How Can I Understand the Bible? Installment 2
General Divisions of the Bible
The Bible is truly a library of Books. It is divided in two main covenants or testaments called the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). To answer the anticipated question, “What is a covenant or testament?” According to Merriam Webster it is “…a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action... a covenant between God and the human race… capitalized : either of two main divisions of the Bible” My definition is that a covenant is a promise or an oath to be kept. That is one reason I hold to the idea of a marriage covenant not a marriage contract (no extra charge for this tangent).
There are two main divisions of the Bible: the Old Covenant or Testament and the New Covenant or Testament, and each has their subdivisions.
Subdivisions of the Bible
The Old Testament is commonly broken down into three divisions:
1. Historical books- Genesis to Esther.
2. Poetical books- Job to Song of Solomon.
3. Prophetic books- Isaiah to Malachi.
In a similar fashion the NT is commonly broken down into four divisions:
1. Gospels- From Matthew to John.
2. History- Acts.
3. Epistles- From Romans to Jude.
4. Prophecy- Revelation.
The Covenants
There are two kinds of covenants revealed in the Bible: conditional and non-conditional. These can be determined by observing certain declarations of God. A covenant that involves some sort of condition, “If you will do this, then I will do that,” is a conditional covenant. An example of a conditional covenant can be found in Leviticus 26:2-4 “Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Then I will give you rain in due season and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.”
There is no condition set for a non-conditional covenant. God simply says, in essence, “this is the way it is and there is nothing anyone can do about it” For an example of a non-conditional covenant here’s Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
There are eight major covenants in the Bible. I am not going to unpack them at this time they are listed because it is good to become familiar with them. If you have the time or when you get the time read them for yourself.
1. The Edenic Covenant (Gen. 2:16)
2. The Adamic Covenant (Gen. 3:15)
3. Noahic Covenant (Gen. 8:20-22).
4. Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3).
5. Mosaic Covenant (Ex. 19:3-40:38).
6. Palestinian Covenant (Deut. 30).
7. Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:5-17).
8. New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Matt. 26:28).
The Dispensations
Some feel that in most recent times man, particularly J. N. Darby, C.I. Scofield and others, came up with a “new way” of approaching Scripture. This movement grew in the interest of many of the “unlearned”. Skilled and sensational preachers propagated this “new movement” that became known as Dispensationalism. How did Darby, Schofield, Chafer, Ironside, and Pentecost (to name a few) come up with such a fanciful invention? Did they cling to tradition? Perhaps they spiritualized Scriptures, or maybe it was a preconceived notion that they had, and so they huddled together and whispered, “Let’s force this view onto the text of the Bible and try to fool everyone.”
The “feeling” I have described above is a farce! It either lacks honest integrity or thoughtful scholarship or both. It is no fairer than for one to say that, “Covenant Theology was invented by Charles Hodge.” Most realize I hope, that there were rudiments of each “system” under consideration here that go way back in their respective development and there are able theologians who continue to develop these ideas today. Some who hold the Dispensational view feel their system is best because they have a hard time getting around certain "divisions" that they see clearly as they read the Scripture in a normal fashion.
It should be recognized that C. I. Scofield (a fine Presbyterian) was no trendy novelty writer, though he has tried to simplify the concept dispensationalism when he stated “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” (Scofield's Study Bible note on Genesis 1:28) Were this all Scofield taught about dispensationalism it would be less than satisfying. It has been further observed that a “…dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose. …and the overall combined purpose of the whole program is the Glory of God” (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today pp.29, 3o)
Can you, dear reader, not see these “dispensations”?
1. Innocence or Freedom (Gen. 1:28- 3:6).
2. Conscience or Self-determination (Gen. 4:1- 8:14).
3. Civil Government (Gen. 8:15- 11:9).
4. Promise or Patriarchal Rule (Gen.11:10-Ex.18:27; cf. Heb.6:13-15; 11:9).
5. Mosaic Law (Ex. 19:1- Acts 1:26).
6. Grace (Acts 2:1- Rev. 19:21).
7. The Millennium and The Eternal Order (Rev. 20:7-9).
Disclaimer: I am not aware of any dispensational view that man was ever saved by any other means than by grace through faith.
Coming soon… The Distinctions between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology
The Bible is truly a library of Books. It is divided in two main covenants or testaments called the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). To answer the anticipated question, “What is a covenant or testament?” According to Merriam Webster it is “…a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action... a covenant between God and the human race… capitalized : either of two main divisions of the Bible” My definition is that a covenant is a promise or an oath to be kept. That is one reason I hold to the idea of a marriage covenant not a marriage contract (no extra charge for this tangent).
There are two main divisions of the Bible: the Old Covenant or Testament and the New Covenant or Testament, and each has their subdivisions.
