Rightly Dividing God's Word/Dispensationalism

[handy]

Handy, I dont want to be cruel, but I think you are talking about things you dont really know about.

No, by no means are you being cruel, you actually are spot on correct! Which is why I started this thread in the first place. I've mentioned before, most of my understanding of dispy is from a very negative POV. I'm hoping that this discussion can clear up some of my (and others) misconceptions.

You totally lost me here. What in the world are you saying dispy's believe? You saying we think the book of Hebrews is for the kingdom? Can you point to one dispensationalists that ever said that?

Sorry I lost you, hopefully we can come to an understanding. My previous post was admittedly a post in which I deliberately set forth some of the arguments against dispy, just so that some of you could set me straight. I started this thread because on a different thread some here had stated that Hebrews was a book to 'them' about 'us'. There had been a question regarding "Who was the Book of Hebrews written to?" Another had stated that he didn't much about the Body in the Hebrews, it was for the Jews.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I did not understand those posts to mean that anyone was saying that Hebrews was written for the future kingdom. However, if anyone around here believes that Hebrews is for the future kingdom, then by all means, jump in!

This POV regarding Hebrews, which I find to be a book that is to the church and for the church and totally reconciles the Old Covenant promises to the New Covenant, was totally new to me. So, I went out into Internet Land and did some research. I've been to a lot of different websites, but I did find that many are teaching that Hebrews is a book of prophecy directed to the future kingdom of Israel in which Christ is to sit on the throne.

Here is a quote from one website:

The book of Hebrews begins by referring to "the fathers" and "the prophets" (of the nation of Israel). When reading the book of Hebrews, one should liken it to reading mail that is not all addressed to you. You can certainly learn from reading someone else’s mail, but you should not attempt to treat the message as though it was all expressly directed at you.
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
One might wonder why the message of Hebrews is addressed to the nation of Israel when the previous thirteen epistles address the Gentiles. Shortly after the cross, the nation of Israel was cast away (Romans 11:15) and broken off (Romans 11:17) because of unbelief. The Gentiles were grafted in, thus ending God’s dealings exclusively with the Jews. After the Church Age following the Rapture, the Hebrews (Jews) will be God’s tool to evangelize the world once again.
The Jews did not accept their Messiah at His first coming. Soon after the Rapture of the Church, God will once again be dealing with and through the Hebrew (Deuteronomy 15:12) nation of Israel (thus the assumption for God’s titling the first of future New Testament prophecy books "Hebrews" and calling out the 144,000 Hebrews to preach during the Tribulation). Today, God has chosen to use the Gentile nations rather than Israel, expressing His command and guidance to the Gentiles primarily through the Apostle Paul. However, one must also take into account that these books were written during the New Testament (Hebrews 9:15-17) and have application not necessarily found in the Gospels.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/stauffer/ ... _OBRD.html

Now, it very well may be that this is yet another example of a ditsy rather than a dispy, in which case I know y'all will correct me.

{I took out some of Handy's odd comments here, not idea what he is trying to say.}

Just to clarify that would be 'she' not 'he'. :

Not sure which part of my 'odd comments' you were refering to, but if it was the part about orthotomeo, I hope we don't glide to quickly over that, because I think orthotomeo is an important part of this discussion. Website after website states that we must 'rightly divide' the Word and by 'rightly divide' they mean divide the Word up according to Dispensations. Many supply helpful outlines as to which books apply to the church, which to the Jews, which to the old Kingdom, which to which gospels, and which to the future kingdom of Israel.

Here is a quote from one such website:

These are all valid concerns, but when a person begins to "rightly divide" the word of truth, as admonished by Paul to Timothy, these seeming difficulties and disputations are resolved. To "rightly divide" means that God has dealt with mankind at different times with different expectations from him. Although it is profitable for us to read the entire Bible (2Tim.3:16), it is imperative that we understand which part of the Bible is intended primarily for us in this time of Grace.

http://www.rightlydividing.org/secondar ... iding.html

My intent for this thread is twofold:
A: To better understand Dispensationalism from a Dispensationalist POV.

B: To come to a correct understanding of orthotomeo.

I'm a very open-minded kind of person when it comes to non-essential doctrine. (I'm much more hard-nosed about the essentials.) I want to ask questions and learn from others why they hold the point's of view that they do, but I really am very liberterian when it comes to the non-essentials of doctrine.

However, I'm kind of struggling as to whether orthotomeo comes down to essential or non-essential doctrine.

As I mentioned before, orthotomeo, in it's context seems to speak far more to the idea of coming to a right understanding of scripture and handling it accurately. This is how most translations handle the word and it is by far much more within context of a workman studying to show himself approved. This is not what Dispensationalism teaches though.

