imho, the entire “Biblical” and doctrinal underpinning Of TWIt’s private interpretation is based on the FALSE PREMISE (logical fallacy) Of dispensationalism. This was actually a worldwide “revival” of accepting the Bible is inerrant and perfect as written. Initiated in the first half of the 19th century by Schofield and his disciples. Then, folks like Bullinger and others systematically developed it to the point where, by the 1920s, here in the USA it had a major doctrinal influence on the early 20th century fundamentalist revivals. Wierwille completely and unabashedly claimed Bullinger’s works as his own. He claimed he had never heard of ole Ethelbert until 1955, when Dr. E.E. Higgins in Chicago, took his piffle class and told him, “you teach like Bullinger writes” and sent him all of Bullinger’s works so ole dic could “read them for the first time”, which he said validated and verified ALL the research he had done and put into Piffle! LOL! Surprised??
That’s one of my major beefs with TWIt, CES, STFI, TLTF, and the rest of the TWIt-lite cults. This insidious doctrine lays the greatest importance upon the Pauline Epistles, basically consigning Jesus Christ to nice stohrees in the Gospels and, even though “it’s Christ in YOU the hope of glory”!, their Jesus is absent, sitting at the right hand of God twiddling His thumbs until the trumpet sounds! This puts the emphasis on an Apostle instead of his absent Lord, which then makes the Apostle more important than his own Lord! It also limits the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to OUR believing instead of the very active presence He is to millions of Christians who never heard of dispensationalism and could not care less about it. That’s why dictor spread the word that he was the greatest teacher since who? Jesus? Nope! Saul of Tarsus! The new light giver to his generation just like dic claimed to be for the 20th century generations! THAT was the greatest secret in the world, not “Christ in you”.
As I said on Jalvis’ thread, it is man-made, dead doctrine, in no way Godbreathed. It is false. And, it is a core part of the TWIt lure to their version of it in their “rightly dividing” of all scripture, and the mog-hood of dictor paul They are completely close minded to any other possibilities, to the point that Schoenheit no longer either considers nor responds to ANY criticism or questioning of his work. Sound familiar. Jalvis wastes an entire 20 hours on this falsehood in his End Times dog’n’pony show. Until you are able to NOT look at dispensationalism as the proper way to understand the Bible by knowing “to whom it is written” and you’re willing to see it is a total crock of made up doublespeak, you’ll have “itching ears” for this false doctrine, and miss out on much of what the Bible ACTUALLY says, as well as knowing about the folks who said it. Selah bruddah!
DWBH, intresting post! Thanks for the information.
Dr. E.E. Higgins in Chicago, took his piffle class and told him, “you teach like Bullinger writes” and sent him all of Bullinger’s works so ole dic could “read them for the first time”, which he said validated and verified ALL the research he had done and put into Piffle! LOL! Surprised??
Not at all.
3 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:
This puts the emphasis on an Apostle instead of his absent Lord, which then makes the Apostle more important than his own Lord! It also limits the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to OUR believing instead of the very active presence He is to millions of Christians who never heard of dispensationalism and could not care less about it. That’s why dictor spread the word that he was the greatest teacher since who? Jesus? Nope! Saul of Tarsus!
Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of dispensationalism. And I most certainly never considered the impact of focusing on the epistles over all else. And I had already learned that ALL scripture is for our learning, yet I had missed this important point.
Yes, it's definitely the ever present Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that makes the difference in our lives, not a dead man named Paul. Great as he was, he certainly wasn't the Christ.
My understanding of what VPW proclaimed about being the greatest teacher since Paul was that he couldn't compare himself to Jesus. Silly me, I inferred that - he certainly never said it that I know of. And I did watch a couple of JAL's videos. I couldn't watch more because it felt like I was in a TWI class.
You have been incredibly instrumental in my eyes opening wider regarding not only the impact TWI has had on my view of the bible, but also the flaws in that view. Keep it coming, brother!
