Sermon Tone Analysis

! Dispensationalism

 

!!

The Principles and Dispensations of God

* *

* \\ /PREFACE \\ \\ Mr Stam tells us:Great strides have already been taken in dispensational Bible study by such men of God as Darby, Scofield and Larkin, /*

*II Peter 1:20 tells us that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

Darby, Scofield, and Larkin may have been men of God.

But unfortunately we cannot base a doctrine of scripture purely on the thoughts of men of God it must be grounded in the Word of God.*

*Paul tells Timothy in /I Tim.6:20+21 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposition of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

Grace be with thee.

A-men."/

If these men are indeed accurate in their teachings concerning the scriptures, they would agree with other great Bible scholars who went before them.

Unfortunately, none of the early church writers, from the apostles up to and including the leaders of the reformation, taught a division in God's plan for His kingdom in which the church was unseen.

Without exception they taught that Christ and His work, the church, was a fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Acts 3:21-24.

Mr Stam and other dispensational teachers ignore the fact that the only Scripture Christ used to prove His work was the Old Testament.

They also brush aside the truth that the New Testament writers and the early Church Fathers based their entire thought concerning the establishment of God's kingdom on the Old Testament.

Though the New Testament in verbally inspired it is based completely on the promises of the Old.*

*/Mr Stam tells us: Those who seek to teach the Word rightly divided frequently encounter the objection that "All [or every] Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable . .

." (II Tim.

3:16).

It is argued from this passage that it is dishonoring to God to divide the Bible into dispensations and emphasize the differences between them, since it is all for us, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. \\ \\ Does this mean, then, that II Tim.

2:15 and II Tim.

3:16 contradict each other?

Surely they do not.

The fact is that, written only a few paragraphs apart, by the same author, to the same person, about the same Book, these two verses complement each other.

II Tim.

2:15 explains how God's workman may get most out of the Bible, while II Tim.

3:16 declares that all of it was given for his profit.

All Scripture is indeed profitable when "rightly divided," but when wrongly divided or not divided at all, the truth is changed into a lie and becomes most unprofitable./*

*If we follow this line of reasoning, the entire church of Christ from the apostles up until the year 1830 when this teaching began was built on a lie.

The writer makes this statement and claims that II Timothy 2:15 tells us to cut up the Word of God into segments in which God deals differently with the problem of sin in different so-called ages.

\\ Just what does the word "orthotomeo" (translated "rightly divided" in the King James) mean in the Greek?

According to Thayers Greek-English Lexicon Page.452 it means the following: *

*1. to cut straight: to cut straight ways i.e. to proceed by straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv.

to do right.*

*2.

dropping the idea of cutting to, make straight and smooth, to handle aright i.e. to teach the truth correctly and directly.*

*Since there is no other use of this word in the New Testament we cannot compare it to other scriptures found therein.

However, in the Septuagint, we see this word is used to translate the word "direct".

*

*In Proverbs 3:6 the Septuagint renders the word "rightly direct" thy paths, also it is seen in Proverbs 11:5, again translated "direct".

In this verse the Septuagint reads as follows, /"Righteousness "traces out" blameless paths: but ungodliness encounters unjust dealing."/

From comparative scripture, then, we can see that the word refers, not to any dissection, but rather direction of truth.

*

*If we look at the following verse we see the reason for verse 15.

Timothy is called to rightly "divide" the word of truth in opposition to what Paul tells him in verse 16, /"But shun profane babbling: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."/

The word babbling in the Greek is "kenophonia" coming from the root words meaning empty sounding i.e. fruitless discussion.

Timothy is told to teach the truth correctly and directly, or to teach the Word of God aright, that these profane babblings might not become a part of his ministry.*

*In essence Paul is saying, cut right to the heart of the matter, do not beat-around-the-bush.

There is no implication in these verses at all that Timothy is to cut the Word of God in pieces and deal them out to different dispensations.

Instead, he is to become a student of the Word of God so that he could rightly teach it and direct it to the hearts of men.

When He did this, he would see the truth of Paul's writing in the next chapter that /"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction in righteousness"./*

*/ Mr Stam tells us: \\ Thus II Tim.

