It's also possibloe he recognized the relationship between the words oikonomeia and oikonomos (steward or administrator) nd felt that the word "administration" meant more to modern Christians than "dispensation." (Growing up Roman Catholic, to me "dispensation" meant being allowed to eat meat on Fridays!)
That's my take, def. I really don't think it was deliberate, unless he just being deliberately obtuse so it might seem "new". Of all of Wierwille's doctrines, I think his peculiar & extreme take on dispensationalism could be his most harmful...
quote: (Growing up Roman Catholic, to me "dispensation" meant being allowed to eat meat on Fridays!)
I agree with GSGeorge. Being raised Catholic also, dispensation (to me) was more or less a "free pass" that allowed one to "get out" of doing something that was normally required.
quote: but on the recommendation of a friend I've been reading a theological tome called "Isrealology: The Missing Link In Dispensational Theology".
Evan -- is this available for purchase somewhere?? -->
I tried to find it at Amazon, as well as Barnes and Noble, and drew a blank on both sites. I couldn't do an advanced search, since I don't know the author. Is it one of several volumes, or a book unto itself?
"Paul says that administration of the Gospel was committed unto him (I Corn 9:17). The word 'dispensation' is completely misleading, for an administration is accurately the administering of an entire era as in one of our government administrations. The previous term of office was someone else's administration. In rightly dividing the Word of Truth, we must understand that these Biblical administrations have to remain within the confines in which God has placed them with His Word."
On quick look all I found, will look a bit more, if no return I found no more.
Oikonomia has to do with stewardship. It has nothing to do with a period of time. Check the lexicon definitions and then see how this word is used in the New Testament. Dispensationalism is a doctrine which magnifies the work of man rather than the sovereign power of God. It divides human history into periods of time and then accounts for differences in man's relationship with God by magnifying historical periods. Covenant theology on the other hand accounts for the changing relationship between God and man, but attributes this to the work of God through His covenants between God and man.
If one were to search the scriptures and study biblical history one would see covenants throughout between God and man thus bringing about a changing relationship. For example, Moses going up to Mt. Sinai and bringing back the 10 commandments. This was a covenant between God and Moses and then the children of Israel. It demanded that these commandments be followed with consequences if they weren't, yet blessing if they were. Abraham and his circumcision was a covenant and through it out of his seed would come the redeemer Christ. Also through this covenant we see the blessing of God to all of mankind. Before Abraham's time God also made a covenant with Noah, assuring Noah that he would not again destroy the world by flood.
We see covenants throughout the bible leading to the New Covenant in Christ Jesus. With this covenant we are justified by Christ's faith rather than our own futile attempts to keep the Mosaic law.
Dispensationalism is a doctrine which magnifies the work of man rather than the sovereign power of God. It divides human history into periods of time and then accounts for differences in man's relationship with God by magnifying historical periods. Covenant theology on the other hand accounts for the changing relationship between God and man, but attributes this to the work of God through His covenant between God and man.
Your definition of dispensationalism makes sense. My question (and an honest one) is -- Can't covenant theology be called "dispensationalism" also, since God is dispensing different things, at different times, and to different groups of people? God still gets the glory for having done what He has done, and man's magnifying the historical periods doesn't enter into the picture. It is God who did it, and in His own time and choosing.
quote:Can't covenant theology be called "dispensationalism" also, since God is dispensing different things, at different times, and to different groups of people? God still gets the glory for having done what He has done, and man's magnifying the historical periods doesn't enter into the picture. It is God who did it, and in His own time and choosing.
That is a good question DMiller and you may be able to do this or at least the two concepts can be considered to be related. I found 2 verses in the New Testament that use the word dispensation in a similar way. However, the word "oikonomia" is still the management of a household according to lexicons and the way it is used in the bible.