Thanks Taxi! But, I think it is due more to your humility before the Lord in wanting to LIVE as He taught us we can. And, that’s by being a follower of CHRIST, and no other man or man-made doctrine. I’m happy that I could be helpful in your continued journey. Peace.
Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of dispensationalism. And I most certainly never considered the impact of focusing on the epistles over all else. And I had already learned that ALL scripture is for our learning, yet I had missed this important point.
Taxi, "Dispensationalism" is the theology of a certain viewpoint of eschatology. VPW &TWI were/are dispensationalists but they espoused E.W. Bullinger's version of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger
I don't know about TWI today, but back in the 70's and 80's it was common to hear the phrase "we are in the dispensation(age) of grace" within the teachings of TWI clergy. That phrase was taken from Ephesians chapter 3 verse 2. If you read through the whole chapter of Ephesians 3, it says that the dispensation of grace is the promise that the Gentiles are " fellowheirs, and of the same body". Dispensationalists have taken this and added things such as: the dispensation of grace will end with the rapture and the "law administration" will return for 7 years until the return of Christ when He sets up his millennial kingdom. Ephesians 3 says nothing of the sort. My personal take is that the Gentiles were included in the promise at the time of Paul but that will never go away or have a 7 year break. I believe the promise for the Gentiles to be included in the body of Christ will continue into eternity.
imho, the entire “Biblical” and doctrinal underpinning Of TWIt’s private interpretation is based on the FALSE PREMISE (logical fallacy) Of dispensationalism. This was actually a worldwide “revival” of accepting the Bible is inerrant and perfect as written. Initiated in the first half of the 19th century by Schofield and his disciples. Then, folks like Bullinger and others systematically developed it to the point where, by the 1920s, here in the USA it had a major doctrinal influence on the early 20th century fundamentalist revivals. Wierwille completely and unabashedly claimed Bullinger’s works as his own. He claimed he had never heard of ole Ethelbert until 1955, when Dr. E.E. Higgins in Chicago, took his piffle class and told him, “you teach like Bullinger writes” and sent him all of Bullinger’s works so ole dic could “read them for the first time”, which he said validated and verified ALL the research he had done and put into Piffle! LOL! Surprised??
That’s one of my major beefs with TWIt, CES, STFI, TLTF, and the rest of the TWIt-lite cults. This insidious doctrine lays the greatest importance upon the Pauline Epistles, basically consigning Jesus Christ to nice stohrees in the Gospels and, even though “it’s Christ in YOU the hope of glory”!, their Jesus is absent, sitting at the right hand of God twiddling His thumbs until the trumpet sounds! This puts the emphasis on an Apostle instead of his absent Lord, which then makes the Apostle more important than his own Lord! It also limits the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to OUR believing instead of the very active presence He is to millions of Christians who never heard of dispensationalism and could not care less about it. That’s why dictor spread the word that he was the greatest teacher since who? Jesus? Nope! Saul of Tarsus! The new light giver to his generation just like dic claimed to be for the 20th century generations! THAT was the greatest secret in the world, not “Christ in you”.
As I said on Jalvis’ thread, it is man-made, dead doctrine, in no way Godbreathed. It is false. And, it is a core part of the TWIt lure to their version of it in their “rightly dividing” of all scripture, and the mog-hood of dictor paul They are completely close minded to any other possibilities, to the point that Schoenheit no longer either considers nor responds to ANY criticism or questioning of his work. Sound familiar. Jalvis wastes an entire 20 hours on this falsehood in his End Times dog’n’pony show. Until you are able to NOT look at dispensationalism as the proper way to understand the Bible by knowing “to whom it is written” and you’re willing to see it is a total crock of made up doublespeak, you’ll have “itching ears” for this false doctrine, and miss out on much of what the Bible ACTUALLY says, as well as knowing about the folks who said it. Selah bruddah!
Spot on DWBH. It was the apostles who were clamoring for spot #1 in authority by Jesus not Jesus vying for the #1 spot in their estimation.
