# The seven dispensations mentioned in the Bible



## farmasis (Mar 11, 2009)

Wanted to post this as a good synopsis of how God delt with people at different times. I skimmed it, and it appears intact. I think people get the wrong idea of what dispensationalism is. They may even be surprised of what it is and how it is mentioned in the Bible-- so here goes...

Tear it apart------

*The Seven Dispensations 
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
by Dr. C. I. Scofield*




The Scriptures divide time (by which is meant the entire period from the creation of Adam to the "new heaven and a new earth" of Rev. 21: 1) into seven unequal periods, usually called dispensations (Eph. 3:2), although these periods are also called ages (Eph. 2:7) and days, as in "day of the Lord."

These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God's method of dealing with mankind, or a portion of mankind, in respect of the two questions: of sin, and of man's responsibility. Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment, marking his utter failure in every dispensation. Five of these dispensations, or periods of time, have been fulfilled; we are living in the sixth, probably toward its close, and have before us the seventh, and last: the millennium.


*1. Man innocent*. "This dispensation extends from the creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7 to the expulsion from Eden. Adam, created innocent and ignorant of good and evil, was placed in the garden of Eden with his wife, Eve, and put under responsibility to abstain from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The dispensation of innocence resulted in the first failure of man, and in its far-reaching effects, the most disastrous. It closed in judgment: "So he drove out the man." See Gen. 1:26; Gen. 2:16,17; Gen. 3:6; Gen. 3:22-24.)"​*Salvation Gospel in this dispensation:*
Do not eat of the tree of knowledge.
Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."​*2. Man under conscience*.
"By the fall, Adam and Eve acquired and transmitted to the race the knowledge of good and evil. This gave conscience a basis for right moral judgment, and hence the race came under this measure of responsibility-to do good and eschew evil. The result of the dispensation of conscience, from Eden to the flood (while there was no institution of government and of law), was that "all flesh had corrupted his way on the earth," that "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually," and God closed the second testing of the natural man with judgment: the flood. See Gen. 3:7, 22; Gen. 6:5,11-12; Gen. 7:11-12, 23.)"​*Salvation Gospel in this dispensation:*
Do good and do not do evil.
Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.​*3. Man in authority over the earth*.
"Out of the fearful judgment of the flood God saved eight persons, to whom, after the waters were assuaged, He gave the purified earth with ample power to govern it. This, Noah and his descendants were responsible to do. The dispensation of human government resulted, upon the plain of Shinar, in the impious attempt to become independent of God and closed in judgment: the confusion of tongues. (See Gen. 9: 1, 2; Gen. 11: 1-4; Gen. 11:5-8.)"​*Salvation Gospel in this dispensation:*
Believe God and build an ark.
Genesis 6:16 "You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it [with] lower, second, and third [decks]. 17 "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which [is] the breath of life; everything that [is] on the earth shall die. 18 "But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark--you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.​*4. Man under promise*.​
"Out of the dispersed descendants of the builders of Babel, God called one man, Abram, with whom He enters into covenant. Some of the promises to Abram and his descendants were purely gracious and unconditional. These either have been or will yet be literally fulfilled. Other promises were conditional upon the faithfulness and obedience of the Israelites. Every one of these conditions was violated, and the dispensation of promise resulted in the failure of Israel and closed in the judgment of bondage in Egypt." 
"The book of Genesis, which opens with the sublime words, "In the beginning God created," closes with, "In a coffin in Egypt." (See Gen. 12:1-3; Gen. 13:14-17; Gen. 15:5; Gen. 26:3; Gen. 28:12-13; Exod. 1: 13-14.)" *Salvation Gospel in this dispensation:*
Believe God's promise.
Genesis 12:1 Now the Lord had said to Abram: "Get out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you. 2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you.​*5. Man under law*.
"Again the grace of God came to the help of helpless man and redeemed the chosen people out of the hand of the oppressor. In the wilderness of Sinai He proposed to them the covenant of law. Instead of humbly pleading for a continued relation of grace, they presumptuously answered: "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." The history of Israel in the wilderness and in the land is one long record of flagrant, persistent violation of the law, and at last, after multiplied warnings, God closed the testing of man by law in judgment: first Israel, and then Judah, were driven out of the land into a dispersion which still continues. A feeble remnant returned under Ezra and Nehemiah, of which, in due time, Christ came: "Born of a woman-made under the law." Both Jews and Gentiles conspired to crucify Him. (See Exod. 19:1-8; 2 Kings 17:1-18; 2 Kings 25: 1 -11; Acts 2:22-23; Acts 7:5152; Rom. 3:19-20; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3: 10.)"​*Salvation Gospel in this dispensation:*
Obey God and keep His commandments.
Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth [is] Mine.​*6. Man under grace*.
"The sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ introduced the dispensation of pure grace, which means undeserved favor, or God giving righteousness, instead of God requiring righteousness, as under law. Salvation, perfect and eternal, is now freely offered to Jew and Gentile upon the acknowledgment of sin, or repentance, with faith in Christ."