As long as the bible is our handbook for spiritual knowledge, faith and practice why not use the language of the bible to communicate this knowledge? Also why would not the author of Dispensationalism, E.W. Bullinger, use the same methodology of study as he does with the understanding of other biblical/spiritual subjects? Was not he the one to teach that the bible should interpret itself in the verse, context and previous usage? Was not he the one to teach us the importance of how words are used in their biblical context so that we can gain understanding of these words and with this spiritual/biblical concepts? Why should not the author of Dispensationalism be true to his methods of study? Unfortunately, with his understanding of the word translated "dispensation" from the King James Version "oikonomia" in the Greek, he does not.
I think Mr. Bullinger was to hung up on periods of time in communicating his understanding of "oikonomia". This only brought division. Division as to dividing the people of God from the Old Testament versus the New Testament. Division as to what books we should apply and what books were not really written to us. Division as to cataloging the so called administrations into time periods as we may not agree on what administration for which period of human history. I would favor what you wrote here above what I have heard from Bullinger on this subject.
Here is the Thayer's lexical definition below. Would anyone else like to post the lexical definition of "oikonomia" from Bullinger's own lexicon? My copy is at home and I do not have it with me here at my office.
NT:3622
oikonomia, oikonomias, hee
the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4
Interestingly, it is covenant theology (certainly not Wierwille's bag) that uses the term "administration" to describes the differences between old and new covenants. They are usually limited to two or sometimes three administrations.
In reading this book it has become apparent, like many points of doctrinal argument, the warring parties are closer together than it seems at first blush.
(Mind you, I'm not including Wierwille's, or Bullinger's extreme ultra-dispensationalism in the following)
(Mark, it is my understanding that Darby is considered the 'founder' of dispensationalism, not Bullinger, who was somewhat later)
To describe the differences in the widest possible terms, covenant theology argues that, throughout all time, the *means of salvation has always been grace, and the *content of faith has always been in Jesus Christ. Mainstream dispensationalists agree that the *means of salvation has always been grace alone, but that the *content of faith has differed in different dispensations. (ie, by faith in Christ's sacrifice in the church age; by faith in God's covenant promises to Israel in the Old covenant).
Obviously, Wierwille's teachings fall outside of that argument, as he had the means of salvation differing accoring to which "administration". Jeez. He actually taught that "Old Testament 'believers' were saved by keeping the law". Didn't he stop to think that by that statement, he was condemning EVERYBODY of that era to hell?
Quoted from my current book: "He (Allis, a well-known Covenant theologian) again misconstrues what Dispensationalists believe. He states that the "difference between the law and the promise does not, therefore, consist in this, that under the promise men were saved without obedience and under the law they are saved because of disobedience." This is not the teaching of mainstream Dispensationalism which holds to the belief that salvation in every dispensation was by grace through faith, and the difference is only in the content of faith."
Mark, I'd have to say your characterization of Dispensationalism is true of the extreme Wierwillian variety, but not of the mainstream...as expounded by Ryrie, for instance.
EDIT: Another important difference between covenant & dispensational teachings is that covenentalist teach that the elect of all time have always been the church, expressed in the Old Covenant as national Israel and in the New as the Church, whereas dispensationalists teach that the church began at (usually) Pentecost. This is where covenant theology meets its strongest criticism of reading its theology back into the old testament...
Was it your view then that TWI teachings ignored or put lessor emphasis on the Gospel teachings of Christ because of the believe that the letters to the churches where the only ones addressed "To Us"? I guess that's kinda how I understood it, although I really never hung around long enough to know if that was for sure.
Interesting topically, that the scripture used most frequently IMO was the "no interpetation" one from Peter. Peter , the Apostle , of the circumcision, words are used to circumcise( sorry for the pun) the Epistles as the only prevailing scripture? I thought this was the greater error, but perhaps the one that created the dispensationalism that you speak.
