Home > Eschatology > No Scripture suggests that any portion of it is not for the Church

No Scripture suggests that any portion of it is not for the Church

Arthur PinkNot only is the assertion that though all Scripture be for us all is not to us meaningless, but it is also impertinent and impudent, for there is nothing whatever in the Word of Truth to support and substantiate it. Nowhere has the Spirit given the slightest warning that such a passage is “not to the Christian,” and still less that whole books belong to someone else. Moreover, such a principle is manifestly dishonest. What right have I to make any use of that which is the property of another? What would my neighbor think were I to take letters which were addressed to him and argue that they were meant for me? Furthermore, such a theory, when put to the test, is found to be unworkable. For example, to whom is the book of Proverbs addressed, or for that matter, the first Epistle of John? Personally, this writer, after having wasted much time in perusing scores of books which pretended to rightly divide the Word, still regards the whole of Scripture as God’s gracious revelation to him and for him, as though there were not another person on earth, conscious that he cannot afford to dispense with any portion of it; and he is heartily sorry for those who lack such a faith. Pertinent in this connection is that warning,

“But fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve… so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3).

Arthur W. Pink The Application of Scriptures-A Study of Dispensationalism

  1. MackQuigley
    April 23, 2013 at 4:08 am

    This Pink is rather stupid. He obviously doesn’t get the point.

    • April 23, 2013 at 4:26 am

      Pink, if he were here, might say that maybe the reader is rather stupid if he doesn’t get what he is saying. Of course, Pink would not argue this way because he would recognize that this would not be a valid argument, but rather an ad hominem.

      What Pink is attacking, however, is a view that is espoused by every classical dispensationalists. This classical dispensationalism can be found in the Scofield reference Bible and in the writings of men such as Chafer, Walvoord, Pentecost, Van Impe, Lindsey, Ice, and most graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary.

      Good day.

      • MackQuigley
        April 23, 2013 at 5:46 am

        The dispensational view is not that scriptures don’t apply to the Church, but that the apply differently. The prohibition against eating ham applied to Jews, but it doesn’t apply literally to Christians, it only gives devotional lessons. To say otherwise than that is to be grossly ignorant.

      • April 23, 2013 at 6:44 am

        So now your saying that the Old Testament scriptures do apply to New Testament Christians. You have changed your position.

        Also Pink is not stating that New Testament Christians can’t eat ham because of an Old Testament prohibition of it. Paul cleared this up in the New Testament in 1 Timothy 4:4.

        Nevertheless, thou shalt not kill and thou shalt no commit adultery is still a command and it comes from the Old Testament.

        Some classes on hermeneutics would be beneficial for you to take.

      • April 23, 2013 at 7:17 am

        You state: “The dispensational view is not that scriptures don’t apply to the church……”

        Again here you err in the understanding of your own system. I will stress again that I was a dispensationalist for 16 years. I can offer quotes from leading dispensationalist that teach contrary to what you said.

        According to Scofield, even the sermon on the mount doesn’t apply to the church. He states that the Sermon on the Mount is the constitution of the kingdom. In other words, these commands will be what we live by in the millennium or one thousand year reign of Christ. (Of course, no such thousand years will come after this age).

        Some dispensationalists go so far as to say that the only scripture that is for the Church is the epistles of Paul. They argue that all the gospels were written under the period of law and not grace, therefore Jesus was trying to show the Jews how they should have lived under the law. Therefore the gospels were for the OT believers and Paul’s epistles are the scriptures for the church.

        You must realize that dispensationalism is a system that came about in the early 1800’s. John Darby originated this system. Scofield popularized it and Lewis Sperry Chafer systematized it. Chafer died in 1952. So there wasn’t even a systematic presentation of dispensationalism till towards the middle of the twentieth century.

        Also if you search the lives of Darby and Scofield you will find that money was one reason for this doctrine to be propagated. You will also find Scofield involved in some scandulous acts of a criminal nature.

      • April 23, 2013 at 1:57 pm

        If you would dare to put away your prejudices for a moment and read about Scofield’s life, then you will find that Scofield was a fraud. You cannot separate ones theological views from ones character.

        Here is the link to “Analyzing Scofield.”


  2. April 23, 2013 at 7:53 am

    Reblogged this on My Delight and My Counsellors.

  3. Truth2Freedom
    April 23, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Reblogged this on Truth2Freedom's Blog.