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent" (John 6:29). "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (John 6:47). "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24). "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (John 10:27-28). "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).

The predicted result of this testing of man under grace is judgment upon an unbelieving world and an apostate church. (See Luke 17:26-30; Luke 18:8; 2 Thess. 2:7-12; Rev. 3:15-16.)

The first event in the closing of this dispensation will be the descent of the Lord from heaven, when sleeping saints will be raised and, together with believers then living, caught up "to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (I Thess. 4:16-17). Then follows the brief period called "the great tribulation." (See Jer. 30:5-7; Dan. 12:1; Zeph. 1:15-18; Matt. 24:21-22.)​_Some teachers number the Tribulation as one of the dispensations, while combining the dispensations of Promise & Law. However, we see the Tribulation as a special period during which human civilization crumbles under the weight of the combined features of its ages long rejection of God. The Lord has limited this period to a short 7 years, to prevent man's self-destruction._​After this the personal return of the Lord to the earth in power and great glory occurs, and the judgments which introduce the seventh, and last dispensation. (See Matt. 25:31-46 and Matt. 24:29- 30.)"​*Salvation Gospel in this dispensation:*
Confess Jesus as Lord and believe in the resurrection.
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.​*7. Man under the personal reign of Christ*.
"After the purifying judgments which attend the personal return of Christ to the earth, He will reign over restored Israel and over the earth for one thousand years. This is the period commonly called the millennium. The seat of His power will be Jerusalem, and the saints, including the saved of the dispensation of grace, namely the church, will be associated with Him in His glory. (See Isa. 2:1-4; Isa. 11; Acts 15:14-17; Rev. 19:11-21; Rev. 20:1-6.

But when Satan is "loosed a little season," he finds the natural heart as prone to evil as ever, and easily gathers the nations to battle against the Lord and His saints, and this last dispensation closes, like all the others, in judgment. The great white throne is set, the wicked dead are raised and finally judged, and then come the "new heaven and a new earth." Eternity is begun. (See Rev. 20:3,7-15; Rev. 21 and 22.)"

http://www.biblelife.org/dispensations.htm​


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 11, 2009)

Very interesting.
I agree with most of it, disagree with some of it.
But it is thought provoking.
I think care should be taken in studing the New Testament to make sure things are kept in order.
You know, go to the right book to get the right answer.  Don't pull a verse from Revelations to prove that a man can rightly beat his wife.  Things like that.


----------



## farmasis (Mar 11, 2009)

Not the scary monster some make it out to be.

Most of the arguments come from rapture/tribulation/millenium and with that I say while I believe the Bible is clear on the rapture I will be with Ok with however Jesus comes. 

I would hope most would agree with the rest.


----------



## Banjo (Mar 12, 2009)

Hmmm....

My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's Notes and Moody Press....


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's Notes and Moody Press....



hahaha...that's pretty clever Banjo. lol 


Here is a snipet for the above OP comments: 



> Of course, people who are nondispensationalists might well accept that these were seven distinct ages, and might even say that the labels were appropriate for singling out a prominent feature of God's dealings with men during each age. As already noted (section 1), the mere belief in dispensations does not distinguish dispensationalism from many other views. Scofield's distinctiveness comes into view only if we ask what Scofield believes in detail about God's ways with men during each of these dispensations. At this point, some of the distinctiveness is a matter of degree. Scofield may emphasize more sharply the discontinuities between dispensations. But the most outstanding point of difference lies in Scofield's views concerning the church age in relation to the millennium. During the church age God's program for earthly Israel is put to one side. It is then taken up again when the church is raptured. The time of the church is a "parenthesis" with respect to earthly Israel, a parenthesis about which prophecy is silent (because prophecy speaks concerning Israel's future). One can see, then, that Scofield's view concerning the kind of distinctiveness the dispensations possess is a reflection of his view concerning Israel and the church.



http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/bdisp/bd2.html


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

More from the same site....(why re-invent the wheel...lol)

Dispensationalists are often characterized as having a "literal" hermeneutics. But, in the case of Scofield, this is only a half truth. The more fundamental element in Scofield's approach is his distinction between Israel and the church. In a manner reminiscent of Darby, Scofield derives from this bifurcation of two peoples of God a bifurcation in hermeneutics. Israel is earthly, the church heavenly. One is natural, the other spiritual. What pertains to Israel is to be interpreted in literalistic fashion. But what pertains to the church need not be so interpreted. And some passages of Scripture--perhaps a good many--are to be interpreted on both levels simultaneously.

Another author remarked: 

"The important point is that the concepts I will mention below are entirely new -- i.e., late 20th century -- innovations in Biblical interpretation. None of the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans, or mainline denominations before the late 1800s could be found to support such teachings."

There is no place for innovation in biblical truth.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> More from the same site....(why re-invent the wheel...lol)
> 
> Dispensationalists are often characterized as having a "literal" hermeneutics. But, in the case of Scofield, this is only a half truth. The more fundamental element in Scofield's approach is his distinction between Israel and the church. In a manner reminiscent of Darby, Scofield derives from this bifurcation of two peoples of God a bifurcation in hermeneutics. Israel is earthly, the church heavenly. One is natural, the other spiritual. What pertains to Israel is to be interpreted in literalistic fashion. But what pertains to the church need not be so interpreted. And some passages of Scripture--perhaps a good many--are to be interpreted on both levels simultaneously.
> 
> ...



Amen. No new innovations in biblical truth.  

This is our version of the tinfoil hat society...


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's Notes and Moody Press....



Just doesn't have the same ring to it does it... Kind of lacks "music"...


----------



## Banjo (Mar 12, 2009)

> hahaha...that's pretty clever Banjo. lol



Wish that I could claim it...My husband read that in a book; I am not quite that clever.


----------



## SBG (Mar 12, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's Notes and Moody Press....



My faith is based on everything that comes from the pen of Calvin and Augustine.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> My faith is based on everything that comes from the pen of Calvin and Augustine.



Prove where they drifted from scripture on the doctrines accepted by the Reformed Church.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Prove where they drifted from scripture on the doctrines accepted by the Reformed Church.



Amen. This will be good...


----------



## gtparts (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Prove where they drifted from scripture on the doctrines accepted by the Reformed Church.



Come on cf. Pick the gauntlet up. You look naked without it.


----------



## Banjo (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> My faith is based on everything that comes from the pen of Calvin and Augustine.



Shall it never be said that I am not a good sport...

Hence the following:


I am with the "Scotch-Irish" guy on this.....You will have to prove where they strayed from the Scriptures...

Calvin's scholarship makes Scofield look like an elementary student.....


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Shall it never be said that I am not a good sport...
> 
> Hence the following:
> 
> ...



            


You an dem faintin goats...


----------



## SBG (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Prove where they drifted from scripture on the doctrines accepted by the Reformed Church.



Just keepin' it real. 

Much scripture has been provided, but none has been refuted. The Calvinist simply denies the obvious definitions of the english language by claiming easy to understand words such as, "all," "world," "whosoever," etc. means something entirely different. Five point Calvinism is a set of doctrinal beliefs that were not borne of scripture, but rather are beliefs that try and force the scriptures to conform to those preconceived beliefs. The wonderful thing about God's sovereignty is that he used the frailties of men like Calvin and Scofield to spread the gospel. 



Banjo said:


> Shall it never be said that I am not a good sport...
> 
> Hence the following:
> 
> ...



I'm not enamored with Scofield either. I think it is debatable in regards to their scholarship level. Also, and this is not an endorsement of Scofield, but any cursory observation of Calvin will show that he was less than two years from his "conversion" to Luther's protestantism-by any standard he was far from mature in the Christian faith. Unquestionably, his Institutes could not possibly have come from a deep and fully developed understanding of Scripture.


----------



## Banjo (Mar 12, 2009)

> I'm not enamored with Scofield either. I think it is debatable in regards to their scholarship level. Also, and this is not an endorsement of Scofield, but any cursory observation of Calvin will show that he was less than two years from his "conversion" to Luther's protestantism-by any standard he was far from mature in the Christian faith. Unquestionably, his Institutes could not possibly have come from a deep and fully developed understanding of Scripture.



Have you ever read and studied Calvin's Institutes?


----------



## SBG (Mar 12, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Have you ever read and studied Calvin's Institutes?



I have read parts of it.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

> I'm not enamored with Scofield either. I think it is debatable in regards to their scholarship level. Also, and this is not an endorsement of Scofield, but any cursory observation of Calvin will show that he was less than two years from his "conversion" to Luther's protestantism-by any standard he was far from mature in the Christian faith. Unquestionably, his Institutes could not possibly have come from a deep and fully developed understanding of Scripture.



I had the opposite reaction to Calvin. My early years in the evangelical church led me to think Calvin was a monster. I actually stayed away from his works because of the impressions I received from other Christians. 

Then I decided to read some of his stuff for myself. Still haven't found the five poitns of Calvin in Calvin's work....lol 

But in terms of the man's scholarship--I have found little to compare to it, even among his contemporaries, and definitely NONE in modern times. What is typically on a Christian bookstores shelf is not even milk, let alone meat. 

The dispensational writers were more thorough, but no where touch the sound reasoning of a John Calvin. As for whether or not he was mature in his faith I don't think it is for me judge. And I fear God to speak evil of him. Neither was I his pastor to have care for his soul. 

I think your opinion of Calvin directly refects upon how little you have read of him. 

-five


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Prove where they drifted from scripture on the doctrines accepted by the Reformed Church.


 
Challenge you the same with dispensationalism....


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> My faith is based on everything that comes from the pen of Calvin and Augustine.


 
I was thinking the same thing.

Calvinist live and breathe with works outside the Bible, such as the sermons of Spurgeon and the works of Calvin and such, but ridicule anyone posting the same type of works supporting their interpretations.

Calvinist ridicule Catholics who hold to their view of traditional teachings, and bash what they call 'new wave' non-traditional teachings for not holding to their traditional teachings.

Ain't it funny?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Challenge you the same with dispensationalism....



I've already done it several times.

So I am still waiting on a coherent explanation of this.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I had the opposite reaction to Calvin. My early years in the evangelical church led me to think Calvin was a monster. I actually stayed away from his works because of the impressions I received from other Christians.
> 
> Then I decided to read some of his stuff for myself. Still haven't found the five poitns of Calvin in Calvin's work....lol
> 
> ...



I agree. And to bring the "English" language into it is fallacy. Unless you believe Jesus spoke as Shakespeare.

But I have been a Christian who has read and studied not only the Bible but Arminianism (judged as a heresy), Calvinism, and the works of John Wesley all of my life. So... If you really want to understand Calvin read his institutes of the Christian Religion. 

Having said all of that I only cared about the rest AFTER I studied the Bible.

And I sincerely agree with Solas here. Most of these posts just show a lack of education on this subject. But I forget... NO CREED BUT CHRIST!


----------



## SBG (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I had the opposite reaction to Calvin. My early years in the evangelical church led me to think Calvin was a monster. I actually stayed away from his works because of the impressions I received from other Christians.
> 
> Then I decided to read some of his stuff for myself. Still haven't found the five poitns of Calvin in Calvin's work....lol
> 
> ...



Five...If you think that what I said in regards to Calvin was evil, then religious discussion may not be your cup of tea. 

I love Calvin. I just don't invest a lot of time in the writings of men. I am thankful for God's Word and I am thankful that I have the best teacher indwelling me.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

farmasis said:


> I was thinking the same thing.
> 
> Calvinist live and breathe with works outside the Bible, such as the sermons of Spurgeon and the works of Calvin and such, but ridicule anyone posting the same type of works supporting their interpretations.
> 
> ...



If you post one more word that ain't Scripture alone, then your hypocrit. I guess we can trust your infallible commentary and wisdom though.


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I've already done it several times.
> 
> So I am still waiting on a coherent explanation of this.


 

You may have to help me with giving me a link....


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> Five...If you think that what I said in regards to Calvin was evil, then religious discussion may not be your cup of tea.
> 
> I love Calvin. I just don't invest a lot of time in the writings of men. I am thankful for God's Word and I am thankful that I have the best teacher indwelling me.



Do you attend a Church? Are you a member of it under the authority of your elders? Do you listen to anyone but yourself preach the Word of God?


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> If you post one more word that ain't Scripture alone, then your hypocrit. I guess we can trust your infallible commentary and wisdom though.


 
I am not the one that has problems with using someone elses interpretation of scripture (as long as it is not all someone reads)...


----------



## SBG (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> And I sincerely agree with Solas here. Most of these posts just show a lack of education on this subject. But I forget... NO CREED BUT CHRIST!



I would counter that a lot of post on here prove that some are more interested in ancillary study than they are on the true priorities of the scriptures.


----------



## Banjo (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Do you attend a Church? Are you a member of it under the authority of your elders? Do you listen to anyone but yourself preach the Word of God?



If so...do they ONLY read the Bible...


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Do you attend a Church? Are you a member of it under the authority of your elders? Do you listen to anyone but yourself preach the Word of God?


 
What authority does your elders have in your chuch?

Is personal interpretation ok, or should I find a church that interpretes it for me, one with a Magesterium, maybe?


----------



## SBG (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Do you attend a Church? Are you a member of it under the authority of your elders? Do you listen to anyone but yourself preach the Word of God?



Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

But I also follow the example of the Bereans.


----------



## SBG (Mar 12, 2009)

Banjo said:


> If so...do they ONLY read the Bible...



You didn't really mean that, did you?


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> Yes.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



If you judge yourself in such a way, then why not your brothers? Do you not suppose that Calvinists, as you call us, are Bereans? 

I feel that my doctrine is actually more Scripturual than yours. But yet you want to spin wheels on this ground of laying a calumny against your brethren....


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> I would counter that a lot of post on here prove that some are more interested in ancillary study than they are on the true priorities of the scriptures.



If the scriptures are not your primary source for learning in this regard (and your life is not viewed in ALL aspects thru them) then you are right. However to have the idea that YOU may interpret the bible in any way you see fit is heresy. Also that is why God has provided people like Paul, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox. Not to add but to allow us to grow and learn one from another in the faith. And also to rightly combat ideas that come about from individual interpretation. The collective catholic church. Little c on purpose which it seems we need to point out means "universal".

