which is only by faith in him, and of which he was appointed to give the fullest and clearest discoveries. But lest it should be said, If the law was of this use and service under the Jewish, why may it not continue to be so under the Christian state too, the apostle adds (Gal_3:25) that after faith has come, and the gospel dispensation has taken place, under which Christ, and the way of pardon and life through faith in him, are set in the clearest light, we are no longer under a schoolmaster - we have no such need of the law to direct us to him as there was then. Thus the apostle acquaints us for what uses and purposes the law served; and, from what he says concerning this matter, we may observe,

1. The goodness of God to his people of old, in giving the law to them; for though, in comparison of the gospel state, it was a dispensation of darkness and terror, yet it furnished them with sufficient means and helps both to direct them in their duty to God and to encourage their hopes in him.
2. The great fault and folly of the Jews, in mistaking the design of the law, and abusing it to a very different purpose from that which God intended in the giving of it; for they expected to be justified by the works of it, whereas it was never designed to be the rule of their justification, but only a means of convincing them of their guilt and of their need of a Saviour, and of directing them to Christ, and faith in him, as the only way of obtaining this privilege. See Rom_9:31, Rom_9:32; Rom_10:3, Rom_10:4.
3. The great advantage of the gospel state above the legal, under which we not only enjoy a clearer discovery of divine grace and mercy than was afforded to the Jews of old, but are also freed from the state of bondage and terror under which they were held. We are not now treated as children in a state of minority, but as sons grown up to a full age, who are admitted to greater freedoms, and instated in larger privileges, than they were. This the apostle enlarges upon in the following verses. For, having shown for what intent the law was given, in the close of the chapter he acquaints us with our privilege by Christ, where he particularly declares,

(1.) That we are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, Gal_3:26. And here we may observe, [1.] The great and excellent privilege which real Christians enjoy under the gospel: They are the children of God; they are no longer accounted servants, but sons; they are not now kept at such a distance, and under such restraints, as the Jews were, but are allowed a nearer and freer access to God than was granted to them; yea, they are admitted into the number, and have a right to all the privileges, of his children. [2.] How they come to obtain this privilege, and that is by faith in Christ Jesus. Having accepted him as their Lord and Saviour, and relying on him alone for justification and salvation, they are hereupon admitted into this happy relation to God, and are entitled to the privileges of it; for (Joh_1:12) as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to those that believe on his name. And this faith in Christ, whereby they became the children of God, he reminds us (Gal_3:27), was what they professed in baptism; for he adds, As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Having in baptism professed their faith in him, they were thereby devoted to him, and had, as it were, put on his livery, and declared themselves to be his servants and disciples; and having thus become the members of Christ, they were through him owned and accounted as the children of God. Here note, First, Baptism is now the solemn rite of our admission into the Christian church, as circumcision was into that of the Jews. Our Lord Jesus appointed it to be so, in the commission he gave to his apostles (Mat_28:19), and accordingly it was their practice to baptize those whom they had discipled to the Christian faith; and perhaps the apostle might take notice of their baptism here, and of their becoming the children of God through faith in Christ, professed therein, to obviate a further objection, which the false teachers might be apt to urge in favour of circumcision. They might be ready to say, “Though it should be allowed that the law, as given at mount Sinai, was abrogated by the coming of Christ the promised seed, yet why should circumcision be set aside too, when that was given to Abraham together with the promise, and long before the giving of the law by Moses?” But this difficulty is sufficiently removed when the apostle says, Those who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ; for thence it appears that under the gospel baptism comes in the room of circumcision, and that those who by baptism are devoted to Christ, and do sincerely believe in him, are to all intents and purposes as much admitted into the privileges of the Christian state as the Jews were by circumcision into those of the legal (Phi_3:3), and therefore there was no reason why the use of that should still be continued. Note, Secondly, In our baptism we put on Christ; therein we profess our discipleship to him, and are obliged to behave ourselves as his faithful servants. Being baptized into Christ, we are baptized into his death, that as he died and rose again, so, in conformity thereunto, we should die unto sin, and walk in newness of life (Rom_6:3, Rom_6:4); it would be of great advantage to us did we oftener remember this.