2:15 is the key to II Tim.

3:16 and to the understanding and enjoyment of the Word of truth.

\\ \\ One difficulty is that multitudes of Christians shrink from the effort involved in studying the Scriptures with a view to rightly dividing them.

And, alas, their spiritual leaders often encourage them in their lethargy.

\\ \\ But rather than study to attain to a better understanding of the Word and become proficient in its use, many actually boast that they are satisfied with "the simple things"!

/*

*I find as I study the scriptures and become more proficient in their use, the simpler God's plan for the ages becomes to me and the more glorious and easy to understand it seems.

Paul seemed to have this same "problem" as we can see in II Corinthians 1:12 /"For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward."/

*

*/Mr Stam tells us: \\ We can sympathize with those who have begun to study the Bible dispensationally and have found it confusing./*

*This is the first step in seeing that dispensationalism is in error.

By the author's own admission his teaching is confusing to the believer.

God is not the author of confusion!

/ICor.14:33/.

*

*In order to understand dispensationalism we must go beyond the Word of God and enter the writings and charts of men.

Without them we would never see this teaching.

Truly fleshly wisdom, not the grace of God, is the ground or the foundation on which it rests.

*

*Having made the statement concerning division, the author must now search the scriptures and try to prove his thesis.

His main objective seems to be to show a time in the history of God's people when the action of God’s grace towards man was insufficient for their salvation.

He begins with Israel and attempts to make the law a prerequisite for salvation instead of seeing it as an act of God's people after salvation.

*

*/ Mr Stam tells us: \\ Faith would most assuredly approach God in God's way at any time, and to seek to gain acceptance with Him in any other way would, of course, be unbelief and self-will.

Thus, while works never did or could save as such, they did once save as expressions of faith.

/*

*Notice the contradiction this statement.

If works did not or could not save as such how could they then save?

The dispensationalist must make a decision based on the Word of God.

Either we are saved by works or we are not saved by works.

My Bible says that by the works of the law shall NO flesh be justified Gal.

2:16.

Nowhere in the Old Testament do we read of the law as being a prerequisite for salvation.

In many places obedience to the law is seen as a prerequisite for blessing from the Lord, just as obedience in the church today is seen as a prerequisite for blessing.

But the only law ever stated in the Word of God for which the disobedience of it caused death and separation from God, was the one given to Adam in the garden of Eden.

Gen.2:17./

\\ \\ Mr Stam tells us: \\ Now in the cases of Abraham and David, works were required for salvation, /*

*The author gives no scripture, because there is no scripture, to back up this statement.

He must go beyond scripture to humanistic presumption to make his doctrine work.

We will see this action time after time as we go through this study.*

*/Mr Stam tells us: \\ The word dispensation is not a mere theological term.

It is used many times in the Bible, though not always translated thus.

In Eph.

3:2, for example, Paul writes of "the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to you-ward."

Just as the dispensation of the law was committed to Moses (John 1:17), so the dispensation of the grace of God was committed to Paul.

/*

*The writer, from this statement, believes that Paul was the sole dispenser of the grace of God.

If we look at the text however we will see who the word "you-ward" refers to.

Paul is speaking to a group of believers which God had used him as an instrument to bring unto Himself.

Can we make the blanket statement that Paul was the sole dispenser of the gospel of grace because he preached to Ephesus and other cities?

According to verse 5 of the same chapter we cannot.

"Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

Even Paul admits the revelation was to the apostles and prophets and not just to himself.*

*/Mr Stam tells us: \\ Thus, while the principles of God never change, His dispensations, His dealings with men, do change from time to time.

This includes even the terms of acceptance with God.

At first blood sacrifices were required (Gen.

4:3-5, Heb.

11:4);/*

*My question is this, where in these verses does it say that Abel's offering was accepted because it was a blood offering?

According to Gen.4:7 it seems to be the attitude of the heart more than the type of offering, Even Heb.11:4 does not mention that the reason for acceptability was that the offering was a blood offering, but rather that Abel offered his offering in faith, something that Cain did not have.*

*/ Mr Stam tells us: \\ then, later, circumcision was added (Gen.