TLC

No, I never said that. I very plainly said that I've "come back to liking dispensation" (and have given you several reasons since why.) Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. At first, man was put in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Then he was sent forth from it to till the ground from whence he was taken. Then, in addition to the green herb, every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for man. Of course, that all changed with Moses and the giving of the law. When did that change? Yeah, with the apostle Paul (see Col. 1:25). Of course, this is but one little aspect of it. But if anyone wants to blenderize it all and live on the slop, just don't blame God if you aren't feeling nourished by it, or it if makes you sick, or if you can't make sense of certain things. There's a (healthy) reason for the separations. Truth is, I also very much like the nuance of stewardships, in light of it involving different "economies." Perhaps its a reflection of certain fiduciary responsibilities. If you're going to prosper (or at least, not be sent to the poor house), you need to be able to recognize and adapt to what the "real" economy is all about. Sure, there may be patterns and similarities involved, but if you fail to see the differences... well, no need to go too deep into it. But if you really want to get deep into another perspective on it, there appears to be a certain "crossing over" involved with each change. (However, I'm not going there, as I couldn't even get you past the dispensing issue without you demanding - in typical twi fashion - "chapter and verse.")

Anyone want to consider whether the woman of Canaan (Matt.15:32) qualifies for being saved? Frankly, I don't think it can be ruled out. She did, after all, call him Lord and (evidently) believed him to be "the son of David..." which, as far as I know, actually appears to parallel the most basic (and essential) requirement for an Israelite's salvation.

Well, it just doesn't make much sense to me. Without a doubt, there would have been absolutely no one more qualified (from some number of perspectives) to address the nation of Israel on the subject matter than the apostle Paul himself. And, given that 2 Peter (which appears to be written to fellow Jewish believers that obtained "like precious faith") specifically mentions Paul as having "written unto you," the implication appears to be that he is referring to Hebrews. So, while it's not certain, it does seem this offers a fairly reasonable basis for it. Moderator's note: This post quotes an exceprt of a previous post that was deleted for reasons having nothing to do with this excerpt.

Seriously? It is no where near "impossible" to speculate what his disciples likely thought based on what is written about them, and what I said was plainly and most certainly not a "red herring" of any sort. (Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here of what a red herring is or means...) At times, especially when plumbing the depths of meanings in scripture, that speculation as to what it could or might mean is more than appropriate, it is essential. And there should have been no doubt that what I wrote was in fact, speculative (else I never would have said that I suspected something was likely.) But it does seem a bit odd to me that you would think and say that what is lost, is lost, or that you're not attempting to add more speculation here. Evidently you see everything that you have (and are) - or that anybody else should be - going to contribute to the discussion is... proven facts? the absolute truth? Well, what explanation might you have for "thy lot" in Dan. 12:13. Why are some to "meet the Lord in the air" and some (that are saved) not? Why do some come with the Lord (at his return) and some (that are saved) do not? Why are some said to be "arrayed in white robes" while some (that are saved) are not? Why do some have the Father's name written in their foreheads and some (that are saved) do not? .Why are some in "the first resurrection" and some (that are saved) not? Why are some referred to as "priests of God and of Christ" and some (that are saved) are not? Why do some come before the great white throne and some (that are saved) do not? Or, perhaps you suppose that these are all one and same once (or if) you're "saved." Oh yeah... I just remembered. You're not much into speculating. Seems I don't know (and can't guess) how you might address these things. (So, it'd probably only add a bit more confusion to the issue if I speculated that from a certain perspective, "perhaps" John 14:2 also points towards this.)

I realized that. My point was that the "new covenant" of Hebrews (as detailed further in verse 8) was promised to and with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," and again (in verse 10) "with the house of Israel." Furthermore, I don't really see this part of it as yet being fulfilled: "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts." Galatians 4:24ff more directly applies to my question (and I'm still pondering it), but it won't necessarily change my view of what is written in Hebrews - which I believe was specifically written to/for all of Israel (believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or not) and not (as you state) "Christians of a Jewish background."

Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance.

No, to clarify, I actually meant the end of life that is in the blood (i.e., physical death)... when any and all laws that might be thought applicable or pertinent to us most assuredly end. Romans 6:7 2 Tim.2:11 Heb. 6:1

Perhaps Eve needs to be included in that which was viewed as salvation. Evidently something was said (or happened) in Genesis 3 that resulted in Adam suddenly naming her "Eve," and her being "the mother of all living." Perhaps that was Adam's confession of believing God's words to her, that life could/would continue after failure. (It's mentioned again in 1Tim.2:15)

As a clarification to my previous post, please note that it was more specifically stating that it was (as #1) from Israel's enemies. (So that applies to Israel only, and no one else.) And, to put it rather bluntly... up until Paul, the same was true of reason #2. In short, aside from what was offered to Israel, what sort (if any) "salvation" do you see mentioned or spoken of in the Old Testament? Okay, let's see... Noah (& family.) 8 souls saved (from death.) Who, what, where, or when else? Diddly squat, that's what. And only a very, very small few ever mentioned outside of Israel once that relationship was in play. Naaman (from leprosy), the widow woman of Zarephath, and Rahab. And the centurion. Maybe I missed one or two... or maybe not. (Kindly let me know, if you have or know of others.) Yeah, well... maybe that's not so much an integral part of the salvation Paul refers to as what many of us (and lots of other Christians) have been taught... But, that's jumping ahead a bit.