Focus on Pauline doctrine doesn't make it true that "the Word takes the place of the absent Christ". What they have built it into is Christ being entirely absent, because they ignore Him, his teachings, his sacrifice, his love, his compassion. They exhibit none of those characteristics, they replace them with little rules to live by which enslave people.
IMO EW Bullinger exhibited characteristics of extreme OCD behavior. The vast and varying nature of scripture in the OT isn't necessarily consistent with respect to instructing humans on a moral code. So to combat this inconsistency, let's construct the outline of the Bible that God should have inspired someone to write down, but somehow He forgot. And we will include all of the differences as "administrations", because humans can understand change in lifestyle due to a political party changing hands.
No, things change over time in life. In fact change is one of the very few things that is consistent in life. Even if we don't change the world around us does.
Jesus life had some of the most extreme changes ever seen. Early youth in witness protection. Trade education in hiding. Considered a bastard child from those who knew him. Spent a very short period of time as a minister profession, where he was persecuted incessantly, then captured, falsely accused, falsely tried, condemned, and executed.
I think Way people and ex Way people would be better off dumping their egotistical Oxford double-wide margin Bibles with all of Bullinger's "Also"s marked and pick up a red letter edition Gideon Bible at any hotel/motel location across the world (mostly).
Yes, they called it the grace administration, and it's the 5th one.
I could see definite changes along the way in the bible, like when the law started, and then was ended by Jesus' death and resurrection. But I didn't follow the 7 administrations. Jesus was living under the law, so how did that become another administration? So many things TWI taught didn't actually make sense.
This is the first time I'm hearing this concept referred to as "dispensationalism" but, apparently, I did learn the concept.
This is the first time I'm hearing this concept referred to as "dispensationalism" but, apparently, I did learn the concept.
"Dispensationalism developed as a system from the teachings ofJohn Nelson Darby(1800–82) who strongly influenced thePlymouth Brethrenof the 1830s in Ireland and England. The original concept came when Darby considered the implications of Isaiah 32 for Israel. He saw that prophecy required a future fulfillment and realization of Israel's kingdom. The New Testament church was seen as a separate program not related to that kingdom. Thus arose a prophetic earthly kingdom program for Israel and a separate "Mystery" heavenly program for the church. In order to not conflate the two programs, the prophetic program had to be put on hold to allow for the church to come into existence. Then it is necessary for the church to be raptured away before prophecy can resume its earthly program for Israel."
I think you may have missed my comment regarding my disappointment with R&R, and it was based primarily on what you have shared, along with two others. I don't support them, I'm waiting to see them slip in their own muck.
As for Dan, as I had stated prior, I was already looking into this very topic on my own. I don't actually support him, and was pretty surprised that he's already asking for money to help support his web site - they cost $10/month for a good hosting package, and Wordpress is free! Shouldn't be much of a strain on his pocket if he really wants to get a message out.
But I am still reading his long-winded paper. So far, he has been very analytical, comparing the two views on salvation. The one thing I can say about that paper at this point is this: it doesn't seem to be plagiarized!
Interestingly enough, both vpw and Bullinger said there were 7 of those things (EWB-:"dispensations", vpw- "administrations") but disagreed on which where the 7. Bullinger began with the original Paradise, then the Patriarchal, then the Law (1,2,3.) twi agreed, then said the 1 year of JC's ministry was one. This struck me as odd, since Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of The Law would pass away until all would be fulfilled, and that was done at Calvary. But it allowed them to put us in #5- "Grace." EWB said #3 LAW continued until Pentecost, when #4 GRACE began. Both said the next one was basically the Tribulation. vpw said the next and last one was #7, Final Paradise, or GLORY. EWB said that #6 was the Mllenial Reign of JC in Revelation 20. So, vpw said the 1 year of JC was an administration but not the 1000 years of the Millenial reign, and EWB said the reverse, I know there's lots of verses in the Gospels, but I think a millenium is a much more viable candidate than any single year, if it comes to that.
Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded. All of that makes it look more like "Covenant Theology" than anyone's form of "administrations."
Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded. All of that makes it look more like "Covenant Theology" than anyone's form of "administrations."
