July 29, 2014

Does Matt Olson Repudiate, The Bible as our Only, our Sole Authority for Faith and Practice?

Pastor Brian Ernsberger has just published a penetrating review of an article “Growing Systematically” written by Matt Olson. The pseudo-fundamentalist site Sharper Iron features Olson’s article. I encourage you to read, like a study, Pastor Ernsberger’s “Elvis has Left the Building” at his Parsings of a Preacher blog.

Wow! “There are many ways to grow in our Christian faith”?! The greatest harm here is that he intersperses some truth with this off the wall, unorthodox babble. Matt [Olson], where is the Scriptural support for such a statement, that we can grow our Christian faith with some other source other than the Word of God? Paul in Romans 10:17 is rather explicit, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Our faith comes by the hearing of the Word of God, not man’s writing no matter how “Christian” his literature might be. Instead, we see the influence of these “two decades of ministry” in which he has been pouring over men’s writings to the point of leaving his Biblical mooring of the Bible being his only source for faith. He has imbibed and accepted the notion of the reformed thinkers that say we need a theologian to give us the understanding of the Scriptures.
During the years Matt Olson was dismantling the former Northland Baptist Bible College Sharper Iron (SI) posted main page articles and Filings by and/or on behalf Matt Olson, and the radical changes he was making at Northland.  With one exception between 10/2010 and mid-2013 SI’s leadership chose to largely ignore, censor by omission what was going on at Northland International University.  This week SI is promoting, exposing and giving their tacit support of a radical teaching Matt Olson has endorsed from his blog.

We hope and look for the day when Sharper Iron will cease to exist.  The New Testament church will be better served apart from SI’s long history of propping up and/or giving cover to compromising men, their ministries and betrayal of the Word of God.
 
 
LM


July 21, 2014

Archival Series: Dr. Rolland McCune, “Militancy Has Always Characterized Fundamentalism

We have been considering the timely comments by Dr. Rolland McCune in an expanding series of articles.  Previously we presented and discussed Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif...Won’t Carry the Day” and A Kind and Gentle Yet Aggressively Militant Richard V. Clearwaters
My associations with R. V. Clearwaters, often identified with the ugly side of fundamentalism, would contradict what is too often thought to be the mean and unholy spirit that brought fundamentalism down as a “movement.” My 14 years with ‘Doc’ tell a different tale, which has caused me to respond and correct rumors, innuendos and other barnacle-like rubbish about the man and his ministry and leadership.”

Doc, as a good leader, prudently chose his hills to die on based on several non-negotiable biblical truths and convictions. But in a showdown when these were being challenged, trampled, disobeyed, avoided or neglected, he was militantly aggressive. This earned him a lot of unwanted and unearned opprobrium over the decades, actually to this very day.”
Here now is Dr. Rolland McCune in “A Review Article by Rolland D. McCune, Th.D. of RECLAIMING AUTHENTIC FUNDAMENTALISM” by Douglas R. McLachlan (American Association of Christian Schools, 1992). He wrote:

Militancy has always characterized Fundamentalism. It is not so much a matter of personality as adherence to principle. Militancy has been so fogged over by its detractors that it has become a wholly negative concept, even for many Fundamentalists. Dr. George Houghton, of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an excellent definition of militancy.
What exactly is militancy, anyway? One dictionary says it is to be “engaged in warfare or combat . . . aggressively active (as in a cause).” It springs from one’s values, is expressed as an attitude, and results in certain behavior. One’s values are those things in which one strongly believes. They are what one believes to be fundamentally important and true. From this comes an attitude which is unwilling to tolerate any divergence from these fundamentally important truths and seeks to defend them. It results in behavior which speaks up when these truths are attacked or diluted and which refuses to cooperate with any activity which would minimize their importance. The term is a military one and carries the idea of defending what one believes to be true. [1]
I must confess that I do not hear a clear note of militancy in the book under discussion. Forcefulness in leadership and in defending the faith is simply not there. (The concept of “Militant Meekness” or “a militancy for the meekness of Christ” [p. 140] is a little confusing in terms of historic Fundamentalist militancy.) The idea of “servant leaders” (p.40ff.), while certainly a biblical thought, [2] seems expunged of all notions of aggressiveness. Some of this may be explained by the author’s non-confrontational type of personality. Many of us could identify with this. But again militancy is not a matter of personality. There are many Fundamentalists who are reticent and retiring but who are militant in the fight for truth.