  4. MackQuigley
    April 23, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    Nope, I haven’t changed, you just need to sharpen your comprehension skills.
    The commandments for Christians are stated in Romans 13:8-10 where it says nothing about eating pork, or keeping the sabbath, or any other ceremonial law. The 10 Commandments were for the Jews, not the Church. Ellen White couldn’t figure that out, so she started the seventh day adventists group, ignoring what Paul wrote in Colossians 2:16.
    As a new testament Christian, take what Paul addressed to you as doctrine along with everything in the Bible consistent with what Paul wrote you. But take everything that is INCONSISTENT with Paul and ignore it – it does NOT apply to you. The only way you can apply it to you is by a devotional / spiritual / allusion that is NOT literal.
    That is what correct “rightly dividing” Bible study entails. The sermon on the mount has different verses that fall into different categories – some are consistent with Paul, and some are inconsistent. You MUST ignore the passages that are inconsistent because Paul has pre-empted them with regard to YOU ONLY.
    You want to argue with me the dispensationalists people, and I won’t do it. I don’t defend them, I only defend Bible believing. It appears you go from following one man to following a new man (Pink). The man to follow is Saint Paul – the rest of the Christian celebrities you can ignore.

    • April 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm

      My friend you have much to learn about scripture and hermeneutics. You say that the ten commandments was for the Jews. This is erroneous. The ten commandments is moral law and is for all people at all times.

      Again, you say that the Christians commandments are in Romans 13:8-10, yet these commands here come from the ten commandments.

      Next you claim that I follow one man, namely Pink. Again you are mistaken. I follow Christ and so did Pink. Before John Darby the Reformers taught exactly what Pink states. The fact of the matter is is that no one, absolutely no one taught dispensationalism till John Darby Nelson devised this system. After which Scofield popularized it. If anyone is following man, it would be you. All of what I have stated about scripture derives from Christ himself, who by the way never taught your erroneous views of dispensationalism.

      Also you claim that your not a dispensationalist , and that you just believe the Bible instead, yet you hold to the dispensational system with your hermeneutical methodological approach to scripture. No one who reads the Bible divides it like you have without first coming to it with dispensational presuppositions.

      Finally, I gave you one more day to defend your views seeing that you commented on my post again this morning. Of course, your first comment wasn’t a rational argument, but an ad hominem whereby you attack someone’s intelligence. And even though my last dealings with you was one whereby I had to show patience and understanding because your remarks there was also of a condescending nature, nevertheless I gave you an open forum today to defend your position and you haven’t been grateful nor used rational arguments.

      So since you are not going to defend your position and instead just keep commenting with emotionalism, then your next commment will be spammed. After that the search engines will probably start kicking your comments into everyone’s spam folders.

      I have found one thing to be certain and that is all those who hold to erroneous views are just like the atheists. They browse the net trying to find something they disagree with and then they began commenting. Yet they do not use rational arguments, but instead comment like you originally did on this post and thats by calling names and so forth. Those of us with the truth of scripture do not have to browse around trying to comment on error. We are content just posting and allowing those with spiritual eyes to be fed.

      The fact is folks who hold an erroneous view and a view that stems from a scandolous man like Scofield, will not even bother reading the suggested materials because they believe that they will find themselves in error.

      Good day.

      • April 23, 2013 at 4:41 pm

        Most Americans feel that they have a right to comment on something that they see on the net. This is especially true on Facebook or some other social media. Nevertheless, the right to comment does not exist. If one is given an open forum, in order to comment, then they should recognize that it is a privilege and not a right.

        I have dealt with quite a few atheists here. Usually the conversation ends with me having to pull the plug because of the lack of social skills among them. Rude comments and or name calling ends up becoming normal with their side of the discussion.

        This is no less true of those who call themselves Christian. When it comes to adressing other believers, one might disagree, without rudeness and condescending remarks. For Christ does command us to love one another.

      • April 23, 2013 at 6:35 pm

        I do want to clarify to my followers: When I said that I would spam this commenter, I meant that I would mark his next comment as spam. I am certainly not saying that I would send spam to his inbox or any such thing, but rather just mark his comment as spam. It is grievious, at times, having to deal with those who call themselves Christians; who do nothing but comment in order to cause confusion, instead of having a rational discussion concerning the things of scripture.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply to reformedontheweb Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: