Inerrancy is only possible if you allow for a dispensational approach to the scriptures. Without it, there are contradictions. This is one of the big things that was stressed in the PFAL class. "They only seem like contradictions because you fail to recognize who they were addressed to, etc" (dispensations)
While this was definitely part of what TWI taught. It doesn't make it true. While I'm not saying the scriptures are not without contradictions (Take the three numbered different lists of those returning to Israel from captivity as a prime example), when it comes to the topic of salvation, I believe it is without contradictions even without the carving and dissecting and cutting up of the scriptures that Dispensational theology ends up doing to the scriptures to get "to whom" correct. I mean, when it comes down to it, not a single verse of the Bible was written "TO US". Paul's epistles were written for specific congregations with specific problems. The general epistles and gospels were still written to certain groups that are long since dead. But I believe that ALL the scriptures are written "FOR US". For our benefit, for instructing us, for leading us to the one that should be leading us (which is not VPW or any other human on this earth).
I mean, when it comes down to it, not a single verse of the Bible was written "TO US". Paul's epistles were written for specific congregations with specific problems. The general epistles and gospels were still written to certain groups that are long since dead. But I believe that ALL the scriptures are written "FOR US". For our benefit, for instructing us, for leading us to the one that should be leading us (which is not VPW or any other human on this earth).
I was recently having a discussion about this very thing with my fellowship "coordinator" (I use this term loosely because we aren't structured at all like TWI fellowships - I just don't know a better way to refer to him). The head of the church is Christ, not a living person on earth. And while Paul gives us much to learn from, he isn't the head, he is part of the body, albeit a very knowledgeable part.
I believe you are correct in that Paul's epistles were specifically written for certain groups. We can see that probably most clearly in Corinthians when he's confronting them on sexual promiscuity. We, today - presumably - aren't doing those things, but we can still learn from that confrontation. So it's definitely FOR our learning.
I was recently having a discussion about this very thing with my fellowship "coordinator" (I use this term loosely because we aren't structured at all like TWI fellowships - I just don't know a better way to refer to him). The head of the church is Christ, not a living person on earth. And while Paul gives us much to learn from, he isn't the head, he is part of the body, albeit a very knowledgeable part.
I believe you are correct in that Paul's epistles were specifically written for certain groups. We can see that probably most clearly in Corinthians when he's confronting them on sexual promiscuity. We, today - presumably - aren't doing those things, but we can still learn from that confrontation. So it's definitely FOR our learning.
On the contrary - unless one wishes to ignore the history of adultery and sexual predations of wierwille and other top leadership of TWI - which is something that a lot of these offshoots choose to ignore as part of the legacy from their “father in the word”. hypocrisy and cover-ups still flourish within wierwille-centric mindsets.That stuff in Corinthians is still relevant today!
In PFAL wierwille had the audacity to say the Bible means what it says and says what it means - I guess the exception was when it came to excusing his own despicable behavior in light of sexual promiscuity passages like in Corinthians...golly gee - he’s gotta be one of the “best” hypocrites I ever knew!
That stuff in Corinthians is still relevant today!
My apologies - I was writing sexual promiscuity but thinking sexual deviance, specifically sexual encounters with their dads' wives.
But, considering further on this point, I guess there is all sorts of it going on in various parts of the world. I just have no idea if it's happening within Christian groups. I certainly hope it wouldn't.
My apologies - I was writing sexual promiscuity but thinking sexual deviance, specifically sexual encounters with their dads' wives.
But, considering further on this point, I guess there is all sorts of it going on in various parts of the world. I just have no idea if it's happening within Christian groups. I certainly hope it wouldn't.
Sexual deviance has a number of qualifiers - see Online reference one of which is consent - or rather lack thereof ...obvious examples are rape and sexual molestations ...historically and culturally it is specific...another qualifier is that it usually assumes some erotic behavior for gratification is at odds with what is acceptable by a community...in the case you referred to in Corinthians - sexual relations with his dad’s wife was unacceptable not only to the Christian community - but to even non-Christians in the area.
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.
There is no way to truly know what "others" fully thought on any subject, much less salvation in past history. We have but a small subset of writing. On top of that, it must be understood at least for the Jews, that they had both an oral and a written understanding. Both the Tanakh and the unwritten things (they say) were given to Moses by God and passed down generation to generation orally. And while they wrote some of this "oral tradition" down in the form of the Mishna, there is no telling how much was lost or missing from this body of work written over a millennium later. And the midrashes only contain a portion as well and many still only in the Hebrew language.
But the subject of God's kingdom has always been the focal point. Since salvation, and any idea of salvation, be it physical/mental/or spiritual, be it earthly/cosmos/or unseen[i.e. spiritual realm] or be it past/present/or future; salvation has always been just a small portion of what God has planned for His kingdom. And it is this kingdom that all God's prophets including Paul taught [Acts 28]. It is very true that our knowledge and understanding of the salvation that God makes available in His kingdom grows in that He reveals things as time progresses. So what the patriarchs knew was not fully what is now made known. And even what has been revealed up to now, is more than what Paul and Timothy knew. So as Deut 29 speaks of the secret things that are revealed and passed down, there's a time and place for how and when it is revealed. But the absence of understanding does not change the fact or matter of what or how God has chosen to do things. As I'm certain we've lost many things that were revealed in past times.
Many people think of salvation in the Tanakh in terms of earthly deliverance and preservation, and the new covenant writings more in spiritual terms of of being rescued from our sin and unto a "heavenly" future. Yet, they are much more cohesive and comprehensive, dealing with all creation just as much as our body, soul, and spirit both in this world and the world to come. For all creation groans as it awaits salvation (Rom 8).
It's important to note that Israel's conflicts with other goyim(nations) were just a part of of a larger cosmic battle. A fight for the supremacy of God above all others. And so after the salvation of the Lord's people happened physically, they sang praises such as, "Who among the gods is like you, O Lord. Who is like you - majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?". So God's reign over this "earth" is connected with his "holiness", the spiritual and physical being interrelated. His rule is absolute, be it chaotic forces of nature or the rebellious forces of the nations and the 74th Psalm expresses this more clearly. Israel's earthly life was part of a larger picture, involving visible things (humans, nations), and invisible (God, angels). While these events were displayed on this earth, there was more to it just as the Book of Job was more than just a mere fleshly drama. Job, like Israel, was caught between a battle with heavenly witnesses (the angles) and earthly witnesses looking on and at times shown as participating. And when one reads the Tanakh, it's important to realize there is more to their understanding than what was written, and it was God's kingdom that was the focus and salvation a necessary portion of it.
While salvation throughout all scripture stresses the importance of right living, of faith in the one true God, of repentance and obedience. The Tanakh puts emphasis on rewards on this earth while not ignoring the world to come; and new covenant writings puts it primary emphasis on rewards in the world to come, while certainly not ignoring this present age. So the biblical concept of salvation is a deliverance from present and future judgement, present and future hostile forces, and present and future sin. And while in this life, the deliverance is partial and temporary; in the life to come it is both total and eternal. So as written by the prophet Daniel, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Biblical salvation though is not just limited to us "humans" past/present/future, but is related to all of God's creation.
Edited by TrustAndObey Forgot to add last sentence.
There is no way to truly know what "others" fully thought on any subject, much less salvation in past history.
"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.
4 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
We have but a small subset of writing.
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?
5 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
On top of that, it must be understood at least for the Jews, that they had both an oral and a written understanding.
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.
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.
Interesting and I don't think you are far off with the definitions here mainstream wise.
So weighing this against the salvation topic, we have God saving us from:
1. My enemies
2. Physical Sickness and/or death
So for #1, what enemies do I have in a modern society? Politics? Neighbor disputes? Frenemies? Don't see too much protection evidenced there. If the idea is interlaced in scripture that a strong army and victory over military enemies is part of this, then we get even more interesting with Christians in both the US and Russia. Whose side is God on? Putin's or Trump's? How would you categorize a wolf in sheep's clothing? Enemy? Why is it I seem to experience more than my ample share of all of the things I am supposed to be "saved" from?
On #2 there is no tangible evidence that Christians experience sickness and death at any less rate than the surrounding populace. Do you get sick less?
So in discussing "salvation" as the common topic around with which we are arguing whether or not we need a lifetime of compliance to achieve, is there nothing more than an "avoid the fire and brimstone" motivation on that side? Well, I guess the Christians would talk about "rewards". But isn't that something usually categorized as completely separate from salvation?
So come on, now. If you want to sell me salvation, can't you at least paint a pretty picture about choirs of angels and living with Jesus and not being groped in security traveling through the air?
Otherwise, what motivation do I have for a lifetime of compliance with fear of losing it?
While salvation throughout all scripture stresses the importance of right living, of faith in the one true God, of repentance and obedience. The Tanakh puts emphasis on rewards on this earth while not ignoring the world to come; and new covenant writings puts it primary emphasis on rewards in the world to come, while certainly not ignoring this present age. So the biblical concept of salvation is a deliverance from present and future judgement, present and future hostile forces, and present and future sin. And while in this life, the deliverance is partial and temporary; in the life to come it is both total and eternal. So as written by the prophet Daniel, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Biblical salvation though is not just limited to us "humans" past/present/future, but is related to all of God's creation.
In Romans chapter 10, it seems that the importance of right living, repentance, and obedience aren't stressed so much, but the recognition of a personal Lord and a belief God raised Him from the dead.
The Tanakh and new covenant writings which you are more familiar with than myself seem to have a healthy balance of current action and future anticipation from your descriptions which I'm sure are true. All good.
Salvation - as a definition - deliverance from present and future:
1. Judgement
2. Hostile Forces
3. Sin
For #1 = deliverance from judgement - for the future - this is a common view of when God comes down in judgement and makes everything right and kicks @$$ and takes names I will be saved from all of that experience on the negative side. I guess I can watch through a glass or something? As far as deliverance from present judgement, please help me out with that one, because I'm not seeing it anywhere. God isn't judging me now? OK. He's not judging the Satanist up the street either.
But you know who still does judge me? People. And about at every step of life too. Legal system. Job. Culture. Hobbies. Friendship. Dating. I can go on and on. And you know who are probably worse at judging people than other groups? Christians.
#2 Hostile Forces - Future perceived ones, sure. Present day ones still come at a person.
#3 Sin - now here's an interesting one with respect to salvation. Saved from sin. So you mean once I'm a Christian I'm saved from sinning in my life? No. How about sinful habits? No, on you.
Saved from the consequences of sin, which are death? OK, scriptural there - that's the idea. But the consequences of what sin? Get born again today, live like the devil for 50 years, get out of jail free, millions still smoking? Be a drunken lecher causing pain, sorrow, anguish, the breakup of families and marriages, and suicide? Saved from consequences of sin being eternal death? Who goes through that? Satan only?
Many many many questions that glossed over definitions IMO don't come close to addressing.
Daniel 12 as a section of scripture is noted and marked on this thread w/r to salvation topic.