Of course perhaps the most wacko man IMO with respect to dispensations was Joseph Smith, who claimed that word applied to him in his book of Mormon. ie. ( I believed he claimed a dispensation for himself)
Last summer, Evan, I studied the covenants in the Bible and its really fun. From the covenent to Noah all the way to the covenent of the blood of Christ. Its very interesting that some place it talks about the "everlasting covenent." It will be wonderful to watch and see someday how our Lord raps this whole thing up.
quote: I think Mr. Bullinger was to hung up on periods of time in communicating his understanding of "oikonomia". This only brought division. Division as to dividing the people of God from the Old Testament versus the New Testament. Division as to what books we should apply and what books were not really written to us. Division as to cataloging the so called administrations into time periods as we may not agree on what administration for which period of human history
Bullinger had an analytic mind. It probably never hurt to catalog things. Personally I think it only became damaging when someone tried to take such works and then treat the Lords words and ministry as tho they were of lessor quality.
One can only imagine how the Apostle Paul would have went nutzy, had he had the gospels in written form. I think he would have been awesome with it.
quote: Bullinger had an analytic mind. It probably never hurt to catalog things. Personally I think it only became damaging when someone tried to take such works and then treat the Lords words and ministry as tho they were of lessor quality.
Sky -- I agree with that. I, for one, believe in the different time periods ("dispensations"), yet I am not willing to toss out (say) the gospels as irrelevant, just because we now have the Epistles of Paul. It is, after all, one big book! ;)-->
quote: you really cant weaken them anyway with Paul's stuff, after all, it was the Lord Jesus and the cross that was the focal point of what Paul said. :)-->
Sky -- true. But some say that since Paul says in Galations 1:12 that his gospel came from Jesus Christ, that it supercedes the gospels.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
34
19
37
Popular Days
Dec 10
26
Dec 9
20
Dec 21
13
Dec 22
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Biblefan Dave 23 posts
Vertical Limit 34 posts
Oakspear 19 posts
Steve Lortz 37 posts
Popular Days
Dec 10 2004
26 posts
Dec 9 2004
20 posts
Dec 21 2004
13 posts
Dec 22 2004
12 posts
GeorgeStGeorge
It's also possibloe he recognized the relationship between the words oikonomeia and oikonomos (steward or administrator) nd felt that the word "administration" meant more to modern Christians than "dispensation." (Growing up Roman Catholic, to me "dispensation" meant being allowed to eat meat on Fridays!)
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
It is also possible that he just grabbed words and phrases while patching his theology together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
That's my take, def. I really don't think it was deliberate, unless he just being deliberately obtuse so it might seem "new". Of all of Wierwille's doctrines, I think his peculiar & extreme take on dispensationalism could be his most harmful...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I agree with GSGeorge. Being raised Catholic also, dispensation (to me) was more or less a "free pass" that allowed one to "get out" of doing something that was normally required.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Didn't vpw say in piffle, "I do not like the word dispensation" Well we know how much he hated catholics, maybe the hatred of the word was a result.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Evan -- is this available for purchase somewhere??
-->
I tried to find it at Amazon, as well as Barnes and Noble, and drew a blank on both sites. I couldn't do an advanced search, since I don't know the author. Is it one of several volumes, or a book unto itself?
It sounds interesting, and worth looking at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Sorry, wrong title...and spelling.
Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology by Arnold g. Fruchtenbaum
It appears to be self-published by "Ariel Ministries" but it does have an ISBN # 0-914863-05-3
It was given to me by a friend and I don't know how he got it.
I found an address for Ariel: PO Box 3723, Tustin CA 92781
Be forewarned, this is adapted from his doctoral thesis. It can be tedious. But you may find it enlightening...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Piffle pg 219:
"Paul says that administration of the Gospel was committed unto him (I Corn 9:17). The word 'dispensation' is completely misleading, for an administration is accurately the administering of an entire era as in one of our government administrations. The previous term of office was someone else's administration. In rightly dividing the Word of Truth, we must understand that these Biblical administrations have to remain within the confines in which God has placed them with His Word."
On quick look all I found, will look a bit more, if no return I found no more.
Copyright quote twi 1971
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Wap pg 80:
The proper Biblical term in "administration," but sometimes it's referred to as "dispensation," "dispensational," or even "fellowship."
Administration: A period of time in God's historical and spiritual timetable governed by certain policies and spiritual truths.