Do you see yourself as dead already? Because death eliminates ALL laws, commandments, and requirements of every kind and sort. In other words, my life is done. So, what's left? To live for him.

Yes, there's no question that certain covenants are spoken of, most notably to Israel. And yes, Paul does speak in Hebrews (which I believe he wrote) of a new (better) covenant, but it appears to me that this new covenant relates rather specifically (and certainly most directly) to Israel. In fact, given Paul's concern for all of Israel (and not just those that had accepted Jesus as Lord) and his background, Hebrews offers an highly advanced and powerful insight into both the historical and future covenant relationship between God and Israel. I just don't see the church of the body of Christ brought up or mentioned anywhere in it. Neither do I see the terms of any covenant between God and Christ (or his body.) And as for 1 Tim. 2:5, I'm not convinced that having a mediator necessary implies or mandates a certain need for a covenant.

Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something?

Well, how much plainer might you like it than what's written in Eph. 3:2?

"Fully" thought? I guess that's your wiggle word, to imply something being more right than it is. What is written IS a reflection of what's thought. A small subset of all that was written by the direction of God? We're discussing scripture here, not the Iliad and the Odyssey or any chance number of ancient inscriptions.. Nevertheless, even if what we have is incomplete, do you not believe that what is preserved is sufficient to adequately and/or accurately communicate what God might have us know? Sure, but what oral saying or tradition are you supposing taught them something regarding salvation that is not also written? Now, as for the rest of your screed, it strikes me that you have supposed salvation to have a rather broad universal application (meaning, it - whatever "salvation" is - is essentially the same for all), but is something which has only been (or is only being) gradually revealed. And on that premise, I strongly disagree, as I simply do not see the salvation of some being the same as (or equaling) that of others. Consider, for instance, what is written in Dan.12:13.

I'm inclined to think they both missed the significance of the change that occurred with Noah, and neither perceived the administration of grace as starting with Paul. And I agree that vpw's interpretation of Christ's life/ministry here on earth being a special or separate administration from the Law makes no sense whatsoever. Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. As for "Covenant Theology," I have a hard time seeing exactly which (or what kind of) covenant you might say or think applies to us in this day and time. I guess I just don't see it written and/or referred to as something applicable to us in anything that Paul wrote. Care to explain you thinking on this?

Interesting, in light of the near/far fulfillment pattern of many biblical prophecies.

I don't disagree.

Then perhaps there should be some relatively early attempts to isolate and/or pin down more precisely what salvation can, does, or might mean. Frankly, I'd be curious to know if anyone can show (or explain) how or why (prior to Paul) it means anything much more than, or something other than, the following: -saved/redeemed/delivered/rescued (take your pick) 1) from our (i.e., Israel's) enemies, or 2) from (physical) sickness and/or death Granted, the "entry into the kingdom of God" might allude to something more than this... but, from the perspective of how it was likely thought of or seen by his disciples, I suspect not.

Surely you don't suppose that being (or becoming) more or less popular actually adds or subtracts anything to its veracity. However, thanks anyways for the video, which I may continue listening to it if/when I have more time.

If scripture cannot be broken, then it is inerrant... regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks so. (John 10:35.) So perhaps you ought to remove that from your argument against it. Which would leave your previous claim juxtapositioned alone against a way of understanding a great many (if not most all) apparent contradictions that exist in the scriptures.

Of course it wasn't addressed to you, as you weren't the one trying to define me and persuade others of it. So why bother stating the inherently obvious, that you don't care, when I don't care that you don't care? And, though I do not (and have not) professed myself to be an "expert on all things biblical," I'm curious why you think yourself much more the expert, in that your claiming the concept has no scriptural basis should have or bear so much more authority or weight than me writing something about what I might happen to believe...

I agree with WordWolf. Now to try to determine what those different things are. Yeah, and good luck with that trying to stay away from dispensationalism.

I have no issue believing likewise. It's merely a matter of understanding how his saving grace and mercy are dispensed. And I see it being from before Adam (but not Genesis 1:1).

Oh for sure, it can be discussed. Just like you can keep the blinders on a horse if you want to be sure to lead them where you want them to go. Just means you probably have a certain end in mind before entering the discussion.

Given that my previous response to your banal posting and its snide quips seems to have stirred the pot a bit much (as it appears to have been removed), I won't bother with it much further other than point out the fact that you, Mr. D, are plainly clueless as to who I am, what my background is, how I think, what I do and don't know, and why I believe what I do. And when you bother trying to persuade or convince anyone else that you know more than you do, it actually shows up as nothing more than a reflection upon your own real ignorance. Scoff and huff and puff all you want, but for the record, dispensationlism (in more general terms) is quite alive and well outside the walls of this puny little forum, though it doesn't necessarily appear in the exact same form as might be ensconced in the works of any (or all) of Bullinger, Welch, Schofiel, et al. (Nor does this link encompass or surmise the complete essence or totality of it - http://www.charlottetownbiblechapel.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/David-Dunlap-handout.pdf )