Inerrancy is only possible if you allow for a dispensational approach to the scriptures. Without it, there are contradictions. This is one of the big things that was stressed in the PFAL class. "They only seem like contradictions because you fail to recognize who they were addressed to, etc" (dispensations)
Wierwille as the common denominator was the walking contradiction IMO.
With this word and idea, "dispensational" I think it also merits a close definition. I don't think it is an "all or nothing" concept, like Wierwille tried to dramatize many aspects of doctrinal Christianity to create a mental separation in the minds of his little cult followers.
If the common currency is livestock, then offerings in livestock are common sense. That is a "dispensational approach to scripture".
However, the paper that Rico wrote at RFR's behest as a document in positional support of their debt policy, which concluded that certain truths like debt and tithing transcend dispensations, but others don't, that is not a "dispensational approach to scripture", it is a "dishonest approach to scripture".
So weighing this against the salvation topic, we have God saving us from:
1. My enemies
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.)
3 hours ago, chockfull said:
On #2 there is no tangible evidence that Christians experience sickness and death at any less rate than the surrounding populace.
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...
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)
"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? 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?
I agree with you that what is written is a reflection of one's thoughts. However, what one says can easily be misunderstood, which is why we are defining terms, is it not? So to imply what one's "disciples likely thought" as you put it, is rather impossible and just a red herring. We have their words. But words as a reflection is a good description since a reflection is not always a clear picture. My point was only that what we have is not the full picture. And even what we do have, can be taken out of context and/or misunderstood.
And yes, I have no doubt what God desires for "US" to know, he has made available. But what is lost, is lost, and I'm not attempting to add more speculation here.
Quote
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.
So exactly how do you see this salvation of some as being different or not equaling that of others? Are some half-saved? Partially delivered? What is it I'm not understanding?
In Romans chapter 10, it seems that the importance of right living, repentance, and obedience aren't stressed so much, but the recognition of a personal Lord and a belief God raised Him from the dead.
No doubt. And you will find that throughout the scriptures. Not everything is going to be found in one neat little verse. When Peter was asked on the day of Pentecost, "What must we do", he said repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and they would receive the gift. Yet in Isa 45 it says Israel has been saved with an everlasting salvation for all eternity, and no mention of needing to do a thing.
Quote
Salvation - as a definition - deliverance from present and future:
For #1 = deliverance from judgement - for the future - this is a common view ... As far as deliverance from present judgement, please help me out with that one, because I'm not seeing it anywhere. God isn't judging me now? OK. He's not judging the Satanist up the street either.
God has reserved his judgement for the proper time and place. But to say his judgements are just for the future, would be incorrect. While we have "large scale" judgement in Noah's day and bringing Israel out of Egypt, it shouldn't be confined to such. As Rom 13 puts it, there is no power but of God, and the powers that do exist are because he orders and allows them. Unless of course one believes in a weak incapable God. His judgements are just and righteous, and while it may not be to out liking, they have happened, do happen, and will happen. But the limits and the bounds and the when and where his judgment is brought forth is in His hands entirely, and it's not just something for the end times. As opposed to Deist thinking, since the day of creation, God has saved His judgement to allow people the opportunity to see the results of "our ways". And at times, He has stepped in. But there are bounds to everything and He has set them and made us aware that it is near. Nearness not in the timeframe of earth itself, but in the sense that you and I have but a few years on this earth, and each day death draws nearer.
Quote
Saved from the consequences of sin, which are death? OK, scriptural there - that's the idea. But the consequences of what sin? Get born again today, live like the devil for 50 years, get out of jail free, millions still smoking? Be a drunken lecher causing pain, sorrow, anguish, the breakup of families and marriages, and suicide? Saved from consequences of sin being eternal death? Who goes through that? Satan only?
Jews and Christians and all who have lived have and still do die! Death is a requirement, or else evil will be allowed to continue eternally. Sin aka choosing our ways, is the reason this earth is so awesome, so perfect, without a single issue, ok, ok, being sarcastic there. BUT yes, God has, by His saving mercy, allowed us to live, make mistakes, learn from them, and continue on today hopefully learning along the way. And at times what would be the rightful consequence isn't what happens. But having our sins cast as far as the east is from the west does not mean there are NO consequences. Again, choosing God's way isn't about having a perfect life here. It's about choosing His ways and His will for our lives. Allowing Him to direct. Read John 21:29 and tell me that's a great and grand vision of life given to Peter by Jesus. That he would die for God's glory! Which would happen many years after Pentecost. Or as Isaiah 57 puts it, "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away. None considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come." And while the first death is inevitable to get rid of sin and it's effects (with the exception of those that are alive and remain), it is the second death that Christ has freed those who have chosen to put to death the old.
The point of the post on salvation wasn't to address all the details. It was to lay an overall summation for how the word "salvation" is used in scripture. Maybe I was too vague. I'll accept that criticism.
So to imply what one's "disciples likely thought" as you put it, is rather impossible and just a red herring. We have their words.
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?
6 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
So exactly how do you see this salvation of some as being different or not equaling that of others? Are some half-saved? Partially delivered? What is it I'm not understanding?
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.)
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, what explanation might you have for "thy lot" in Dan. 12:13.
Would you be referencing "rewards" here then when defining salvation that is different or not equaling that of others? Because that seems to be what you are talking about, but again, I may not be understanding you again... We are defining "salvation", yes? And while salvation usually implies both a past of what one is being delivered from, as well as a future of what one is brought to, at this point, I mostly was emphasizing the deliverance from something, as usually this is what salvation implies. A rescuing. Meaning ones situation is in need of a change. And while that change unto something different can be in the form of many of things (maybe "rewards"), I really have attempted to not emphasize this, as it doesn't seem as relevant at this time. But maybe it should be, is that what you are saying?? For myself, I see no reason to add those into the equation of defining "salvation" itself. Which as mentioned, usually is along the lines of a delivering from something. A delivering of something physical, mental, and/or spiritual, earthly,cosmos, and/or unseen that has or will happen in the past, present, and/or future from something else. And yes, would usually then infer that what they are saved unto is different than what was before.