The Aryan view was gaining ground in the second century until Athanasius fought against it. The gnostic view as well. Without these men of learning and spiritual "gifts" of teaching where would we be.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> You didn't really mean that, did you?



She is making the same claim as I am, trying to make the same point. If your going to find fault in your brethren because they enjoy a sermon by Spurgeon, then suck it up brother! Listen to no one but yourself and only read the Bible! lol


----------



## Banjo (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> She is making the same claim as I am, trying to make the same point. If your going to find fault in your brethren because they enjoy a sermon by Spurgeon, then suck it up brother! Listen to no one but yourself and only read the Bible! lol



Exactly.


----------



## SBG (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> She is making the same claim as I am, trying to make the same point. If your going to find fault in your brethren because they enjoy a sermon by Spurgeon, then suck it up brother! Listen to no one but yourself and only read the Bible! lol



That is funny that you have previously talked of biblical seperation, but have allied yourself with those that in a different format, hold you and your beliefs in disdain...I believe you referred to them as hyper-calvinists. 

You mention Spurgeon: I have read many, many sermons from CHS. I take the things that he is doctrinally sound in, and I disregard the things that he is weak in. BTW, your reformed allies held Spurgeon in very low esteem as well. You may want to check a bit of history before you jump to the conclusions that you do.

I didn't knock the fact that you read Calvin, Spurgeon, or McAurthur for that matter. As far as I recall, I really didn't knock you at all. I may have some thoughts about your reliance on other than biblical guidance...perhaps sola scriptura isn't you strong suit.


----------



## SBG (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> If the scriptures are not your primary source for learning in this regard (and your life is not viewed in ALL aspects thru them) then you are right. However to have the idea that YOU may interpret the bible in any way you see fit is heresy. Also that is why God has provided people like Paul, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox. Not to add but to allow us to grow and learn one from another in the faith. And also to rightly combat ideas that come about from individual interpretation. The collective catholic church. Little c on purpose which it seems we need to point out means "universal".
> 
> The Aryan view was gaining ground in the second century until Athanasius fought against it. The gnostic view as well. Without these men of learning and spiritual "gifts" of teaching where would we be.



I wouldn't lump the Apostle Paul in the group which you did.

Authority vs. no authority.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> I wouldn't lump the Apostle Paul in the group which you did.
> 
> Authority vs. no authority.



Paul taught the scriptures. And wrote extensively. I would. But I would grant you the apostolic authority.


----------



## Banjo (Mar 12, 2009)

> That is funny that you have previously talked of biblical seperation, but have allied yourself with those that in a different format, hold you and your beliefs in disdain...I believe you referred to them as hyper-calvinists.



Five...you called me a "hyper-calvinist?"


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> That is funny that you have previously talked of biblical seperation, but have allied yourself with those that in a different format, hold you and your beliefs in disdain...I believe you referred to them as hyper-calvinists.
> 
> You mention Spurgeon: I have read many, many sermons from CHS. I take the things that he is doctrinally sound in, and I disregard the things that he is weak in. BTW, your reformed allies held Spurgeon in very low esteem as well. You may want to check a bit of history before you jump to the conclusions that you do.
> 
> I didn't knock the fact that you read Calvin, Spurgeon, or McAurthur for that matter. As far as I recall, I really didn't knock you at all. I may have some thoughts about your reliance on other than biblical guidance...perhaps sola scriptura isn't you strong suit.



So should I rely on you? lol 

I rely on the Scriptures. End of story. Believe what you will of me.

I have not found many presbyterians that hold my views in disdain. They do think I am unscriptural regarding the proper subjects of baptism and a difference on church government. So what. These differences do not separate me from my presbyterian brethren in our communion with Christ.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Five...you called me a "hyper-calvinist?"



I had no idea that I did. And I very much doubt that you are.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> So should I rely on you? lol
> 
> I rely on the Scriptures. End of story. Believe what you will of me.
> 
> I have not found many presbyterians that hold my views in disdain. They do think I am unscriptural regarding the proper subjects of baptism and a difference on church government. So what. These differences do not separate me from my presbyterian brethren in our communion with Christ.





fivesolas said:


> I had idea that I did. And I very much doubt that you are.



Is this what makes us Hyper Calvinists? Being Presbyterian?


----------



## SBG (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> So should I rely on you? lol
> 
> I rely on the Scriptures. End of story. Believe what you will of me.
> 
> I have not found many presbyterians that hold my views in disdain. They do think I am unscriptural regarding the proper subjects of baptism and a difference on church government. So what. These differences do not separate me from my presbyterian brethren in our communion with Christ.



I love my Presbyterian brethern as well. One of my very best friends on this forum is Presbyterian. But our differences DO seperate me from him. I would fish, hunt, dine, anytime. But I draw the line when it comes to communion. I take seriously the statement that God is not the author of confusion.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Is this what makes us Hyper Calvinists? Being Presbyterian?