Oikonomia = oikos-house + -nomia-administration = the administration of a household
Eph 3:13
The standards of the administration were given to Paul by revelation to share, to administer, to have carried out in doctrine and in practice.
Col 1:25
I am = I was
Oikonomia is a steward; one who administers the affairs of the household.
I Corn 9:16-17
Same
All I found here as well.
Copyright quote twi 1995
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Oikonomia has to do with stewardship. It has nothing to do with a period of time. Check the lexicon definitions and then see how this word is used in the New Testament. Dispensationalism is a doctrine which magnifies the work of man rather than the sovereign power of God. It divides human history into periods of time and then accounts for differences in man's relationship with God by magnifying historical periods. Covenant theology on the other hand accounts for the changing relationship between God and man, but attributes this to the work of God through His covenants between God and man.
If one were to search the scriptures and study biblical history one would see covenants throughout between God and man thus bringing about a changing relationship. For example, Moses going up to Mt. Sinai and bringing back the 10 commandments. This was a covenant between God and Moses and then the children of Israel. It demanded that these commandments be followed with consequences if they weren't, yet blessing if they were. Abraham and his circumcision was a covenant and through it out of his seed would come the redeemer Christ. Also through this covenant we see the blessing of God to all of mankind. Before Abraham's time God also made a covenant with Noah, assuring Noah that he would not again destroy the world by flood.
We see covenants throughout the bible leading to the New Covenant in Christ Jesus. With this covenant we are justified by Christ's faith rather than our own futile attempts to keep the Mosaic law.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Your definition of dispensationalism makes sense. My question (and an honest one) is -- Can't covenant theology be called "dispensationalism" also, since God is dispensing different things, at different times, and to different groups of people? God still gets the glory for having done what He has done, and man's magnifying the historical periods doesn't enter into the picture. It is God who did it, and in His own time and choosing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Looking forward to your answer, and am headed to The Think Tank
to see what they have to say about it also!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
That is a good question DMiller and you may be able to do this or at least the two concepts can be considered to be related. I found 2 verses in the New Testament that use the word dispensation in a similar way. However, the word "oikonomia" is still the management of a household according to lexicons and the way it is used in the bible.
As long as the bible is our handbook for spiritual knowledge, faith and practice why not use the language of the bible to communicate this knowledge? Also why would not the author of Dispensationalism, E.W. Bullinger, use the same methodology of study as he does with the understanding of other biblical/spiritual subjects? Was not he the one to teach that the bible should interpret itself in the verse, context and previous usage? Was not he the one to teach us the importance of how words are used in their biblical context so that we can gain understanding of these words and with this spiritual/biblical concepts? Why should not the author of Dispensationalism be true to his methods of study? Unfortunately, with his understanding of the word translated "dispensation" from the King James Version "oikonomia" in the Greek, he does not.
I think Mr. Bullinger was to hung up on periods of time in communicating his understanding of "oikonomia". This only brought division. Division as to dividing the people of God from the Old Testament versus the New Testament. Division as to what books we should apply and what books were not really written to us. Division as to cataloging the so called administrations into time periods as we may not agree on what administration for which period of human history. I would favor what you wrote here above what I have heard from Bullinger on this subject.
Here is the Thayer's lexical definition below. Would anyone else like to post the lexical definition of "oikonomia" from Bullinger's own lexicon? My copy is at home and I do not have it with me here at my office.
NT:3622
oikonomia, oikonomias, hee
the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Here is the definition of "oikonomia" from E.W. Bullinger's lexicon.
"Administration of a household, actively the administrative activity of the owner or the steward; passively that which is administered"
A very similar definition to Thayer's lexicon above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Interestingly, it is covenant theology (certainly not Wierwille's bag) that uses the term "administration" to describes the differences between old and new covenants. They are usually limited to two or sometimes three administrations.
In reading this book it has become apparent, like many points of doctrinal argument, the warring parties are closer together than it seems at first blush.