[1] George Houghton. “The Matter of Militancy,” Faith Pulpit (May 1994)

[2] The idea of “servant leadership” as it is propagated in the New Evangelical community was severely criticized by by David F. Wells, a fellow New Evangelical. He says that the term “has the ring of piety about it. But it is false piety, or it plays on an understanding of servanthood that is antithetical to biblical understanding. Contemporary servant leaders are typically individuals without any ideas of their own, people whose convictions shift with the popular opinion to which they assiduously attune themselves, people who bow to the wishes of “the body” from which their direction and standing derive” (No Place For Truth [Eermans, 1993]’ pp. 214-15). His attack was directed at the lack of convictions and biblical/doctrinal truth that has overtaken the New Evangelical movement and that has displaced theology with psychology and the prescriptions of the modern self movement. This is not the case with the author of Reclaiming . . . Fundamentalism, but a word of caution is in order. Without forceful leadership and the aggressive prosecution of a biblical philosophy and agenda, the Fundamentalist will find his vision being challenged by another who is quite militant about his own proposal. Well’s point is well taken: Servant leadership does not necessitate a benign, non-aggressive stance.
Site Publisher Commentary:
I believe that it is fair to say that Kevin Bauder has very little militant principle in him. After all, he has yet to put it on the mat over people like and the doings of Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever. His pattern, that of Dave Doran, and men like them is to tolerate, allow for, excuse and/or ignore the doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises and worldliness of their new friends in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. That is not militancy!

It’s also interesting that Kevin Bauder has besmirched and castigated men like John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr.1 (when he reacted to Danny Sweatt2), but now points out the virtues of his mentors. Sadly, he’s allowed the hype surrounding the leadership of those that he’s criticized to color his comments while allowing his personal relationships with others to hold them in esteem. When the history of fundamentalism is written, there will be those who will look at the acerbic, acrimonious tones3 of the writings of Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran in particular and decide that they simply would never want to associate with or emulate their brand of compromising Christianity.


LM
(First appeared Nov. 7, 2011. With the on-going slide into New Evangelicalism by Dr. Al Mohler and Kevin Bauders ignoring and/or excusing it, this article is even more applicable today than it was at its first publication.)

1) Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship
Dr. Bauder’s criticisms of Dr. Jones and Dr. Rice was not speech that edifies. It was not a display of Christ-like love. Bauder’s tone was not the sound of humble integrity. The caricatures of Jones and Rice, while barely skirting personal attacks, certainly did not honor the Lord or those men. It is irrefutable that the speech with which Dr. Bauder described Drs. Jones and Rice is antithetical to what the FBFI leadership called for.
2) The IFB & Calvinism: Flashpoint!

3) And the acerbic, acrimonious arrogant tone of the pseudo-fundamentalists SI administrator Jim Peet who seems incapable of being gracious when criticized even when by a kinder, gentler, well-meaning and esteemed man as Dr. Rolland McCune. See Jim Peet: In the Jaws of a Lion

July 14, 2014

Where Does Error Come From?

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.  (II Timothy 4:3,4)

One does not have to struggle to discover that doctrinal error often rises from the unread and unlearned.  It always comes from the hearts of men and women who simply make up doctrine as they go.  The cults serve up an unhealthy diet consisting of the doctrine of devils, and they are persistent in their task of blinding the eyes of men.  It really doesn’t matter what this crowd of false teachers dreams up; it is all the same, and their evil teaching is condemned by God.

Thus, when moderate evangelicals give credence to these cults, making them acceptable evangelicals, we are left wondering why.  It is often the intellectual scholars who laud these strange pronouncements that turn a blind eye to doctrinal error.  This observation, then, leads us to a serious consideration: how is it that these scholars are comfortable with error that often damns men’s souls?