It's been my experience that being Calvinists make us hyper-calvinists. lol


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> I love my Presbyterian brethern as well. One of my very best friends on this forum is Presbyterian. But our differences DO seperate me from him. I would fish, hunt, dine, anytime. But I draw the line when it comes to communion. I take seriously the statement that God is not the author of confusion.



That's fine. But my common union with my brethren in Christ is not baptism or church government--it is Christ and Him crucified. Our presbyterian brethren are as much a born-again blood washed child of God as I am...so I will not bar them from the Lord's Table. 

For me, it would be sin to do so. I am as much a separatist and the next guy, but some fundamental baptists have gone too far with that doctrine..into legalism.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> It's been my experience that being Calvinists make us hyper-calvinists. lol





Gotcha... In many people's eyes that is so true.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> That's fine. But my common union with my brethren in Christ is not baptism or church government--it is Christ and Him crucified. Our presbyterian brethren are as much a born-again blood washed child of God as I am...so I will not bar them from the Lord's Table.
> 
> For me, it would be sin to do so. I am as much a separatist and the next guy, but some fundamental baptists have gone too far with that doctrine..into legalism.



Good point.

Not just Baptists do that. But some in every denomination. Well except unitarians...

There are tenants I believe must be kept. Some of those may keep me from "joining" a particular church or denomination but as long as we agree on the Trinity, 1 true God, and some degree of the fallen nature of mankind it would not stop me from worshipping with my brothers and sisters.


----------



## Banjo (Mar 12, 2009)

SBG said:


> I love my Presbyterian brethern as well. One of my very best friends on this forum is Presbyterian. But our differences DO seperate me from him. I would fish, hunt, dine, anytime. But I draw the line when it comes to communion. I take seriously the statement that God is not the author of confusion.



Shame on you .....Were you a baptized Christian, in good standing with a bible-believing church and not under discipline, you could partake of the LORD's Supper with us.  

Just out of curiosity....I am a Presbyterian who was sprinkled as a Methodist...and then dunked as a Baptist...

Would I be allowed to take communion with you?


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

A calvinist is a non-committed hyper-Calvinist. They are not hypercalvinist because when you apply their principles in those terms, they seem unbiblical....


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 12, 2009)

farmasis said:


> A calvinist is a non-committed hyper-Calvinist. They are not hypercalvinist because when you apply their principles in those terms, they seem unbiblical....



Told ya celt.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Told ya celt.










Why do I keep getting this image everytime I read his posts??? Could it be really be that Kirk Cameron has blessed us with his presence while on the set of left behind 27.... WOOPS WRONG YEAR!


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Told ya celt.


 
Feel free to take a stab at my question...

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3319428&postcount=67


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Why do I keep getting this image everytime I read his posts??? Could it be really be that Kirk Cameron has blessed us with his presence while on the set of left behind 27.... WOOPS WRONG YEAR!


 
I am proud to be compared to Kirk Cameron. I guess you think it is a slam, but he has done many great things for the kingdom that he did not have to with his career.

Feel free to take a stab at my question...

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3319428&postcount=67


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

farmasis said:


> I am proud to be compared to Kirk Cameron. I guess you think it is a slam, but he has done many great things for the kingdom that he did not have to with his career.
> 
> Feel free to take a stab at my question...
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3319428&postcount=67



With that why??? Will we ever agree? You believe in a system of viewing scripture created in the 1860's. In LONDON no less which has spawned the loss of ground in the the culture that Christianity has taken. 

No. You can go strum your guitar and watch the sky. And for just in case you don't make the first draft make sure to stock up on can goods and invisible ink so you can communicate without the "anti-christ" knowing it...


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> With that why??? Will we ever agree? You believe in a system of viewing scripture created in the 1860's. In LONDON no less which has spawned the loss of ground in the the culture that Christianity has taken.
> 
> No. You can go strum your guitar and watch the sky. And for just in case you don't make the first draft make sure to stock up on can goods and invisible ink so you can communicate without the "anti-christ" knowing it...


 
I believe in scripture as taught by the apostles and Jesus.

Hate to break it to you, but the framework for premillennialism predates the reformation.

You may want to look for teachings of Papias, Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all before the year 220.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

farmasis said:


> I believe in scripture as taught by the apostles and Jesus.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, but the framework for premillennialism predates the reformation.
> 
> You may want to look for teachings of Papias, Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all before the year 220.






Good one. But no. It dates to the 1860's. It's a hodgepodge of many doctrines and it is not even a clear one at that. 

Just think about it. 2 2nd comings of Christ. 1007 years apart. No what does the bible say??? THere is one day of Judgement. 

If you can't get that right what else is there really. I mean adding judgement days.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

This site does a good job of describing what's false about it:

http://pressiechurch.org/Theol_2/what_is_the_doctrine_of_premille.htm

Premillennial Dispensationalism teaches that believers will be resurrected 1007 years before eternity (the end of time). Is this true?