Quote
... 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....
Yes, it usually wouldn't be helpful, and could possibly add a straw man into the equation if so..
Wierwille as the common denominator was the walking contradiction IMO.
With this word and idea, "dispensational" I think it also merits a close definition. I don't think it is an "all or nothing" concept, like Wierwille tried to dramatize many aspects of doctrinal Christianity to create a mental separation in the minds of his little cult followers.
Unfortuntaely, I barely recall how "Wierwille" and co. defined dispensations. But dispensational theology has been around for quite some time and long before Wierwille and his gang latched onto it. It has also evolved and divided into so many extra camps, it's hard to keep track of which dispensational view holds to what. But I think it's safe to say that TWI doesn't hold to the traditional "revised" dispensational view, as TWI tended to emphasize an "age of grace" vs an "age of works".
From a purely Greek point of view for the word "oikonomia (house/law)" from whence the English word "dispensation" or "administration" is translated from a few times, it has very little to nothing to do directly with a time or age and mostly to do with the "handling of the affairs" of another (thus the administeration and stewardship were better English words). Which by nature, if that person handling the affairs is human, has a lifetime or a time they are appointed this service/ministry then therefore you have the time element.
I don't think from a purely semantic point, anyone would have an issue with there being dispensations (ministries) spoken of in the scriptures. Or even time frames/ages.. Paul had a specific ministry bringing the good news of grace to the nations, whereby Peter had a different ministry sharing the good news among the Judeans. And Moses was a steward of different things than Aaron his brother. And in the same vain we can break down biblical history into as many time frames and ages as one cares to..
But some do not define dispensations in "just" this way.
It's when dispensations are regarded not as just time frames of simple organic development that progresses from one event to the next, but rather as distinct and mutually exclusive, or even as opposed to each other, that problems arise. The practice of dividing the Bible into parts, and setting one part against the others, means for instance, that in the Dispensation of the Law there was no grace, and during the Dispensation of Grace there is no law. But not all dispensationalist do this, but TWI did.
And it had become popular to regard this different view when Darby and especially Scofield taught it in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Especially in Scofield's reference Bible at the time when he had under John 1:16, "As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ... The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ...". And while the notes were revised in the 60s by the publisher, this view has gained quite a following. And it was Scofield's bible (KJV with his notes) that I had when I first took a TWO class. Everything seemed groovy to me!
But the plan of salvation as set forth in the Bible is one organic whole, revealing a marvellous and profound unity. It cannot be split up into contradictory parts, much less into seven mutually exclusive dispensations.
Unfortuntaely, I barely recall how "Wierwille" and co. defined dispensations. But dispensational theology has been around for quite some time and long before Wierwille and his gang latched onto it. It has also evolved and divided into so many extra camps, it's hard to keep track of which dispensational view holds to what. But I think it's safe to say that TWI doesn't hold to the traditional "revised" dispensational view, as TWI tended to emphasize an "age of grace" vs an "age of works".
From a purely Greek point of view for the word "oikonomia (house/law)" from whence the English word "dispensation" or "administration" is translated from a few times, it has very little to nothing to do directly with a time or age and mostly to do with the "handling of the affairs" of another (thus the administeration and stewardship were better English words). Which by nature, if that person handling the affairs is human, has a lifetime or a time they are appointed this service/ministry then therefore you have the time element.
I don't think from a purely semantic point, anyone would have an issue with there being dispensations (ministries) spoken of in the scriptures. Or even time frames/ages.. Paul had a specific ministry bringing the good news of grace to the nations, whereby Peter had a different ministry sharing the good news among the Judeans. And Moses was a steward of different things than Aaron his brother. And in the same vain we can break down biblical history into as many time frames and ages as one cares to..
But some do not define dispensations in "just" this way.
It's when dispensations are regarded not as just time frames of simple organic development that progresses from one event to the next, but rather as distinct and mutually exclusive, or even as opposed to each other, that problems arise. The practice of dividing the Bible into parts, and setting one part against the others, means for instance, that in the Dispensation of the Law there was no grace, and during the Dispensation of Grace there is no law. But not all dispensationalist do this, but TWI did.
And it had become popular to regard this different view when Darby and especially Scofield taught it in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Especially in Scofield's reference Bible at the time when he had under John 1:16, "As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ... The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ...". And while the notes were revised in the 60s by the publisher, this view has gained quite a following. And it was Scofield's bible (KJV with his notes) that I had when I first took a TWO class. Everything seemed groovy to me!
But the plan of salvation as set forth in the Bible is one organic whole, revealing a marvellous and profound unity. It cannot be split up into contradictory parts, much less into seven mutually exclusive dispensations.
Bullinger, Darby, Scofield - yes, pretty much the usual suspects of dispensationalism. And who VP lifted the idea from. From my perspective, all 3 had a huge propensity for "lists". For a little jingle, think of it like "if your life must be controlled by lists, you might be a dispensational - ist". LOL.
As for the Way's tendencies, since VP lifted so much material, rather than doing the honest work to get there on his own, that kind of left the Way stranded in a point in time. That point in time was the one day snow on the gas pumps appeared to VP. Or at the point in time VP lifted the material. Whatever more depth and revision in a field that would have occured since then is completely bypassed by the Way, as their view is they have already received all of the modern day revelation they are going to. On this I can agree - that God isn't talking to those idiots any time soon.
