House Church Talk - Dispensations - Ross

[Ross J Purdy]

Hi Dan,

You wrote:

>
> For instance - you mention rejection of "their" messiah. So, then "the"
messiah kinda took me,
> a gentile, into the fold as somewhat an afterthought. I find that
offensive and also I think
> that there is ample bible evidence to indicate that "the" messiah, while
coming thru the line
> of David and thus as promised into Israel, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ is "the" messiah -
> not "their" messiah.

The "afterthought" notion is without warrant for Paul tells us that this
mystery was planned before the foundation of the world. It is in fact a
forethought. The OT revealed that Israel would be the channel through which
the Gentiles would be blessed according to the covenant. But the
administration of God through Paul provides blessings to the Gentiles
directly apart from the agency of Israel purely by grace. True, Christ is
head over all, but I think "Messiah" entails a special relation to the
covenant nation, since the Messiah was the one God would use to
reform/restore the Kingdom to Israel according to the covenant. Israel did
have the prominence and advantage with respect to a relationship to God and
as Paul says in Rom 3:2, "they were entrusted with the oracles of God." The
term has everything to do with Israel's future glory. Now whatever claims we
may or may not make on "messiah," Jesus Christ was indeed "their" Messiah!
That is NOT to say though that we Gentiles are robbed of the Christ, nor was
I implying any such thing.

>While this mindset is probably not totally indicative of
> dispensationalism, it certainly highlights the "us" and "them" demeanor of
dispensationalism.
> I take the "us" and "them" mindset also - but only as the bible presents
it. There are those
> who are lost, and those who are saved by grace - and that indicates a
glorious "us" and "them."

Guilty as charged, unfortunately.

> Another tenet of dispensations is the issue of time periods or
dispensations. The term is very
> much so in the bible, but the application of that term to the way in which
God relates to man
> throughout history seems faulty. Indeed, I think it is possible to
understand grace in the OT
> and also to see grace distributed to gentiles as well as Israel. That type
of understanding
> begins to be consistent and not dependent on dispensation or times of
"testing" which is also
> particular to dispensationalism.

Paul defended his ministry in Romans by showing that it was consistent with
God's intention to bless the Gentiles. The problem the Jew had with Paul is
that Paul was preaching direct access to God for the Gentile when they were
sure that the Gentiles ought to be getting circumcised and observing the
Law. That was a reasonable assumption given a knowledge of the OT, but Paul
had a new revelation from God which succeeded and superceded the Law. The
Gentiles no longer had to go through Israel to get to God, they had direct
access. Israel had fallen and ceased to be a viable channel.

Dispensationalists have understood God to always have been gracious, but He
seems to have also chosen to relate to man in particular ways at different
times. The Law, for example, required certain activities which if were not
kept could result in being cut off from the nation and thus the blessing of
the covenant. During the past dispensation, the Gentile typically knew God's
grace through the agency of the nation Israel. Not so today, all know grace
through the agency of Christ alone. Dispensationalism is a hermeneutic that
clears up seeming contradictions and explains how God has related to man
through various administrations. Unfortunately, they have gone overboard in
making distinctions that are either unnecessary or nonexistent in an effort
to obtain perfect consistency. I am trying to assess what needs to be
recovered which shall be the cause of me falling from grace with the "Grace
Movement" as it has others.


> ...but generally, I have
> found, dispensationalists consider all who do not "toe the line" to be
nothing more than
> "infidel" which then becomes very denominational.



Again, unfortunately, more or less guilty as charged.

In Christ,

Ross Purdy