Subdivisions of the Bible
The Old Testament is commonly broken down into three divisions:
1. Historical books- Genesis to Esther.
2. Poetical books- Job to Song of Solomon.
3. Prophetic books- Isaiah to Malachi.
In a similar fashion the NT is commonly broken down into four divisions:
1. Gospels- From Matthew to John.
2. History- Acts.
3. Epistles- From Romans to Jude.
4. Prophecy- Revelation.
The Covenants
There are two kinds of covenants revealed in the Bible: conditional and non-conditional. These can be determined by observing certain declarations of God. A covenant that involves some sort of condition, “If you will do this, then I will do that,” is a conditional covenant. An example of a conditional covenant can be found in Leviticus 26:2-4 “Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Then I will give you rain in due season and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.”
There is no condition set for a non-conditional covenant. God simply says, in essence, “this is the way it is and there is nothing anyone can do about it” For an example of a non-conditional covenant here’s Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
There are eight major covenants in the Bible. I am not going to unpack them at this time they are listed because it is good to become familiar with them. If you have the time or when you get the time read them for yourself.
1. The Edenic Covenant (Gen. 2:16)
2. The Adamic Covenant (Gen. 3:15)
3. Noahic Covenant (Gen. 8:20-22).
4. Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3).
5. Mosaic Covenant (Ex. 19:3-40:38).
6. Palestinian Covenant (Deut. 30).
7. Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:5-17).
8. New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Matt. 26:28).
The Dispensations
Some feel that in most recent times man, particularly J. N. Darby, C.I. Scofield and others, came up with a “new way” of approaching Scripture. This movement grew in the interest of many of the “unlearned”. Skilled and sensational preachers propagated this “new movement” that became known as Dispensationalism. How did Darby, Schofield, Chafer, Ironside, and Pentecost (to name a few) come up with such a fanciful invention? Did they cling to tradition? Perhaps they spiritualized Scriptures, or maybe it was a preconceived notion that they had, and so they huddled together and whispered, “Let’s force this view onto the text of the Bible and try to fool everyone.”
The “feeling” I have described above is a farce! It either lacks honest integrity or thoughtful scholarship or both. It is no fairer than for one to say that, “Covenant Theology was invented by Charles Hodge.” Most realize I hope, that there were rudiments of each “system” under consideration here that go way back in their respective development and there are able theologians who continue to develop these ideas today. Some who hold the Dispensational view feel their system is best because they have a hard time getting around certain "divisions" that they see clearly as they read the Scripture in a normal fashion.
It should be recognized that C. I. Scofield (a fine Presbyterian) was no trendy novelty writer, though he has tried to simplify the concept dispensationalism when he stated “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” (Scofield's Study Bible note on Genesis 1:28) Were this all Scofield taught about dispensationalism it would be less than satisfying. It has been further observed that a “…dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose. …and the overall combined purpose of the whole program is the Glory of God” (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today pp.29, 3o)
Can you, dear reader, not see these “dispensations”?
1. Innocence or Freedom (Gen. 1:28- 3:6).
2. Conscience or Self-determination (Gen. 4:1- 8:14).
3. Civil Government (Gen. 8:15- 11:9).
4. Promise or Patriarchal Rule (Gen.11:10-Ex.18:27; cf. Heb.6:13-15; 11:9).
5. Mosaic Law (Ex. 19:1- Acts 1:26).
6. Grace (Acts 2:1- Rev. 19:21).
7. The Millennium and The Eternal Order (Rev. 20:7-9).
Disclaimer: I am not aware of any dispensational view that man was ever saved by any other means than by grace through faith.
Coming soon… The Distinctions between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology
posted by J. Wendell at 7:00 AM
20 Comments:
Did Clarence Larkin teach that there are different ways of salvation? And Peter Ruckman?
I have some blogging friends who really like Peter Ruckman and Clarence Larkin. They seem to think that those in other dispensations were and will be saved by or through obediance.
I think the Covenant theologians are correct in saying that Dispensationalism is a recent historical development in theology. I do not believe that there were any true Dispensationalists before Darby.
However, doctrinally this proves nothing.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 4/9/06 7:24 AM
Good morning Matthew,
Thanks for reading and commenting here. You are a blessing to me.
I do not think Clarence Larkin taught anything of the sort (!), but I have been proven wrong before. As for Peter Ruckman, although I recognize his acumen, I must admit I have a difficult time with his brand of KJV onlyism particularly the duel inspiration theory he espouses, because of this (and my diminutive mind set) I have not read him in many years accept when quoted by others.
I believe J. N. Darby who is fittingly acknowledged as “the father of dispensationalism” put a label on a “system” of thought that has been in the development stage long before he arrived on the scene. Although we owe much to Darby for his advancement, expansion, and articulation of this movement, I hope to demonstrate that dispensationalism is a Theological System of thought that is borne out of its hermeneutical root. Doctrinally, then, this proves everything!