But anyway, this is doctrinal.
I like your line you initially pursued here of dispensation = "handling the affairs of another". By the most basic least humanly embellished definition that provides good insight. We are on the planet Earth handling the affairs of another. Moses and Aaron had to do that with rules about cows. Paul did it by writing letters mostly in some form of danger, persecution, or imprisonment. I can connect with that concept without "fundamentalist rose colored glasses".
Where I diverge from you is in your conclusion of the Bible as one organic whole, revealing a marvelous and profound unity. Paul's life and Moses life looked not a whole lot at all like one another. And neither do their writings. And you get into CGT - Critical Greek Textualism, and who decides the Canon of scripture? You? Me? Joe in plumbing? Next, what about all of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible? What council decided their veracity or lack thereof? More recently, what about other scroll writings being discovered, older than the ones our modern Bible is cobbled together from?
Handling the affairs of God on earth. That simplifies it. What do we do In our day? Accept Christ and find a place in the body of Christ.
No doubt. And you will find that throughout the scriptures. Not everything is going to be found in one neat little verse. When Peter was asked on the day of Pentecost, "What must we do", he said repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and they would receive the gift. Yet in Isa 45 it says Israel has been saved with an everlasting salvation for all eternity, and no mention of needing to do a thing.
"Not everything is going to be found in one neat little verse" I'm not expecting this. But neither is it logical that you need to perform a full gymnastic floor exercise routine of mental gymnastics to fit in contradictory verses into the same concept.
God has reserved his judgement for the proper time and place. But to say his judgements are just for the future, would be incorrect. While we have "large scale" judgement in Noah's day and bringing Israel out of Egypt, it shouldn't be confined to such. As Rom 13 puts it, there is no power but of God, and the powers that do exist are because he orders and allows them. Unless of course one believes in a weak incapable God. His judgements are just and righteous, and while it may not be to out liking, they have happened, do happen, and will happen. But the limits and the bounds and the when and where his judgment is brought forth is in His hands entirely, and it's not just something for the end times. As opposed to Deist thinking, since the day of creation, God has saved His judgement to allow people the opportunity to see the results of "our ways". And at times, He has stepped in. But there are bounds to everything and He has set them and made us aware that it is near. Nearness not in the timeframe of earth itself, but in the sense that you and I have but a few years on this earth, and each day death draws nearer.
I don't agree with your assessment of Romans 13 at all. The cop in the small town deriving revenue from setting speed limits lower than what is reasonable did not have God order them to do that. He allows them just like He allows other criminal activity without immediate judgment.
Jews and Christians and all who have lived have and still do die! Death is a requirement, or else evil will be allowed to continue eternally. Sin aka choosing our ways, is the reason this earth is so awesome, so perfect, without a single issue, ok, ok, being sarcastic there. BUT yes, God has, by His saving mercy, allowed us to live, make mistakes, learn from them, and continue on today hopefully learning along the way. And at times what would be the rightful consequence isn't what happens. But having our sins cast as far as the east is from the west does not mean there are NO consequences. Again, choosing God's way isn't about having a perfect life here. It's about choosing His ways and His will for our lives. Allowing Him to direct. Read John 21:29 and tell me that's a great and grand vision of life given to Peter by Jesus. That he would die for God's glory! Which would happen many years after Pentecost. Or as Isaiah 57 puts it, "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away. None considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come." And while the first death is inevitable to get rid of sin and it's effects (with the exception of those that are alive and remain), it is the second death that Christ has freed those who have chosen to put to death the old.
"Death is a requirement or else evil will be allowed to continue eternally" Is this a scripture somewhere, or a construct of the human mind? I mean what a horrible picture to paint of God - "powerless human, you need to die so your evil can't continue. But I'll resurrect you later". Sounds like a God of waterboarding to me.
The point of the post on salvation wasn't to address all the details. It was to lay an overall summation for how the word "salvation" is used in scripture. Maybe I was too vague. I'll accept that criticism.
I wasn't criticizing you - your post was just a springboard into a more detailed discussion. I'm not sure what you are going to take as critical or not - I am posting different opinions than you have and questions about logical points - my aim is not chopping you down or anything just to further discussion and develop this topic of salvation we are discussing in detail. Thanks for all your posting and contributions I enjoy reading the detail whether I stand on the same side of a particular discussion as you do or not.
For myself, I see no reason to add those into the equation of defining "salvation" itself. Which as mentioned, usually is along the lines of a delivering from something.
Why suppose that everyone seeks rescue or deliverance from the same things?
Furthermore, are you supposing that the conditions for salvation are the same for all?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
26
72
50
Popular Days
Jun 4
31
Jun 3
17
Jun 8
13
Jun 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TrustAndObey 32 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 72 posts
Taxidev 50 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2018
31 posts
Jun 3 2018
17 posts
Jun 8 2018
13 posts
Jun 7 2018
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he cert
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering
TrustAndObey
While this was definitely part of what TWI taught. It doesn't make it true. While I'm not saying the scriptures are not without contradictions (Take the three numbered different lists of those returning to Israel from captivity as a prime example), when it comes to the topic of salvation, I believe it is without contradictions even without the carving and dissecting and cutting up of the scriptures that Dispensational theology ends up doing to the scriptures to get "to whom" correct. I mean, when it comes down to it, not a single verse of the Bible was written "TO US". Paul's epistles were written for specific congregations with specific problems. The general epistles and gospels were still written to certain groups that are long since dead. But I believe that ALL the scriptures are written "FOR US". For our benefit, for instructing us, for leading us to the one that should be leading us (which is not VPW or any other human on this earth).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I was recently having a discussion about this very thing with my fellowship "coordinator" (I use this term loosely because we aren't structured at all like TWI fellowships - I just don't know a better way to refer to him). The head of the church is Christ, not a living person on earth. And while Paul gives us much to learn from, he isn't the head, he is part of the body, albeit a very knowledgeable part.
