Basic HTML Version
277
dispensationalists themselves sometimes speak of them as overlapping. The second
dispensation is called the dispensation of conscience, but according to Paul conscience was still
the monitor of the Gentiles in his day, Rom. 2:14,15. The third is known as the dispensation of
human government, but the specific command in it which was disobeyed and therefore
rendered man liable to judgment, was not the command to rule the world for God — of which
there is no trace—, but the command to replenish the earth. The fourth is designated the
dispensation of promise and is supposed to terminate with the giving of the law, but Paul says
that the law did not disannul the promise, and that this was still in effect in his own day, Rom.
4:13-17; Gal. 3:15-29. The so-called dispensation of the law is replete with glorious promises,
and the so-called dispensation of grace did not abrogate the the law as a rule of life. Grace
offers escape from the law only as a condition of salvation — as it is in the covenant of works —
, from the curse of the law, and from the law as an extraneous power. (c) According to the usual
representation of this theory man is on probation right along. He failed in the first test and thus
missed the reward of eternal life, but God was compassionate and in mercy gave him a new
trial. Repeated failures led to repeated manifestations of the mercy of God in the introduction
of new trials, which, however, kept man on probation all the time. This is not equivalent to
saying that God in justice holds the natural man to the condition of the covenant of works —
which is perfectly true — but that God in mercy and compassion — and therefore seemingly to
save — gives man one chance after another to meet the ever varying conditions, and thus to
obtain eternal life by rendering obedience to God. This representation is contrary to Scripture,
which does not represent fallen man as still on probation, but as an utter failure, totally unable
to render obedience to God, and absolutely dependent on the grace of God for salvation.
Bullinger, himself a dispensationalist, though of a somewhat different type, is right when he
says: “Man was then (in the first dispensation) what is called ‘under probation.’ This marks off
that Administration sharply and absolutely; for man is not now under probation. To suppose
that he is so, is a popular fallacy which strikes at the root of the doctrines of grace. Man has
been tried and tested, and has proved to be a ruin.”[How to Enjoy the Bible, p. 65.] (d) This
theory is also divisive in tendency, dismembering the organism of Scripture with disastrous
results. Those parts of Scripture that belong to any one of the dispensations are addressed to,
and have normative significance for, the people of that dispensation, and for no one else. This
means in the words of Charles C. Cook “that in the Old Testament there is not one sentence
that applies to the Christian as a Rule of Faith and Practice — not a single command that is
binding on him, as there is not a single promise there given him at first hand, except what is
included in the broad flow of the Plan of Redemption as there taught in symbol and
prophecy.”[God’s Book Speaking For Itself, p. 31.] This does not mean that we can derive no
lessons from the Old Testament. The Bible is divided into two books, the Book of the Kingdom,
comprising the Old Testament and part of the New, addressed to Israel; and the Book of the