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him [BELIEVERS], may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:40

No. It's not true. Believers will be resurrected on the last day of human history. How could you have 1007 years after the last day? If you did, it would not have been the last day. And if it is the last day, there can't be any other days after it. The Bible makes it so clear. All you have to do is believe what is says. Premillennial Dispensationalism is a lie!

He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words [UNBELIEVERS], hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

John 12:48

According to this verse, Unbelievers will be judged on the last day. We have already seen that believers will be resurrected on this same last day. The Bible says that both of these events will take place at the same time. Premillennial Dispensationalism says that they will not. Who are you going to believe? God or men?

The Biblical Teaching on the End of the World

Refutes This Doctrine

The Bible tells us about the end of the world.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:24-30

Here we have the parable of the wheat and tares. The interpretation of the parable is given a little further on in the chapter.

He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom [believers]; but the tares are the children of the wicked one [unbelievers]; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Matthew 13:37-43

According to Jesus, believers and unbelievers will not be separated until the end of this world. Premillennial Dispensationalism teaches that they will be separated (at the pre-tribulation rapture) 1007 years before the end of this world. Which are you going to believe? What do you think of a teaching that contradicts the Bible in so many places? More importantly, what does Jesus think of it?

So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans [A FALSE DOCTRINE], which thing I [JESUS] hate.

Revelation 2:15

Jesus hates false doctrine. Do you?

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked [UNBELIEVERS] from among the just [BELIEVERS], And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:47-50

This passage tells us that the Judgment of believers will take place at the same time as the judgment of unbelievers. It also tells us that both will take place at the end of the world.

The Biblical Teaching on the New Heavens and New Earth

Refutes This Doctrine

Premillennial Dispensationalism teaches that there will not be new heavens and a new earth until 1000 years after the Second Coming of Christ. Is this true?

But the day of the Lord [THE DAY OF CHRIST'S COMING] will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

2 Peter 3:10-13

The present heavens and earth will be destroyed at the Second Coming of Christ, not 1000 years after. We will also have new heavens and a new earth at that time.

Jesus must remain in heaven until the time comes for the restoration of all things. This will include, not only the resurrection of our bodies, but also the renewal of the earth.



For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Romans 8:22-23

Jesus must remain in heaven and will not come back to earth until the time comes for us to have a new earth.

The Biblical Teaching on The Reign of Christ

Refutes This Doctrine

When did Jesus begin to reign upon the throne of David? Premillennial Dispensationalism teaches that this event has not yet occurred. It teaches that Jesus will sit upon the throne of David and begin to reign from earthly Jerusalem at the second coming. Is this true?

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Acts 2 29-33

This passage is very clear. When God promised David that Christ would sit upon his throne, He was speaking about the resurrection and ascension of Christ - not his second coming. This promise was fulfilled when Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father. Jesus is reigning now, not from earthly Jerusalem but from heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22, Gal. 4:25-26).

Then cometh the end, when he [JESUS] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28

Here again, we see that Jesus is reigning now. He will continue to reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be put under his feet will be death (by the resurrection) at the second coming. At that point, Jesus shall deliver the kingdom over to the Father.

What about Revelation Chapter 20?

But what about Revelation chapter 20? Doesn't it teach that there will be a 1000 year period between the resurrection and judgment of believers and the resurrection and judgment of unbelivers? No, it doesn't. One of the most important principals of interpreting scripture is that we must always interpret unclear passages in light of clear ones. The book of Revelation is an unclear book filled with much imagery and symbolism (Rev. 1:1). We have already seen a number of clear passages that prove that there is no such time gap. Therefore, we may not interpret Revelation chapter 20 to teach one. There is another way to interpret this chapter that does not contradict any clear passages of scripture. Think about it. There is a way of interpreting Rev. 20 that does not contradict any clear passages of scripture. And there is a way of interpreting Rev. 20 that contradicts many clear passages of scripture. Which do you think is correct? We will discuss this further in an upcoming article on the Millennium.


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Good one. But no. It dates to the 1860's. It's a hodgepodge of many doctrines and it is not even a clear one at that.
> 
> Just think about it. 2 2nd comings of Christ. 1007 years apart. No what does the bible say??? THere is one day of Judgement.
> 
> If you can't get that right what else is there really. I mean adding judgement days.