Every Blessing in Christ to you,
Brother John
By
J. Wendell, at 4/9/06 8:20 AM
John, as a student of Darby, I think you are quite mistaken.
Some Dispensationalists have attempted to identify an embyonic Dispensationalism, but none of the writers cited, except Edward Irving and his followers, made the crucial step of distinguishing Israel and the Church.
I think it is pretty certain that Darby was a total innovator. He developed his system with minimal input from others.
It is true that Darby rarely mentioned his influences, but so far, nobody has managed to convincingly show anybody who came close to Darby's ideas before him.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 4/9/06 12:31 PM
I think Matthew has rightly distinguished how dispensationalism can go haywire within the framework with a misapplication of it such as Ruckmans case. There is a growing reception to Ruckmans viewpoint.
I have spoken with some dispensationalist that move in this direction.
I recognize the dispenstations as Scofield does in part but what I struggle with is having read the scriptures is seeing a great deal of what is becoming New Covanent and I have not researched this much, but as you well know I have not fully pinned down where I would label myself here. I need to look more into progressive dispenstionalism...but find that I Have such little time right now and I guess dispensationalism is on the backburner right now so maybe I will learn some things from you.
I do believe as you so rightly state...it has always been grace through faith regardless of the further understanding and progression of mans understanding of God's salvation...if that makes any sense. Perhaps it does in part reflect that I am dispenstional.
By
Bhedr, at 4/9/06 4:32 PM
Scripture does make it clear that everyone who was redeemed was by faith waiting on God Himself to deliver them even though they didn't fully understand how everything would unravel. Now those who understand what unraveled rest there. It's like to funnels attached at the narrow point. The OT saints go in the one wide end and we N.T saints come out the other end:-)
Lousy analogy but I thought maybe it conveyed something. Maybe.
I hope nobody charges me with any heresy there.
Anyway we are resting in the great unchangeable I AM. Praise God. There is no other place of rest. I was watching Extreme Makeover with my wife last night where they were building a house for a Hindu priests family and they all started by praying to mother earth as they believe I AM is in everything.
In Hong Kong Dad once witnessed to a Hindu that tried to convince them that they believed in Jesus within the sphere of that thought and that he was incarnate throughout our generations and among their Idols.
Dad cut it straight and warned him of his false religion.
May we rest in the Son of the Living God who was born in the flesh. Hebrews 4:7-10.
Being led to understand this leads us to the true Rest God prescribes.
What a journey he gives that he has provided for. I pray that through this study you will consider implimenting this although you may already be planning to do so.
There is only one door. John 10.
By
Bhedr, at 4/9/06 6:33 PM
BTW John,
I know you are a genuine guy. This is one reason I trust you to teach me. You have proven yourself in this. May we all consider mirroring your example. I think it would take us a long way in blogdom. May God bless you on this study.
By
Bhedr, at 4/9/06 6:35 PM
John, Matthew, Brian,
I am reading this and find your discussion very fascinating! I come from a Covenant Theology background, but the discussion of the Dispensational view is fascinating to me. I have nothing to contribute to the discussion because I don't know much about Dispensationalism.
I am heartened to see that justification by grace through faith is viewed as the modus operandi of God throughout the ages in Dispensationalism.
I am impressed by the level of honest discussion without generating heat that is so often found in much of theological discussion.
By
Earl Flask, at 4/9/06 7:55 PM
Earl,
John has taught me in part to respect people. I am now beginning to understand why Rose desires this so deeply and I think she sees some of that in you. You see..I believe that the wife will begin to reflect who the husband is like the moon reflects the sun. I think this is one reason Rose is hungry for this as John appropriates this in his life so well. I think that is one reason this blog is so charitable and that it is teaching me to be more like that. I honestly think we can all learn from John.
I have anyway but as you well know, I don't think I have matured to the level he is at. May God continue to bless him and again I look to be more educated in this. I think John does have a deeper understanding of this than what I was taught when I was young. I hope we can all site back and hear him out.
By
Bhedr, at 4/9/06 10:33 PM
Hi Matthew~
What was at the root of Darby’s ideas? I will concede that dispensationalism as it is known today owes much perhaps most to Darby for its innovation. There is a very fine blog dedicated to this man of the faith here if one would like to learn more about him. However, my argument is that he came to his conclusions using the plain ordinary method of interpretation. Am I wrong? If so how am I wrong?
It should be pointed out that from Darby to the present, Dispensational Theology has risen to become more developed, more refined and has become a catalyst in much of theological thinking. Dispensational ideas cannot be ignored. IOW the development of this way of thinking did not end with Darby. I’ll give you the last word brother.