(2.) That this privilege of being the children of God, and of being by baptism devoted to Christ, is now enjoyed in common by all real Christians. The law indeed made a difference between Jew and Greek, giving the Jews on many accounts the pre-eminence: that also made a difference between bond and free, master and servant, and between male and female, the males being circumcised. But it is not so now; they all stand on the same level, and are all one in Christ Jesus; as the one is not accepted on the account of any national or personal advantages he may enjoy above the other, so neither is the other rejected for the want of them; but all who sincerely believe on Christ, of what nation, or sex, or condition, soever they be, are accepted of him, and become the children of God through faith in him.

(3.) That, being Christ's, we are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Their judaizing teachers would have them believe that they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, or they could not be saved: “No,” says the apostle, “there is no need of that; for if you be Christ's, if you sincerely believe on him, who is the promised seed, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, you therefore become the true seed of Abraham, the father of the faithful, and as such are heirs according to the promise, and consequently are entitled to the great blessings and privileges of it.” And therefore upon the whole, since it appeared that justification was not to be attained by the works of the law, but only by faith in Christ, and that the law of Moses was a temporary institution and was given for such purposes as were only subservient to and not subversive of the promise, and that now, under the gospel, Christians enjoy much greater and better privileges than the Jews did under that dispensation, it must needs follow that they were very unreasonable and unwise, in hearkening to those who at once endeavoured to deprive them of the truth and liberty of the gospel.

It seems Mathew Henry was reading more than what is in that scripture context, so now that I have what MH thinks it means can you possibly comment in your own words?

 

[Episkopos]

Dispensationalism is a clever ruse to avoid the cross...but in doing so, it also avoids the resurrection life that follows.

 

[Rex]

And when you get to the magic verse used by Dispensationalism Romans 11:25 please come on over to this thread and provide the evidence to support it.
WARNING you may be taken back with the blizzard of NT scripture that says your wrong.
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18010-the-proper-and-harmonious-interpretation-of-romans-1125-split-from-another-topic/

Darby-ites there every where. LOL the have completely taken over today's churches. And if it were possible to deceive even the very elect Matthew 24:24

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Keep your dispensation to yourself. There are children reading this.

LOL. How come your account is disabled?

Dispensationalism is a clever ruse to avoid the cross...but in doing so, it also avoids the resurrection life that follows.

Interesting, will you elaborate?

And when you get to the magic verse used by Dispensationalism Romans 11:25 please come on over to this thread and provide the evidence to support it.
WARNING you may be taken back with the blizzard of NT scripture that says your wrong.
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18010-the-proper-and-harmonious-interpretation-of-romans-1125-split-from-another-topic/

Darby-ites there every where. LOL the have completely taken over today's churches. And if it were possible to deceive even the very elect Matthew 24:24

I heard that whilst dispensationalism was given 'respectability' by Darby etc wasn't it originally an idea from, I think, a Mary Mcdonald who was suppose to have had a vision like Ellen G White?

In any case it's a modern time fabrication like SDA-ism.

It seems Mathew Henry was reading more than what is in that scripture context, so now that I have what MH thinks it means can you possibly comment in your own words?

No point me babbling on. So what I posted will suffice. I think he sufficiently addressed your central question.

 

[Rex]

I heard that whilst dispensationalism was given 'respectability' by Darby etc wasn't it originally an idea from, I think, a Mary Mcdonald who was suppose to have had a vision like Ellen G White?

This is the oldest reference to Futurism I have ever seen but as you can see it holds some of the same Ideas "red" is my comments.

FUTURISM

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:

Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This is a biggie for dispensation
Abolish the Christian religion. The church disappears in the secret rapture, Jews are left behind with their new temple to clean up the mess
Deny Jesus Christ.
Be received by the Jews. Again with the temple business Riberia I believe was the first to change Dan 9:27 from Christ to AC therefor the temple must be in use. This also places the 70th week into the future.
Pretend to be God. AC setting in the future temple of God 2 Thes 2
Kill the two witnesses of God.
Conquer the world.