 
Your lack of knowledge on subjects seem to be directly proportional to the number of rofl you add to a post.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 12, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Your lack of knowledge on subjects seem to be directly proportional to the number of rofl you add to a post.


 
hmm farmasis... could the same be said about you and Doctorines of Grace?

well maybe not from the rofl;s


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> What about Revelation Chapter 20?
> 
> But what about Revelation chapter 20? Doesn't it teach that there will be a 1000 year period between the resurrection and judgment of believers and the resurrection and judgment of unbelivers? No, it doesn't. One of the most important principals of interpreting scripture is that we must always interpret unclear passages in light of clear ones. The book of Revelation is an unclear book filled with much imagery and symbolism (Rev. 1:1). We have already seen a number of clear passages that prove that there is no such time gap. Therefore, we may not interpret Revelation chapter 20 to teach one. There is another way to interpret this chapter that does not contradict any clear passages of scripture. Think about it. There is a way of interpreting Rev. 20 that does not contradict any clear passages of scripture. And there is a way of interpreting Rev. 20 that contradicts many clear passages of scripture. Which do you think is correct? We will discuss this further in an upcoming article on the Millennium.


 

Nice cut and paste. Just what would be expected from someone who let's others do their thinking.

What clear passages does Rev 20 contradict? Can you cut and paste someone elses thoughts on that?


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> hmm farmasis... could the same be said about you and Doctorines of Grace?
> 
> well maybe not from the rofl;s


 
I will take that as a complement since I haven't used any.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Nice cut and paste. Just what would be expected from someone who let's others do their thinking.
> 
> What clear passages does Rev 20 contradict? Can you cut and paste someone elses thoughts on that?



I said it sums it up. Do you want to re-write the whole bible too. OH I forgot. I just covered that... You have to. It's the only way pre-trib makes sense.

Just admit that you want to personally be able to interpret scripture any way you would like and move on. At least then your scriptural view would make sense. 

As for me I don't see the need to re-invent the wheel. People smarter than I think and have thought it was close to witch craft and unscriptural. You see you pass right by 90% and want to twist the meaning of Rev 20... Into something foreign and contrary to the rest of scripture.

Me I am content on this subject to say that I know far more about the rest of the bible than Rev. I am not Amillienial because of the impact of it on the world and I believe Pre-Mil is the most damaging thing to happen in the last 140 yrs to Christianity. So I will follow my ancestors and people like Knox, John Smith, and many many great men of learning and stick to Post Mil... Why??? The fruits of the tree of Post Mil are plentiful.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 12, 2009)

farmasis said:


> I will take that as a complement since I haven't used any.


 
you don't have to use any... I can easily tellit from the tone of your writting...

DB BB


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Good one. But no. It dates to the 1860's. It's a hodgepodge of many doctrines and it is not even a clear one at that.
> 
> Just think about it. 2 2nd comings of Christ. 1007 years apart. No what does the bible say??? THere is one day of Judgement.
> 
> If you can't get that right what else is there really. I mean adding judgement days.


 

Let's see how much I can get from this...

Yes, Millennium thought began about 1400 years before the reformation. If you do not want to look for yourself fine.

There are not 2 comings , Just one.

There is not 1007 years between the rapture and the second coming, only 7 or less.

There are many judgements. Satan's judgement, the judgement of the nations, the great throne of judgement, and The judgement seat of Christ.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

Just for BB and FiveSolas:

Spurgeon on Dispensationalism... (And he was close to premil)

"Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best loved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. . . Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way--they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as our shall."


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Let's see how much I can get from this...
> 
> Yes, Millennium thought began about 1400 years before the reformation. If you do not want to look for yourself fine.
> 
> ...



Then wake up. You are not a Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist. At best you are a Pre-millenialist. Which is fine Spurgeon was one. But DISPENSATIONALISM believes in an individual interpretation of these items.

For Jesus will come but once. Not quietly one time and take everyone away in the rapture then come back 7 years later...


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> just for bb and fivesolas:
> 
> Spurgeon on dispensationalism... (and he was close to premil)
> 
> "distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of god who lived before the coming of christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of christ do not belong to the church of god! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of god in every place stands on the same footing; the lord has not some children best loved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. . . Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way--they pointed to christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before christ were not saved with a different salvation to which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as our shall."


 

*amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Then wake up. You are not a Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist. At best you are a Pre-millenialist. Which is fine Spurgeon was one. But DISPENSATIONALISM believes in an individual interpretation of these items.
> 
> For Jesus will come but once. Not quietly one time and take everyone away in the rapture then come back 7 years later...


 
Correct, he will come only once, but he will quietly remove the church via rapture by calling them into the air.

Yes, I am a premillenium dispensationalist.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 12, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Correct, he will come only once, but he will quietly remove the church via rapture by calling them into the air.
> 
> Yes, I am a premillenium dispensationalist.



Then you have created your own view. Good luck with it and with the damage it does to our culture.


----------



## fivesolas (Mar 13, 2009)

> For Jesus will come but once. Not quietly one time and take everyone away in the rapture then come back 7 years later...



I have styled that secret rapture thingy as a drive-by.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 13, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I have styled that secret rapture thingy as a drive-by.



Didn't realize Jesus was a crip...

This idea just is so inconsistent with the teachings of the bible that it is hard to even comprehend or discuss.


----------