Dispensationalism teaches that orthotomeo means to actually divide the Word. Here is Scofield's interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:15:

The Word of Truth, then, has right divisions, and it must be evident that, as one cannot be "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed" without observing them, so any study of that Word which ignores those divisions must be in large measure profitless and confusing. Many Christians freely confess that they find the study of the Bible weary work. More find it so, who are ashamed to make the confession. (C.I.Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth)

Yikes, it's getting late and I really must start supper. Tomorrow I leave for Ladies Retreat, where I will spend three days in the glorious Sawtooth Mountains with about 80 Christian women. However, I'll be thinking a lot about this thread and hope to see more posts from y'all when I get back, rested, refreshed and loaded for bear. Always assuming that I don't get ate by the bear this weekend! :

 

[mondar]

Just to clarify that would be 'she' not 'he'.

All righty, I will try to remember that maam.

Concerning your quote on "rightly divide".....

To "rightly divide" means that God has dealt with mankind at different times with different expectations from him.

I think this is the key to what the writer of your quote was saying. Most here will agree that God dealt with men before and after Pentecost in slightly different ways. Also, many agree that the worship under the Law, and worship under the Church are not identical.

Some dispys make a huge point out of so very little. I have seen individual dispys act like non dispys do not believe these things. Dont make too much of the dividing up the word thing. There are merely saying there is different dispensations.

Chasing after this concept will never bring you to understand the essence of dispensationalism as compared to other theologies.

Concerning Hebrews....
I looked up the link to this Stauffer web page and read the comments on Hebrews and some of the other comments. I really dont see this Stauffer guy as normative for dispys. Feel free to chew up Stauffer, I am not interested in defending many of his ideas.

I read the article and admit shaking my head. The book is not addressed to "Israel" but to the Hebrews. Not only this but many of the books in the NT are addressed to the dispora.

I dont know this Stauffer guy, but have the suspicion that he is not a dispensationalist, but a hyper-dispy. That is a whole different group, and opens up a completely different can of worms.

 

[Vic C.]

Bear with me folks, for I am going to sound extremely argumentative and negative with this post.

I do not think you are being negative at all. You are asking important questions here.

vic C. wrote:

No, I believe there is a Judgment seat of Christ for those who are saved prior to His second Coming. A close examination of Revelation 20:12-15 shows it is a judgment of works, as is the Sheep and Goat judgment.

Now that I look at this again, I neglected to say I believe there are two judgements. One being the Judgment by Christ and the other, the White Throne Judgment.

b: The passage in Revelations does not say that those who are cast into the fires are put there because of their works. They are put there because they are not written in the Book of Life. Revelations 20:15

Yup, that is what Revelation 20:15. The question that has been floating around is; how did they not make it into the Book or as I see it; how did they get their names removed from the Book? Could it be that some followed what was written on their hearts (Romans 2:15-16) causing them to do "good" works and kept their names in the Book, while the others didn't follow what was written on their hearts or rejected Jesus up to their death and thus, their names were removed from the Book?

Rev 20:15 needs to be resolved in context. What I have suggested does just that. Judging them (Rev 20:13-14) according to their works must have been done for a reason. Rev 20:15 doesn't suggest all were cast into the Lake. A more literal translation says:

-15- And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. (LITV)

15 and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire. (YLT)

 

[Vic C.]

I think this is the key to what the writer of your quote was saying. Most here will agree that God dealt with men before and after Pentecost in slightly different ways. Also, many agree that the worship under the Law, and worship under the Church are not identical.

I consider myself a partial dispy. : I do agree with the above. The indwelling of the HS, as prophesied by Joel in Joel 2 and fulfilled in Acts2 when Peter echoed the words of the Prophet, was a turning point. It went from the Spirit moving from person to person to the indwelling of the Spirit into the believer. That for me, clearly shows a difference in how God dealt with His people.

 

[mondar]

I consider myself a partial dispy. : I do agree with the above. The indwelling of the HS, as prophesied by Joel in Joel 2 and fulfilled in Acts2 when Peter echoed the words of the Prophet, was a turning point. It went from the Spirit moving from person to person to the indwelling of the Spirit into the believer. That for me, clearly shows a difference in how God dealt with His people.

Acts 2 and Joel 2 might be a good discussion. Since the issue is raised can I ask a question? Well, OK, its a rhetorical question. The question is not for Vic, but for anyone.
Acts 2:
16 but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel:
17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams:
18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day.

This prophecy is clearly associated with the "Day of the Lord." If it is fulfilled in Acts 2, then why does 2 Thes 2:2 say the Day of the Lord has not yet come?

2 to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at hand

 

[Vic C.]

Did I say fulfilled? I meant partially fulfilled. I even brought this up a couple of years ago. :