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your contribution on this topic and for you encouragement to me personally. I will be thinking about funnels today. The bottom line being we rest in our relationship with our Lord. That is a good point. Concerning the rapture, Spurgeon has said, “I rather be on the welcoming committee than the planning committee…”
Hi Earl,
Thanks for the visit, sometimes God uses heat to test, strengthen, and prove the metal of our love for Him and one another. Disagreement is part of any family, so feel free to disagree. I hope you will be able to gather some dispensational thinking here though I am not sure to what level this blog best characterizes. And I hope you will let me know if I misrepresent Covenant Theology. Thanks for your comments.
By
J. Wendell, at 5/9/06 6:46 AM
John,
This past year someone gave me some back issues of The Berean Searchlight, which is an ultra-dispensational pamphlet put out by the Berean Bible Society, founded by Cornelius Stam. They were doing a commentary on the book of James. When dealing with "faith without works is dead" they actually said that people under the Law were indeed saved by faith plus works, which somewhat startled me, but being familiar with these guys, not so much. I don't think it is necessary for Dispensationalists to go to faith plus works, but indeed, some do.
By
jeff, at 5/9/06 4:09 PM
Thanks for the link, John.
The driving force in Darby's hermeneutical method was the seperation of God's heavenly and earthly government. The distinction between Israel and the Church developed from this.
Modern Dispensationalists have gone some way in moving away from the heaven/ earth dualism of Darby.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 5/9/06 5:21 PM
>Spurgeon has said, “I rather be on the welcoming committee than the planning committee…”<
..............LOL!
By
Bhedr, at 5/9/06 8:37 PM
J.N. Darby is rightly "the father of Modern Dispensationalism.
Without going into extensive listing: John Edwards wrote A Compleat Survey of all the Dispensations in 1699. Isaac Watts wrote "The Harmony of all the Religions Which God ever Prescribed to Men, and all His Dispensations towards them." circa 1740.
This should hopefully push the burden of "proof" regarding dispensationalism away from how "early" or "late" it was developed and into its direct exegetical rationale.
By
Malchymist, at 6/9/06 12:26 AM
Malchymist, recognising different dispensations is not the defining characteristic of Dispensationalism, contrary to the impression that might be given by its name.
If we view identifying dispensations as moving in a different dispensation, we would have to call Louis Berkhof an embryonic Dispensationalist.
Neither Jonathan Edwards advocated the literal interpretation of prophecy or recognised a clear and consistent distinction between Israel and the Church and historically, neither have had much influence, if any on the development of Dispensational thought.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 6/9/06 3:45 AM
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for that info, if that group as individuals are trusting in Christ alone, through faith alone, they have a relationship with our Lord, but their view of OT saints (IMO) is mistaken.
Malchymist,
Thanks for stopping by and adding to our discussion here.
Hi Brian,
My Pastor has used that quote on a number of occasions; it does add humor and causes me to think at the same time.
Hi Matthew,
Being a student of Darby you would know better, thanks for the correction of facts. Do you not recognize however, that Paul spoke of the oikonomia, carrying the meaning to manage, regulate, administer, and plan? Again thanks for the contribution you make to dispensational thought.
Have a good and godly day.
By
J. Wendell, at 6/9/06 7:17 AM
John, I am a Dispensationalist and regard the idea of a dispensation as Biblical.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 6/9/06 12:09 PM
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist,
I assume you were meaning to address both men I cited..
a. I noted John Edwards (not Jonathan) b. The Dispensations laid out by
Isaac Watts have been generally noted as being exactly the same as those set out by Scofield.
While it may be true that there is no evidence that Scofield was drawing directly from Watts, or that Darby had any known direct predecessor, I fail to see how that is relevant.
Meanwhile I really do not understand your point in response to my post. What exactly is
"Dispensationalism" then? And when was it "settled" into a completed form?
By
Malchymist, at 6/9/06 1:17 PM
Dispensationalism is a system of Premillennial theology that is based on a consitent distinction between Israel and the Church and makes use of consitent literal interpretation of prophecy.
I think in Darby we have a relatively complete system of Dispensationalism. Prior to Darby there are ideas about dispensations and various Premillennial theologies, but no Dispensationalism.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 6/9/06 1:55 PM
Matthew,
Thank you for that clarification. For the range of the relevant post upon which we are working I don't see a need to belabor more about earlier "dispensational or not" teachings.
I agree that Darby did establish a complete form. "Relatively," as you stated, leads me to ask again, "when was it "settled" into a completed form?"
By
Malchymist, at 6/9/06 6:07 PM
Well the only issue that Darby did not really deal with was the specific dispensations. He thought there were probably seven, but he did not identify them.
I am not sure who first came up with the list of seven that were popularised by Scofield. Maybe James H Brooke.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 7/9/06 3:49 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home