This is very interesting. I just looked at Strong and Thayer after finding this word used 4 times in the epistles. All 4 times it is translated dispensation. But both Strong and Thayer hold a type of managerial bent on their definitions, definitely along the lines of what you say here. And, that word is also translated stewardship 3 times in Luke, and steward 3 times in Luke and Titus. So administration, rather than being a period of time, is more of a handling and overseeing.
In fact, Eph 3:2 makes it pretty clear that it is an oversight, a handling.
Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded. All of that makes it look more like "Covenant Theology" than anyone's form of "administrations."
WordWolf, IMO this makes more logical sense than trying to bend your mind around God dealing with mankind with different rules for different times.
I guess the one thing that would change perspectives through time besides the day and time people live in is the perspective with respect to the Redeemer. Looking forward to, looking at, looking backwards upon first visit, looking to return, looking at during the return, etc. Perspectives towards the Redeemer are multi-faceted and different based upon the age and time.
Whether I am freed from my sin through Jesus sacrifice, or by the priest killing a non-blemished goat according to instruction of the time, I am freed from sin. In this view there is an incentive to continue on in good works towards the goodness of God. I find people leaning on the "Grace" administration heavily in doctrine and approach too often is because that is the only way they can look in the mirror - to convince themselves if they say a few words of contrition to the mirror God will forgive their sins because they confessed and Jesus paid.
Interestingly enough, both vpw and Bullinger said there were 7 of those things (EWB-:"dispensations", vpw- "administrations") but disagreed on which where the 7. Bullinger began with the original Paradise, then the Patriarchal, then the Law (1,2,3.) twi agreed, then said the 1 year of JC's ministry was one. This struck me as odd, since Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of The Law would pass away until all would be fulfilled, and that was done at Calvary. But it allowed them to put us in #5- "Grace." EWB said #3 LAW continued until Pentecost, when #4 GRACE began. Both said the next one was basically the Tribulation. vpw said the next and last one was #7, Final Paradise, or GLORY. EWB said that #6 was the Mllenial Reign of JC in Revelation 20. So, vpw said the 1 year of JC was an administration but not the 1000 years of the Millenial reign, and EWB said the reverse, I know there's lots of verses in the Gospels, but I think a millenium is a much more viable candidate than any single year, if it comes to that.
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.
On 6/12/2018 at 8:13 PM, WordWolf said:
Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded. All of that makes it look more like "Covenant Theology" than anyone's form of "administrations."
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?
As far as I know (which is a short distance) there is nothing in the Bible stating we are in The Grace Administration. Sure, there are verses that could conceivably be privately interpreted as such, but nothing that actually states this.
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?
A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery.
==============================================
Covenants? I think of this:
Hebrews 8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
============================================
So, there's the covenant made to the 12 tribes, and the covenant which was promised to follow. Jesus us the mediator of that better covenant. From what I've seen dealing with devout Jews, I think the old, outmoded covenant still does what it did before. It sure is better than no covenant. However, it is outmoded and outdated since the new, improved model left the factory, so to speak.
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?
Just my opinion here:
Rather than covenant theology, dispensationalism or any other theological framework that depends on what some say seems to be implied in scripture - I lean toward a much simpler approach that depends on what is stated explicitly in scripture.
In practical terms - if we’re talking about what God expects of believers in any “time period” - I think Jesus summed it up nicely in Matthew 22: Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The command to love God and neighbor doesn’t leave anyone out or snub anyone because they got a bad break in a covenant...and it does not issue a hall pass to sin-like-the-devil-in-the-age-of-grace either ...it does appear to be very concise and clear instructions on what is the priority in other NT docs as well: Romans 13:10; I Corinthians 13; Galatians 5.14; Revelation 2:4.