TIRED OLD ACCUSATIONS

When error, however, is clearly assigned to the intellectual crowd, people who know better are often quick to call others “anti-intellectual.”  This is an old liberal trick, and it doesn’t work with thinking people.  Anyone who knows anything about my fifty-four years in ministry can tell you that for most of my life I’ve been involved in education. Learning is very important, and people who are able should go as far as they can on the education ladder.  We should never stop learning; study should be a way of life.

I am not against intellect or serious study.  It is also wise for a person to pursue a single discipline and to follow it as far as possible.  No one can be an expert in every discipline, but we need to be as broad in our understanding as is possible.  You will no doubt read materials that leave you with the impression that the writer has a full grasp of everything; that is a serious mistake.

ERROR THAT FLOWS FROM THE ELITE

Like it or not, much of the theological error being spread abroad does not come from the simple-minded, unread, and unlearned.  You would think that the more knowledge one has, the more likely that person would be to maintain a theology that is biblical.  That, however, is not the case.  It appears that the higher a student climbs on the academic ladder, the greater the danger.  Not all of this is deliberate, but intellectual pride can be a terrible thing.  It seems to provide a license for error on the part of the scholar.

Recently I jotted down a list of ten theological errors that are currently floating around, many of which are being disseminated by some popular theological gurus.  I honestly didn’t fix the list, but every one of them has been sourced or popularized by well-known men who we would recognize as being scholars.  It is clearly evident that scholars can be, and are, wrong occasionally - and sometimes frequently.  That is not to say that everything they teach is wrong, because “diamonds come from dirt.”

A TRAGIC FALLOUT

I travel a lot and read as much as I can, and my email box is full most mornings.  My soul is grieved at the creation and dissemination of theological error, but that is only the beginning; the real tragedy is in seeing how blind people so often have become.  You can almost tell who and what people read by the error they spout.

We all need to read broadly, and should even include authors who have proven they can popularize erroneous doctrine.  The question is, why are not the readers asking the right questions?  It is imperative that the reader be able tell when his theological leg is being pulled.  Young men are most often caught in the web of intellectualism simply because they think they know more than they actually do.  It is a heady thing to be able to discuss some of the technical positions being spread abroad.  It is a terrible thing not to be able to recognize when a teaching has departed from the authority of scripture.

I confess that, when I was a young student and preacher, pride took the lead in my following error.  At the same time, I will be forever grateful for godly men who sounded the warning that allowed me to focus on the Book of God rather than the books of men. Just because someone is well-known or has churned out many publications does not mean that what he says is correct.  We need to be like the Bereans of old who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”  (Acts 17:11)

Read the writings of men.  They offer great questions, but not always the right answers. Read with one eye to the works of men and both eyes solidly on the Word of God.  The elite in theology are not necessarily the authority.  If they are offering you “false teaching,” they may well be false teachers - wolves in shepherds garb, as it were.  Error can come from any source, and scholars and intellectuals are no exception.  Don’t let people make this a personality issue; stay with ideas so you will not be hindered by the cloak of the elite.

Shepherd’s Staff – July, 2014

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible.  Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches.  Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com or

Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min

Site Publishers Commentary
Dr. Nuttall wrote, It is often intellectual scholars who laud these strange pronouncements that turn a blind eye to doctrinal error.” I would offer, as a related example, the recent activities of Dr. Al Mohler. In recent years Mohler has aligned himself with, and thereby given credibility to cult movements such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and to this generations high priest of New Evangelicalism- Rick Warren. In spite of these associations Mohler has willfully forged his followers in an around Bible believing circles continue to heap lavish praise upon him promote his speaking tour, his books, and/or tolerate, allow for, ignore or excuse Mohlers compromises and betrayal of Gods Word. For further reading, see:

Al Mohler: So Much for Sola Scripture
Al Mohler has betrayed the very basic, the primary distinctive that Baptists have clung to for centuries, that the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice.
Kevin Bauder: When Facts Give Way for the Sake of Agenda
What of Kevin Bauders revisionist histories and omission of widely known facts in various articles he has posted? There appears to be an agenda that includes blurring the lines of distinction between fundamentalists and the so-called conservative evangelicals over what constitutes authentic biblical separation. Kevin Bauder has a long-standing, established record of omitting relevant facts about the star personalities and fellowships of “conservative” evangelicalism, and its star personalities.  He has consistently demonstrated a serious problem with acknowledging and addressing the truth about the evangelicals’ doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises, worldliness and cultural relativism. He has avoided appealing to and applying any Scriptural principles to the doctrine and actions of his new friends in evangelicalism, particularly Al Mohler and Mark Dever.