(Mind you, I'm not including Wierwille's, or Bullinger's extreme ultra-dispensationalism in the following)
(Mark, it is my understanding that Darby is considered the 'founder' of dispensationalism, not Bullinger, who was somewhat later)
To describe the differences in the widest possible terms, covenant theology argues that, throughout all time, the *means of salvation has always been grace, and the *content of faith has always been in Jesus Christ. Mainstream dispensationalists agree that the *means of salvation has always been grace alone, but that the *content of faith has differed in different dispensations. (ie, by faith in Christ's sacrifice in the church age; by faith in God's covenant promises to Israel in the Old covenant).
Obviously, Wierwille's teachings fall outside of that argument, as he had the means of salvation differing accoring to which "administration". Jeez. He actually taught that "Old Testament 'believers' were saved by keeping the law". Didn't he stop to think that by that statement, he was condemning EVERYBODY of that era to hell?
Quoted from my current book: "He (Allis, a well-known Covenant theologian) again misconstrues what Dispensationalists believe. He states that the "difference between the law and the promise does not, therefore, consist in this, that under the promise men were saved without obedience and under the law they are saved because of disobedience." This is not the teaching of mainstream Dispensationalism which holds to the belief that salvation in every dispensation was by grace through faith, and the difference is only in the content of faith."
Mark, I'd have to say your characterization of Dispensationalism is true of the extreme Wierwillian variety, but not of the mainstream...as expounded by Ryrie, for instance.
EDIT: Another important difference between covenant & dispensational teachings is that covenentalist teach that the elect of all time have always been the church, expressed in the Old Covenant as national Israel and in the New as the Church, whereas dispensationalists teach that the church began at (usually) Pentecost. This is where covenant theology meets its strongest criticism of reading its theology back into the old testament...
Edited by TheEvanLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Evan:
Was it your view then that TWI teachings ignored or put lessor emphasis on the Gospel teachings of Christ because of the believe that the letters to the churches where the only ones addressed "To Us"? I guess that's kinda how I understood it, although I really never hung around long enough to know if that was for sure.
Interesting topically, that the scripture used most frequently IMO was the "no interpetation" one from Peter. Peter , the Apostle , of the circumcision, words are used to circumcise( sorry for the pun) the Epistles as the only prevailing scripture? I thought this was the greater error, but perhaps the one that created the dispensationalism that you speak.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
You nailed it sky. certainly one of Piffle's most agregious errors, if not THE most...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Evan:
Of course perhaps the most wacko man IMO with respect to dispensations was Joseph Smith, who claimed that word applied to him in his book of Mormon. ie. ( I believed he claimed a dispensation for himself)
Last summer, Evan, I studied the covenants in the Bible and its really fun. From the covenent to Noah all the way to the covenent of the blood of Christ. Its very interesting that some place it talks about the "everlasting covenent." It will be wonderful to watch and see someday how our Lord raps this whole thing up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mark S. --- thanks!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
dmiller:
Bullinger had an analytic mind. It probably never hurt to catalog things. Personally I think it only became damaging when someone tried to take such works and then treat the Lords words and ministry as tho they were of lessor quality.
One can only imagine how the Apostle Paul would have went nutzy, had he had the gospels in written form. I think he would have been awesome with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Sky -- I agree with that. I, for one, believe in the different time periods ("dispensations"), yet I am not willing to toss out (say) the gospels as irrelevant, just because we now have the Epistles of Paul. It is, after all, one big book!
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
dmiller:
comment:
, yet I am not willing to toss out (say) the gospels as irrelevant, just because we now have the Epistles of Paul.
absolutely yes
you really cant weaken them anyway with Paul's stuff, after all, it was the Lord Jesus and the cross that was the focal point of what Paul said.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Sky -- true. But some say that since Paul says in Galations 1:12 that his gospel came from Jesus Christ, that it supercedes the gospels.
(not my opinion)
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
dmiller:
yur comment:
Sky -- true. But some say that since Paul says in Galations 1:12 that his gospel came from Jesus Christ, that it supercedes the gospels.
(not my opinion)
And thats down right funny because why look for a conflict in the two. Thats like saying Jesus opposes Jesus, kinda humorous really.
catch yah on a nother thread
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.