From what I understand of the Bible - Jesus Christ’s work has freed us from the ceremonial law - but not God’s moral law...but even living under the ceremonial laws, love for God and neighbor was clearly still the priority as seen in Jesus’ words to teachers of the law, Pharisees and hypocrites in Matthew 23:23, 24
23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.“
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Interestingly, the Prophets isn't the Mosaic laws - they cover the laws of life, which don't begin and end with the old testament. Proverbs, also, covers the laws of life, and there quite a few verses in their regarding love.
As far as I know (which is a short distance) there is nothing in the Bible stating we are in The Grace Administration. Sure, there are verses that could conceivably be privately interpreted as such, but nothing that actually states this.
Well, how much plainer might you like it than what's written in Eph. 3:2?
Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that-
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?
So, there's the covenant made to the 12 tribes, and the covenant which was promised to follow. Jesus us the mediator of that better covenant. From what I've seen dealing with devout Jews, I think the old, outmoded covenant still does what it did before. It sure is better than no covenant. However, it is outmoded and outdated since the new, improved model left the factory, so to speak.
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.
From what I understand of the Bible - Jesus Christ’s work has freed us from the ceremonial law - but not God’s moral law...
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.
Well, how much plainer might you like it than what's written in Eph. 3:2?
Without my former "fundy" sunglasses on, my read of Ephesians 3 is Paul writing a letter to some Gentiles talking about his love for them and how he felt God wanted him to work with them specifically despite his more traditional background. Ephesians is a cool letter - full of love and positives. Power words and images.
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.
The only thing I see as “dead already”, is dispensationalism. IMO, it is a man-made, dead doctrine, nowhere close to ”god-breathed”. It is a 19th century systematizing of error based completely on private interpretation and confirmation bias.
80% of all new discoveries of MSS in many languages, critical texts in Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Latin, microfilm of many MS fragments, , Biblical Archaeology, etc. have been made since 1980! You hyperdispensationalists want to limit yourself to the 16th Century 1550 Stephens Critical Greek Text and the King James Version of the first English translation of Stephens from 1611, interpreted by a smart bunch of confident private interpreters from the 19th century who desperately wanted to “prove” the “inherent and inerrant accuracy of God’s matchless rightly divided word!”, then go right ahead. I prefer my meals organic and self-cooked, not re-heated, re-fried, or regurgitated. TY.
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.
I guess you’re referring to spiritual death - but I see nothing in NT docs to suggest that whether one is spiritually (or if you prefer metaphorically ) dead or not - we are all subject to moral laws - otherwise there would be no need to remind folks they should not lie, steal, etc. as we find throughout NT docs.
I guess you’re referring to spiritual death - but I see nothing in NT docs to suggest that whether one is spiritually (or if you prefer metaphorically ) dead or not - we are all subject to moral laws - otherwise there would be no need to remind folks they should not lie, steal, etc. as we find throughout NT docs.
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.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
21
18
54
Popular Days
Jul 15
20
Jul 2
20
Jul 11
20
Jul 5
15
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 18 posts
chockfull 21 posts
Infoabsorption 18 posts
TLC 54 posts
Popular Days
Jul 15 2018
20 posts
Jul 2 2018
20 posts
Jul 11 2018
20 posts
Jul 5 2018
15 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Dispensationalism is a man-made, private interpretation of “ALL scripture”, DEAD doctrine, based upon early 19th century textual and critical evidence which relied completely upon the latest 16th cent
DontWorryBeHappy
Hi Taxidev! imho, the entire “Biblical” and doctrinal underpinning Of TWIt’s private interpretation is based on the FALSE PREMISE (logical fallacy) Of dispensationalism. This was actually a world
chockfull
So on the education dig I know that's pointed towards someone on this thread, but I think criticizing any of us on our education background is a bit obnoxious. I mean my theological education was 4
Grace Valerie Claire
DWBH, intresting post! Thanks for the information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Not at all.
Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of dispensationalism. And I most certainly never considered the impact of focusing on the epistles over all else. And I had already learned that ALL scripture is for our learning, yet I had missed this important point.
Yes, it's definitely the ever present Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that makes the difference in our lives, not a dead man named Paul. Great as he was, he certainly wasn't the Christ.