July 7, 2014

An Introduction to Dispensationalism

In various discussions with advocates of Calvinism, Lordship Salvation you will encounter men who reject a Dispensational approach to the Scriptures.

And should we overlook the almost rabid contempt many conservative evangelicals express toward dispensationalism (which, as Kraus and Sandeen have noted, was born ‘from within the womb of orthodox Calvinism’)?”
The preceding excerpt, from an extended comment, was written by Dr. Gerald Priest and was posted by him at the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron site (3/8/2010). The excerpt appeared in regard to Dr. Kevin Bauder who was then and continues today to be, as Dr. Priest stated,
quite lavish in his [Bauder’s] praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists. Yet he has spent very little time warning us about the pitfalls and problems of conservative evangelicalism. What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp.” (For related reading see, Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations: “Foremost Defenders of the Gospel Today?”)
Introduction to Dispensationalism
There is nothing new I can add to a study of Dispensationalism.  For centuries theologians on both sides of the debate have articulated principles of Dispensationalism far better than I could ever hope to. For this article I have drawn from several contemporary theologians, primarily fundamentalist men.  The bulk of the following, however, I attribute to the late Dr. David L. Cummins. I have a set of recorded lectures he gave me on the subject of Dispensationalism. Much of what follows is a transcription from Dr. Cummings introduction to his lecture series on Dispensationalism.
Dr. David L. Cummins (8/1929-8/2009)

Several major theological systems have competed against each other since the Reformation.  The theological system that has been competing with Dispensationalism is commonly known as Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology (CT) is Calvinistic theology. CT has been refined as it passed through the Puritans and modern-day followers in the Presbyterian, Lutheran and Reformed churches. CT places a strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God and predestination.

Covenant theology is based on the theory that God has only one covenant with men (the covenant of grace) and only one people, represented by the Old and New Testament saints—one people, one church and one plan for all. These beliefs require the adherents of Covenant Theology to interpret prophecy in a nonliteral way.

Those who hold to Covenant Theology believe that there is, and has always been, only one people of God. They believe that Israel was the Church in the Old Testament, and the Church is Israel in the New Testament. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is a system of theology with two primary distinctives: (1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and (2) a distinction between Israel and the Church in God's program.

Dispensationalism has been present in many forms for centuries.

Premillennialism can be found in the writings of early church fathers like Justin Martyr. “Premillennialism in Christian eschatology is the belief that Christ will literally reign on the earth for 1,000 years at his second coming.  It was not as developed as it is today, but it was present.

Amillennialism is a view in Christian eschatology named for its denial of a future, thousand-year, physical reign of Jesus Christ on the earth

Postmillennialism is an interpretation of chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation, which sees Christ's Second Coming as occurring after (Latin post-) the “Millennium” a Golden Age or era of Christian prosperity and dominance.

What follows will explore Dispensationalism, and demonstrate the biblical basis for a dispensational approach to Scripture.  As we begin it is best to understand what Dispensationalism really is.  Even without the use of that word we use a dispensational approach to primarily everything we read. 
J. Edwin Hartell, “A Dispensation is a period of time during which God deals in a particular way with man in respect to sin, and man’s responsibility.”  
Charles Ryrie, “A dispensation may be defined as a stewardship, administration, over-sight or management of others’ property…A distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose…the emphasis is put on the biblical meaning of the word itself.” 
 H. A Ironside, In The Heavenlies, p. 67, “A dispensation, an economy then, is that particular order of condition of things prevailing in one special age, which does not necessarily prevail in another.”
A dispensation then is God’s manner of dealing with His people in a given section of time.