After Darby made it popular, Darby Bible 1867, with revised editions in 1872 and 1884 dispensation and the teaching found there way to C.I. Scofield and his reference bible 1917 which today is the holy grail of bible seminary schools, which is why futurism and dispensationalism have found their way into nearly ever American church. Francisco Ribera started the concept of complete futurism to take the heat off the RCC by misdirecting prophesy. Today it includes a do over If you will for the Jewish state. I believe that the state of Israel in 1948 and the temple that many say must be rebuilt are nothing more than leading many into an end time delusion focusing lost sheep's attention on events that are not supported by the NT. A careful reading of 2 Thes 2 will say the temple of God, a rebuilt temple will never be a temple of God unless you ignor even more NT scripture.
I am not a preterist ether, but I have come to the conclusion that nether preterism, futurism or historicism in of themselves "singularly" holds all the answers, but anytime you mention the temple or the the completed work of Christ or deny that "Gods not finished with the Jews and or Israel" there is a whole storm of bumper sticker you get plastered with, If you can keep the dispensationalist attention its very easy to use scripture to disprove the teachings that are generally accepted by many without question. In 79 when I first meet my mentor and began studying the bible and listening to sermons it was very clear to me something just doesn't add up, dispensationalism but it took me many years to sort it out mainly because that's all you're taught. But I refused to believe the nonsence about prophesy and the Jews having some kind of special reservation. I simply chose to ignor it and concentrate of the gosple message but it soon became aparent that dispensationalism effected that as well.

.

So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism. A 1591 edition, 1593 edition, and a 1603 edition of his commentary are now online.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

This is the oldest reference to Futurism I have ever seen but as you can see it holds some of the same Ideas "red" is my comments.

FUTURISM

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:

Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This is a biggie for dispensation
Abolish the Christian religion. The church disappears in the secret rapture, Jews are left behind with their new temple to clean up the mess
Deny Jesus Christ.
Be received by the Jews. Again with the temple business Riberia I believe was the first to change Dan 9:27 from Christ to AC therefor the temple must be in use. This also places the 70th week into the future.
Pretend to be God. AC setting in the future temple of God 2 Thes 2
Kill the two witnesses of God.
Conquer the world.

After Darby made it popular, Darby Bible 1867, with revised editions in 1872 and 1884 dispensation and the teaching found there way to C.I. Scofield and his reference bible 1917 which today is the holy grail of bible seminary schools, which is why futurism and dispensationalism have found their way into nearly ever American church. Francisco Ribera started the concept of complete futurism to take the heat off the RCC by misdirecting prophesy. Today it includes a do over If you will for the Jewish state. I believe that the state of Israel in 1948 and the temple that many say must be rebuilt are nothing more than leading many into an end time delusion focusing lost sheep's attention on events that are not supported by the NT. A careful reading of 2 Thes 2 will say the temple of God, a rebuilt temple will never be a temple of God unless you ignor even more NT scripture.
I am not a preterist ether, but I have come to the conclusion that nether preterism, futurism or historicism in of themselves "singularly" holds all the answers, but anytime you mention the temple or the the completed work of Christ or deny that "Gods not finished with the Jews and or Israel" there is a whole storm of bumper sticker you get plastered with, If you can keep the dispensationalist attention its very easy to use scripture to disprove the teachings that are generally accepted by many without question. In 79 when I first meet my mentor and began studying the bible and listening to sermons it was very clear to me something just doesn't add up, dispensationalism but it took me many years to sort it out mainly because that's all you're taught. But I refused to believe the nonsence about prophesy and the Jews having some kind of special reservation. I simply chose to ignor it and concentrate of the gosple message but it soon became aparent that dispensationalism effected that as well.

.