My understanding of what VPW proclaimed about being the greatest teacher since Paul was that he couldn't compare himself to Jesus. Silly me, I inferred that - he certainly never said it that I know of. And I did watch a couple of JAL's videos. I couldn't watch more because it felt like I was in a TWI class.
You have been incredibly instrumental in my eyes opening wider regarding not only the impact TWI has had on my view of the bible, but also the flaws in that view. Keep it coming, brother!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Thanks Taxi! But, I think it is due more to your humility before the Lord in wanting to LIVE as He taught us we can. And, that’s by being a follower of CHRIST, and no other man or man-made doctrine. I’m happy that I could be helpful in your continued journey. Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
Taxi, "Dispensationalism" is the theology of a certain viewpoint of eschatology. VPW &TWI were/are dispensationalists but they espoused E.W. Bullinger's version of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger
I don't know about TWI today, but back in the 70's and 80's it was common to hear the phrase "we are in the dispensation(age) of grace" within the teachings of TWI clergy. That phrase was taken from Ephesians chapter 3 verse 2. If you read through the whole chapter of Ephesians 3, it says that the dispensation of grace is the promise that the Gentiles are " fellowheirs, and of the same body". Dispensationalists have taken this and added things such as: the dispensation of grace will end with the rapture and the "law administration" will return for 7 years until the return of Christ when He sets up his millennial kingdom. Ephesians 3 says nothing of the sort. My personal take is that the Gentiles were included in the promise at the time of Paul but that will never go away or have a 7 year break. I believe the promise for the Gentiles to be included in the body of Christ will continue into eternity.
For more information on how Dispensationalism has become so popular in this day and time, I suggest viewing this video by a former dispensationalist: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24574-dispensational-theology/
Edited by InfoabsorptionLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Spot on DWBH. It was the apostles who were clamoring for spot #1 in authority by Jesus not Jesus vying for the #1 spot in their estimation.
Focus on Pauline doctrine doesn't make it true that "the Word takes the place of the absent Christ". What they have built it into is Christ being entirely absent, because they ignore Him, his teachings, his sacrifice, his love, his compassion. They exhibit none of those characteristics, they replace them with little rules to live by which enslave people.
IMO EW Bullinger exhibited characteristics of extreme OCD behavior. The vast and varying nature of scripture in the OT isn't necessarily consistent with respect to instructing humans on a moral code. So to combat this inconsistency, let's construct the outline of the Bible that God should have inspired someone to write down, but somehow He forgot. And we will include all of the differences as "administrations", because humans can understand change in lifestyle due to a political party changing hands.
No, things change over time in life. In fact change is one of the very few things that is consistent in life. Even if we don't change the world around us does.
Jesus life had some of the most extreme changes ever seen. Early youth in witness protection. Trade education in hiding. Considered a bastard child from those who knew him. Spent a very short period of time as a minister profession, where he was persecuted incessantly, then captured, falsely accused, falsely tried, condemned, and executed.
I think Way people and ex Way people would be better off dumping their egotistical Oxford double-wide margin Bibles with all of Bullinger's "Also"s marked and pick up a red letter edition Gideon Bible at any hotel/motel location across the world (mostly).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, they called it the grace administration, and it's the 5th one.
I could see definite changes along the way in the bible, like when the law started, and then was ended by Jesus' death and resurrection. But I didn't follow the 7 administrations. Jesus was living under the law, so how did that become another administration? So many things TWI taught didn't actually make sense.
This is the first time I'm hearing this concept referred to as "dispensationalism" but, apparently, I did learn the concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Dispensationalism developed as a system from the teachings of John Nelson Darby (1800–82) who strongly influenced thePlymouth Brethren of the 1830s in Ireland and England. The original concept came when Darby considered the implications of Isaiah 32 for Israel. He saw that prophecy required a future fulfillment and realization of Israel's kingdom. The New Testament church was seen as a separate program not related to that kingdom. Thus arose a prophetic earthly kingdom program for Israel and a separate "Mystery" heavenly program for the church. In order to not conflate the two programs, the prophetic program had to be put on hold to allow for the church to come into existence. Then it is necessary for the church to be raptured away before prophecy can resume its earthly program for Israel."