I believe you are correct in that Paul's epistles were specifically written for certain groups. We can see that probably most clearly in Corinthians when he's confronting them on sexual promiscuity. We, today - presumably - aren't doing those things, but we can still learn from that confrontation. So it's definitely FOR our learning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
On the contrary - unless one wishes to ignore the history of adultery and sexual predations of wierwille and other top leadership of TWI - which is something that a lot of these offshoots choose to ignore as part of the legacy from their “father in the word”. hypocrisy and cover-ups still flourish within wierwille-centric mindsets.That stuff in Corinthians is still relevant today!
In PFAL wierwille had the audacity to say the Bible means what it says and says what it means - I guess the exception was when it came to excusing his own despicable behavior in light of sexual promiscuity passages like in Corinthians...golly gee - he’s gotta be one of the “best” hypocrites I ever knew!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
My apologies - I was writing sexual promiscuity but thinking sexual deviance, specifically sexual encounters with their dads' wives.
But, considering further on this point, I guess there is all sorts of it going on in various parts of the world. I just have no idea if it's happening within Christian groups. I certainly hope it wouldn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Sexual deviance has a number of qualifiers - see Online reference one of which is consent - or rather lack thereof ...obvious examples are rape and sexual molestations ...historically and culturally it is specific...another qualifier is that it usually assumes some erotic behavior for gratification is at odds with what is acceptable by a community...in the case you referred to in Corinthians - sexual relations with his dad’s wife was unacceptable not only to the Christian community - but to even non-Christians in the area.
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
There is no way to truly know what "others" fully thought on any subject, much less salvation in past history. We have but a small subset of writing. On top of that, it must be understood at least for the Jews, that they had both an oral and a written understanding. Both the Tanakh and the unwritten things (they say) were given to Moses by God and passed down generation to generation orally. And while they wrote some of this "oral tradition" down in the form of the Mishna, there is no telling how much was lost or missing from this body of work written over a millennium later. And the midrashes only contain a portion as well and many still only in the Hebrew language.
But the subject of God's kingdom has always been the focal point. Since salvation, and any idea of salvation, be it physical/mental/or spiritual, be it earthly/cosmos/or unseen[i.e. spiritual realm] or be it past/present/or future; salvation has always been just a small portion of what God has planned for His kingdom. And it is this kingdom that all God's prophets including Paul taught [Acts 28]. It is very true that our knowledge and understanding of the salvation that God makes available in His kingdom grows in that He reveals things as time progresses. So what the patriarchs knew was not fully what is now made known. And even what has been revealed up to now, is more than what Paul and Timothy knew. So as Deut 29 speaks of the secret things that are revealed and passed down, there's a time and place for how and when it is revealed. But the absence of understanding does not change the fact or matter of what or how God has chosen to do things. As I'm certain we've lost many things that were revealed in past times.
Many people think of salvation in the Tanakh in terms of earthly deliverance and preservation, and the new covenant writings more in spiritual terms of of being rescued from our sin and unto a "heavenly" future. Yet, they are much more cohesive and comprehensive, dealing with all creation just as much as our body, soul, and spirit both in this world and the world to come. For all creation groans as it awaits salvation (Rom 8).
It's important to note that Israel's conflicts with other goyim(nations) were just a part of of a larger cosmic battle. A fight for the supremacy of God above all others. And so after the salvation of the Lord's people happened physically, they sang praises such as, "Who among the gods is like you, O Lord. Who is like you - majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?". So God's reign over this "earth" is connected with his "holiness", the spiritual and physical being interrelated. His rule is absolute, be it chaotic forces of nature or the rebellious forces of the nations and the 74th Psalm expresses this more clearly. Israel's earthly life was part of a larger picture, involving visible things (humans, nations), and invisible (God, angels). While these events were displayed on this earth, there was more to it just as the Book of Job was more than just a mere fleshly drama. Job, like Israel, was caught between a battle with heavenly witnesses (the angles) and earthly witnesses looking on and at times shown as participating. And when one reads the Tanakh, it's important to realize there is more to their understanding than what was written, and it was God's kingdom that was the focus and salvation a necessary portion of it.
While salvation throughout all scripture stresses the importance of right living, of faith in the one true God, of repentance and obedience. The Tanakh puts emphasis on rewards on this earth while not ignoring the world to come; and new covenant writings puts it primary emphasis on rewards in the world to come, while certainly not ignoring this present age. So the biblical concept of salvation is a deliverance from present and future judgement, present and future hostile forces, and present and future sin. And while in this life, the deliverance is partial and temporary; in the life to come it is both total and eternal. So as written by the prophet Daniel, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Biblical salvation though is not just limited to us "humans" past/present/future, but is related to all of God's creation.
Edited by TrustAndObeyForgot to add last sentence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
"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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Interesting and I don't think you are far off with the definitions here mainstream wise.
So weighing this against the salvation topic, we have God saving us from:
1. My enemies
2. Physical Sickness and/or death
So for #1, what enemies do I have in a modern society? Politics? Neighbor disputes? Frenemies? Don't see too much protection evidenced there. If the idea is interlaced in scripture that a strong army and victory over military enemies is part of this, then we get even more interesting with Christians in both the US and Russia. Whose side is God on? Putin's or Trump's? How would you categorize a wolf in sheep's clothing? Enemy? Why is it I seem to experience more than my ample share of all of the things I am supposed to be "saved" from?