Why Do We Need to Understand Dispensationalism?
Without a dispensational approach the Bible becomes a maze of confusion, and/or it becomes a non-divine book of errors and contradiction. From various passages we will illustrate how the Bible leads to confusion apart from a dispensational approach:
Joel 3:10 & Isaiah 2:4  plowshares, swords” Which should we do?  With a dispensational approach it is both, in a particular time 
Matthew 10:5-6 & 28:19-20Go not to the Samaritans/Gentilesteach ALL nations.” Which shall we do?  Go only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” or to “all nations?
Psalm 51:11 & John 14:16 David had failed with Bathsheba and rebuked by Nathan. Cast me not away…take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” “…that He may abide with you forever.”
Is man to pray that the Spirit remain in his heart and not leave him, or accept the promise of Jesus when He said the Spirit will abide forever?  Both cannot be correct?  Both are correct and can be reconciled through dispensational truth. Without dispensational truth, these words of Christ would be confusing.
Psalm 58:6 & Matthew 5:43-44 Break their teeth.” Love your enemies.
An imprecatory Psalm asking God to act in retribution. Does Jesus contradict the Scriptures?  Of course not.
Deut. 11:14-17 & Matthew 5:45 God withdrawing water from the wicked. Sendeth rain on the just and unjust.” You cannot have it both ways!  Either we cannot take the Bible literally or there is some way to reconcile these passages in the Word of God.
Without a dispensational approach the Bible becomes a confusing maze…it becomes a non-divine book of errors and contradiction.

Illustration: The school principal may sign a teacher’s first weekly paycheck for $250.00.  The teacher would call and ask about this, the principal explains that this is his first week’s pay.  The teacher, however, demands his full pay. The principal explains that he has read the academy’s charter and by-laws drafted in 1970 which states that a high school teacher’s annual pay is $12,000.00 and therefore sent him the corresponding wages.  The teacher replies that the principal been reading a document from under the old dispensation, that there have been revisions, and that I had better get with the new dispensation.

If we do not understand the time frame of historical events, the whole of history becomes confusing.  If I were to read a book on America’s involvement in war I might be confused if I did not read with a dispensational approach. 
           
On Monday I read about George Patton and World War II.

On Tuesday I read about George Washington, and am amazed that General Washington did not call in air strikes on the British.

On Wednesday night I read about General Pershing and World War I and question why he did not threaten to use the atomic bomb.

If I did not understand the differences in the time frame the history would be a confusing mess for me.  And so it is with those who fail to understand the dispensational differences in the Bible.

This is why the failure to understand dispensational truth has lead some to despair.  Some believers read the Bible from a “flat” dispensational view, that is, without any time barriers.

A “Flat” view has lead some believers to a post-millennial position that says, the world is going to get better and better by the preaching of the gospel, and the church will bring back her King, the Lord Jesus Christ.

If the Bible is not accepted dispensationally…
1)    Why don’t we sacrifice lambs on the altar for the forgiveness of sins?
2)    Why don’t we stone a man who (defiles) picks up stick on the Sabbath? (Num 15)
3)    Why did God intervene drastically in the past to destroy evil as in Sodom & Gomorrah; Yet, today we have similar scenes in San Francisco and other American cities that go without chastening?

Has God grown old or tired and decided to just let man have his way for now?  Unless we understand that we are living in the Day of Man, the Dispensation of Grace, the day of God’s silence, we shall be overwhelmed by these questions.

Without a dispensational view you can pray prayers that do not belong in this dispensation: 1) Ask God to kill all the abortionists. 2) “Take not thy Holy Spirit from meHebrews 13:5I will never leave thee…”

In the study of Dispensationalism we are going to see that in each dispensation man has a specific responsibility to a primary revelation given by God in a period of time.  Dispensations are characterized by man’s testing by God, by man’s failure, and then the judgment that falls from the hand of God.  There is a progressive revelation as God unfolds new truth about Himself or His purpose for man, and mans ability to receive it.  For example: Hebrews 1:1-2sundry times and divers manners…in these last days.”

With giving new revelations that God provides the relationship and responsibility between man and God is heightened as a new dispensation is begun.  Dispensations are not sealed, self-contained units.  Not an effort to put God into a box.  Much of the revelation of the given dispensation is carried forward to the next dispensation, either in tact or with some adjustment.  For example:

Under the Dispensation of the Law God said, “Thou shalt not steal,” (Exodus 20:15). Under the Dispensation of Grace can we steal?  No!  Through the dispensations we are dealing with God’s principles, thus the body of God’s revelation, which man is responsible for is cumulative.  Therefore, I have more responsibility to God under grace than Adam had in the Dispensation of Innocence.