So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism. A 1591 edition, 1593 edition, and a 1603 edition of his commentary are now online.

Thank you Rex for your considered response. I came out of Dispensationalism about 3 years ago. This happened when I was deep in study of God's word and the Holy Spirit lead me to a clear understanding of Covenant relationship.

I came from an 'Independent baptist Church' who through the preaching of the GOSPEL was brought to faith and repentance in Christ. Whilst this church may have been dispensational not much to my knowledge was pushed, at least down my throat.

I will be certainly looking into the material you have posted. Again, I thank you.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Everybody would agree that God deals differently with mankind ..... at different periods of time throughout history .... and into the future.

That means God Himself .... and each of one of us .... are dispensationalists ..... whether we like the label or not.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Everybody would agree that God deals differently with mankind ..... at different periods of time throughout history .... and into the future.

That means God Himself .... and each of one of us .... are dispensationalists ..... whether we like the label or not.

Why don't you elaborate on what you mean in the first paragraph- THX

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Why don't you elaborate on what you mean in the first paragraph- THX

here is what i said .... Everybody would agree that God deals differently with mankind ..... at different periods of time throughout history .... and into the future.

What part dont you understand ?

Did Jesus tell his disciples to build an ark in order to be saved ?
Did God tell Noah to accept Jesus as lord in order to be saved ?
Did Paul the Apostle tell the gentile Christians to sacrifice an animal for forgiveness of sin ?

Of course not .

God is a dispensationalist .... NOAH and the ark ..... MOSES and the law .... JESUS and the cross .... and so on ...

 

[jiggyfly]

No point me babbling on. So what I posted will suffice. I think he sufficiently addressed your central question.

Actually it's very insufficient.

When Paul clearly says " But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised." without mention of the completion of the gospel dispensation then this would be adjusting scripture to fit a paradigm. This is one of the dangers of religious thinking.

 

[Rex]

Actually it's very insufficient.

When Paul clearly says " But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised." without mention of the completion of the gospel dispensation then this would be adjusting scripture to fit a paradigm. This is one of the dangers of religious thinking.

I'm not following what your trying to say


Dispensation is the belief that God deals with Israel differently than the Gentiles, it is a belief that their are two separate and distinctly different precepts God uses concerning the "church" and Israel. Can you make a case for dispensation?

 

[dragonfly]

Yeah, jiggyfly,

What do you mean by

When Paul clearly says " But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised." without mention of the completion of the gospel dispensation then this would be adjusting scripture to fit a paradigm.

?? 'then this would be adjusting scripture to fit a paradigm.' What scripture is being adjusted? And what is the 'paradigm'?

Paul has mentioned the completion of the gospel in its effectiveness as God promised, intended and fulfilled. So what is 'gospel dispensation', please?

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

here is what i said .... Everybody would agree that God deals differently with mankind ..... at different periods of time throughout history .... and into the future.

What part dont you understand ?

Did Jesus tell his disciples to build an ark in order to be saved ?
Did God tell Noah to accept Jesus as lord in order to be saved ?
Did Paul the Apostle tell the gentile Christians to sacrifice an animal for forgiveness of sin ?

Of course not .

God is a dispensationalist .... NOAH and the ark ..... MOSES and the law .... JESUS and the cross .... and so on ...

OK. So your understanding of God is as a dispensationalist. So what? My understanding of God is that he is a Covenant God who made a promise -to the elect of God- and reiterated it and fulfilled it.

 

[Wormwood]

I think the whole point of Romans 4 is to show that God has not dealt differently with Israel as he has with both Jews and Gentiles in Christ. Righteousness comes by faith in the one who justifies the wicked. It always has been that way. Sacrifices were not a different dispensation, but were a foreshadowing of what God had in mind all along in Christ. The Law and the Prophets were not a different dispensation, but were signs pointing to our need for grace, specifically the grace that would be revealed in Christ. It is one plan that has been unfolding throughout time, finding its culmination in Christ. Not multiple plans with multiple solutions.