On #2 there is no tangible evidence that Christians experience sickness and death at any less rate than the surrounding populace. Do you get sick less?
So in discussing "salvation" as the common topic around with which we are arguing whether or not we need a lifetime of compliance to achieve, is there nothing more than an "avoid the fire and brimstone" motivation on that side? Well, I guess the Christians would talk about "rewards". But isn't that something usually categorized as completely separate from salvation?
So come on, now. If you want to sell me salvation, can't you at least paint a pretty picture about choirs of angels and living with Jesus and not being groped in security traveling through the air?
Otherwise, what motivation do I have for a lifetime of compliance with fear of losing it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
In Romans chapter 10, it seems that the importance of right living, repentance, and obedience aren't stressed so much, but the recognition of a personal Lord and a belief God raised Him from the dead.
The Tanakh and new covenant writings which you are more familiar with than myself seem to have a healthy balance of current action and future anticipation from your descriptions which I'm sure are true. All good.
Salvation - as a definition - deliverance from present and future:
1. Judgement
2. Hostile Forces
3. Sin
For #1 = deliverance from judgement - for the future - this is a common view of when God comes down in judgement and makes everything right and kicks @$$ and takes names I will be saved from all of that experience on the negative side. I guess I can watch through a glass or something? As far as deliverance from present judgement, please help me out with that one, because I'm not seeing it anywhere. God isn't judging me now? OK. He's not judging the Satanist up the street either.
But you know who still does judge me? People. And about at every step of life too. Legal system. Job. Culture. Hobbies. Friendship. Dating. I can go on and on. And you know who are probably worse at judging people than other groups? Christians.
#2 Hostile Forces - Future perceived ones, sure. Present day ones still come at a person.
#3 Sin - now here's an interesting one with respect to salvation. Saved from sin. So you mean once I'm a Christian I'm saved from sinning in my life? No. How about sinful habits? No, on you.
Saved from the consequences of sin, which are death? OK, scriptural there - that's the idea. But the consequences of what sin? Get born again today, live like the devil for 50 years, get out of jail free, millions still smoking? Be a drunken lecher causing pain, sorrow, anguish, the breakup of families and marriages, and suicide? Saved from consequences of sin being eternal death? Who goes through that? Satan only?
Many many many questions that glossed over definitions IMO don't come close to addressing.
Daniel 12 as a section of scripture is noted and marked on this thread w/r to salvation topic.
Thanks for the conversation, spotters.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Wierwille as the common denominator was the walking contradiction IMO.
With this word and idea, "dispensational" I think it also merits a close definition. I don't think it is an "all or nothing" concept, like Wierwille tried to dramatize many aspects of doctrinal Christianity to create a mental separation in the minds of his little cult followers.
If the common currency is livestock, then offerings in livestock are common sense. That is a "dispensational approach to scripture".
However, the paper that Rico wrote at RFR's behest as a document in positional support of their debt policy, which concluded that certain truths like debt and tithing transcend dispensations, but others don't, that is not a "dispensational approach to scripture", it is a "dishonest approach to scripture".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What nuances of "salvation" verses "rescue" do we have going on scripturally, doctrinally, etc? Are they the same? Similar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I agree with you that what is written is a reflection of one's thoughts. However, what one says can easily be misunderstood, which is why we are defining terms, is it not? So to imply what one's "disciples likely thought" as you put it, is rather impossible and just a red herring. We have their words. But words as a reflection is a good description since a reflection is not always a clear picture. My point was only that what we have is not the full picture. And even what we do have, can be taken out of context and/or misunderstood.
And yes, I have no doubt what God desires for "US" to know, he has made available. But what is lost, is lost, and I'm not attempting to add more speculation here.
So exactly how do you see this salvation of some as being different or not equaling that of others? Are some half-saved? Partially delivered? What is it I'm not understanding?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
No doubt. And you will find that throughout the scriptures. Not everything is going to be found in one neat little verse. When Peter was asked on the day of Pentecost, "What must we do", he said repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and they would receive the gift. Yet in Isa 45 it says Israel has been saved with an everlasting salvation for all eternity, and no mention of needing to do a thing.
God has reserved his judgement for the proper time and place. But to say his judgements are just for the future, would be incorrect. While we have "large scale" judgement in Noah's day and bringing Israel out of Egypt, it shouldn't be confined to such. As Rom 13 puts it, there is no power but of God, and the powers that do exist are because he orders and allows them. Unless of course one believes in a weak incapable God. His judgements are just and righteous, and while it may not be to out liking, they have happened, do happen, and will happen. But the limits and the bounds and the when and where his judgment is brought forth is in His hands entirely, and it's not just something for the end times. As opposed to Deist thinking, since the day of creation, God has saved His judgement to allow people the opportunity to see the results of "our ways". And at times, He has stepped in. But there are bounds to everything and He has set them and made us aware that it is near. Nearness not in the timeframe of earth itself, but in the sense that you and I have but a few years on this earth, and each day death draws nearer.
Jews and Christians and all who have lived have and still do die! Death is a requirement, or else evil will be allowed to continue eternally. Sin aka choosing our ways, is the reason this earth is so awesome, so perfect, without a single issue, ok, ok, being sarcastic there. BUT yes, God has, by His saving mercy, allowed us to live, make mistakes, learn from them, and continue on today hopefully learning along the way. And at times what would be the rightful consequence isn't what happens. But having our sins cast as far as the east is from the west does not mean there are NO consequences. Again, choosing God's way isn't about having a perfect life here. It's about choosing His ways and His will for our lives. Allowing Him to direct. Read John 21:29 and tell me that's a great and grand vision of life given to Peter by Jesus. That he would die for God's glory! Which would happen many years after Pentecost. Or as Isaiah 57 puts it, "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away. None considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come." And while the first death is inevitable to get rid of sin and it's effects (with the exception of those that are alive and remain), it is the second death that Christ has freed those who have chosen to put to death the old.