There is diversity, and yet there is unity in the dispensations: 1) Diversity in the sense that God provides sufficient revelation to create a new dealing of man with deity. 2) Because of the continuing principles from one dispensation to another there is a great similarity that provides unity.

Most scholars agree that there are seven definable dispensations; some say eight. They are the Dispensations of:

1)    Innocence                          Genesis 1:1-3:24
2)    Conscience                        Genesis 4:1-8:22-(Fall to the Flood)
3)    Human Government         Genesis 9-12 (Call of Abraham)
4)    Promise                             (From the call of Abraham to Mount Sinai)
5)    Law                                   (From Mt. Sinai to the Cross)
6)    Grace                                 (From the Cross to the Rapture)
7)    Kingdom                           (Second Coming to the Great White Throne)

In each dispensation we read of man’s:
1)    Condition
2)    Responsibility
3)    Failure
4)    God’s judgment
5)    God’s provision

In every dealing of God there is a blood sacrifice: “Without shedding of blood there is no remission,” (Hebrews 9:22).
1)    Innocence- an animal to clothe Adam and Eve
2)    Conscience- Abel’s altar
3)    Human Government- Noah’s altar
4)    Promise- Abraham’s altar
5)    Law- the sacrifice
6)    Grace- Christ’s death
7)    Kingdom- the memorial sacrifice

Faith is revealed in each of these Dispensations.  Much of the complaint against dispensationalists is that there is a teaching among them that God saved men in different ways. That is a lie!  No such teaching exists among dispensationalists!

SALVATION HAS ALWAYS AND ONLY BEEN BY FAITH!
Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness,” (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). Without faith it is impossible to please God,” (Heb. 11:6).  Salvation has always been by faith!
Those who deny Dispensationalism read the same Bible I have, and it professes at least two dispensations. In the front of many Bibles it says, “HOLY BIBLE.” Then it will tell me that the books of the Bible are divided into Old & New Testaments. Old Testament: Genesis through Malachi. New Testament: Matthew through Revelation. For those who say, “There is no such thing as a dispensation,” the Bible clearly speaks of the dispensations. Paul recognized the dispensations.  Four times the Apostle Paul speaks of the dispensations:
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me,” (1 Cor. 9:17). 
 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him,” (Eph. 1:10) If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward,” (Eph. 3:2). 
 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God,” (Col. 1:25).
Those who say there are no dispensations hold within their hands a Bible that professes itself to be dispensational.

From the first dispensation we can prove that the Bible is dispensational.

In the dispensation of Innocence, when God created and placed Adam & Eve in the garden; how were they dressed?  Clothed in the light of God, but naked as far human garments are concerned.  Is that right or acceptable today? Of course not.  Why is it not right?  Would you protest?  What if the say, “It is biblical, Adam and Eve did it.”  They would be wrong because of dispensations.  Even non-dispensationalists would have to agree that it makes sense to be clothed.

What would the diet of Adam and Eve have been?  VEGETARIAN! How many will go home today to a Vegetarian meal?  Why do many of us NOT eat as they ate?  Is it unlawful to eat as they did?  No!  Then you and I must believe in dispensations.

Even those who deny dispensational truth, must in practice say that God has dealt with man in different ways in different period of times.

This is what we will investigate, so that when we read the Bible we will realize the setting in which God gives instruction. Is it all true? Yes, but we understand the Scripture according to setting dispensationally.

It is dangerous to use the Bible as a sanctified Ouija Board. Some Christians say that they will use the Bible to find God’s will for me. They close eyes, flip the pages and stick their finger in on a verse and begin to read, and say, “This is what God wants me to do.” See- Matthew 27:5; Judges 7:17

Dispensational truth will bring the Bible into focus as how we are to interpret and apply the Scriptures.


Dr. David L. Cummins

For additional study see Brother George Zellers, Introduction to Dispensationalism