The point of the post on salvation wasn't to address all the details. It was to lay an overall summation for how the word "salvation" is used in scripture. Maybe I was too vague. I'll accept that criticism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I'll go with similar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Would you be referencing "rewards" here then when defining salvation that is different or not equaling that of others? Because that seems to be what you are talking about, but again, I may not be understanding you again... We are defining "salvation", yes? And while salvation usually implies both a past of what one is being delivered from, as well as a future of what one is brought to, at this point, I mostly was emphasizing the deliverance from something, as usually this is what salvation implies. A rescuing. Meaning ones situation is in need of a change. And while that change unto something different can be in the form of many of things (maybe "rewards"), I really have attempted to not emphasize this, as it doesn't seem as relevant at this time. But maybe it should be, is that what you are saying?? For myself, I see no reason to add those into the equation of defining "salvation" itself. Which as mentioned, usually is along the lines of a delivering from something. A delivering of something physical, mental, and/or spiritual, earthly,cosmos, and/or unseen that has or will happen in the past, present, and/or future from something else. And yes, would usually then infer that what they are saved unto is different than what was before.
Yes, it usually wouldn't be helpful, and could possibly add a straw man into the equation if so..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Unfortuntaely, I barely recall how "Wierwille" and co. defined dispensations. But dispensational theology has been around for quite some time and long before Wierwille and his gang latched onto it. It has also evolved and divided into so many extra camps, it's hard to keep track of which dispensational view holds to what. But I think it's safe to say that TWI doesn't hold to the traditional "revised" dispensational view, as TWI tended to emphasize an "age of grace" vs an "age of works".
From a purely Greek point of view for the word "oikonomia (house/law)" from whence the English word "dispensation" or "administration" is translated from a few times, it has very little to nothing to do directly with a time or age and mostly to do with the "handling of the affairs" of another (thus the administeration and stewardship were better English words). Which by nature, if that person handling the affairs is human, has a lifetime or a time they are appointed this service/ministry then therefore you have the time element.
I don't think from a purely semantic point, anyone would have an issue with there being dispensations (ministries) spoken of in the scriptures. Or even time frames/ages.. Paul had a specific ministry bringing the good news of grace to the nations, whereby Peter had a different ministry sharing the good news among the Judeans. And Moses was a steward of different things than Aaron his brother. And in the same vain we can break down biblical history into as many time frames and ages as one cares to..
But some do not define dispensations in "just" this way.
It's when dispensations are regarded not as just time frames of simple organic development that progresses from one event to the next, but rather as distinct and mutually exclusive, or even as opposed to each other, that problems arise. The practice of dividing the Bible into parts, and setting one part against the others, means for instance, that in the Dispensation of the Law there was no grace, and during the Dispensation of Grace there is no law. But not all dispensationalist do this, but TWI did.
And it had become popular to regard this different view when Darby and especially Scofield taught it in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Especially in Scofield's reference Bible at the time when he had under John 1:16, "As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ... The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ...". And while the notes were revised in the 60s by the publisher, this view has gained quite a following. And it was Scofield's bible (KJV with his notes) that I had when I first took a TWO class. Everything seemed groovy to me!
But the plan of salvation as set forth in the Bible is one organic whole, revealing a marvellous and profound unity. It cannot be split up into contradictory parts, much less into seven mutually exclusive dispensations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Bullinger, Darby, Scofield - yes, pretty much the usual suspects of dispensationalism. And who VP lifted the idea from. From my perspective, all 3 had a huge propensity for "lists". For a little jingle, think of it like "if your life must be controlled by lists, you might be a dispensational - ist". LOL.
As for the Way's tendencies, since VP lifted so much material, rather than doing the honest work to get there on his own, that kind of left the Way stranded in a point in time. That point in time was the one day snow on the gas pumps appeared to VP. Or at the point in time VP lifted the material. Whatever more depth and revision in a field that would have occured since then is completely bypassed by the Way, as their view is they have already received all of the modern day revelation they are going to. On this I can agree - that God isn't talking to those idiots any time soon.
But anyway, this is doctrinal.
I like your line you initially pursued here of dispensation = "handling the affairs of another". By the most basic least humanly embellished definition that provides good insight. We are on the planet Earth handling the affairs of another. Moses and Aaron had to do that with rules about cows. Paul did it by writing letters mostly in some form of danger, persecution, or imprisonment. I can connect with that concept without "fundamentalist rose colored glasses".
Where I diverge from you is in your conclusion of the Bible as one organic whole, revealing a marvelous and profound unity. Paul's life and Moses life looked not a whole lot at all like one another. And neither do their writings. And you get into CGT - Critical Greek Textualism, and who decides the Canon of scripture? You? Me? Joe in plumbing? Next, what about all of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible? What council decided their veracity or lack thereof? More recently, what about other scroll writings being discovered, older than the ones our modern Bible is cobbled together from?
Handling the affairs of God on earth. That simplifies it. What do we do In our day? Accept Christ and find a place in the body of Christ.
For cult people, don't be an antichrist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Why suppose that everyone seeks rescue or deliverance from the same things?
Furthermore, are you supposing that the conditions for salvation are the same for all?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So, you think what saves one person is no different that what saves anybody else?
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.