SOURCE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Interestingly enough, both vpw and Bullinger said there were 7 of those things (EWB-:"dispensations", vpw- "administrations") but disagreed on which where the 7. Bullinger began with the original Paradise, then the Patriarchal, then the Law (1,2,3.) twi agreed, then said the 1 year of JC's ministry was one. This struck me as odd, since Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of The Law would pass away until all would be fulfilled, and that was done at Calvary. But it allowed them to put us in #5- "Grace." EWB said #3 LAW continued until Pentecost, when #4 GRACE began. Both said the next one was basically the Tribulation. vpw said the next and last one was #7, Final Paradise, or GLORY. EWB said that #6 was the Mllenial Reign of JC in Revelation 20. So, vpw said the 1 year of JC was an administration but not the 1000 years of the Millenial reign, and EWB said the reverse, I know there's lots of verses in the Gospels, but I think a millenium is a much more viable candidate than any single year, if it comes to that.
Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded. All of that makes it look more like "Covenant Theology" than anyone's form of "administrations."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
This is very interesting. I just looked at Strong and Thayer after finding this word used 4 times in the epistles. All 4 times it is translated dispensation. But both Strong and Thayer hold a type of managerial bent on their definitions, definitely along the lines of what you say here. And, that word is also translated stewardship 3 times in Luke, and steward 3 times in Luke and Titus. So administration, rather than being a period of time, is more of a handling and overseeing.
In fact, Eph 3:2 makes it pretty clear that it is an oversight, a handling.
Good call, WordWolf!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
WordWolf, IMO this makes more logical sense than trying to bend your mind around God dealing with mankind with different rules for different times.
I guess the one thing that would change perspectives through time besides the day and time people live in is the perspective with respect to the Redeemer. Looking forward to, looking at, looking backwards upon first visit, looking to return, looking at during the return, etc. Perspectives towards the Redeemer are multi-faceted and different based upon the age and time.
Whether I am freed from my sin through Jesus sacrifice, or by the priest killing a non-blemished goat according to instruction of the time, I am freed from sin. In this view there is an incentive to continue on in good works towards the goodness of God. I find people leaning on the "Grace" administration heavily in doctrine and approach too often is because that is the only way they can look in the mirror - to convince themselves if they say a few words of contrition to the mirror God will forgive their sins because they confessed and Jesus paid.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
As far as I know (which is a short distance) there is nothing in the Bible stating we are in The Grace Administration. Sure, there are verses that could conceivably be privately interpreted as such, but nothing that actually states this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery.
==============================================
Covenants? I think of this:
Hebrews 8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
============================================
So, there's the covenant made to the 12 tribes, and the covenant which was promised to follow. Jesus us the mediator of that better covenant. From what I've seen dealing with devout Jews, I think the old, outmoded covenant still does what it did before. It sure is better than no covenant. However, it is outmoded and outdated since the new, improved model left the factory, so to speak.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Just my opinion here:
Rather than covenant theology, dispensationalism or any other theological framework that depends on what some say seems to be implied in scripture - I lean toward a much simpler approach that depends on what is stated explicitly in scripture.
In practical terms - if we’re talking about what God expects of believers in any “time period” - I think Jesus summed it up nicely in Matthew 22: Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The command to love God and neighbor doesn’t leave anyone out or snub anyone because they got a bad break in a covenant...and it does not issue a hall pass to sin-like-the-devil-in-the-age-of-grace either ...it does appear to be very concise and clear instructions on what is the priority in other NT docs as well: Romans 13:10; I Corinthians 13; Galatians 5.14; Revelation 2:4.
From what I understand of the Bible - Jesus Christ’s work has freed us from the ceremonial law - but not God’s moral law...but even living under the ceremonial laws, love for God and neighbor was clearly still the priority as seen in Jesus’ words to teachers of the law, Pharisees and hypocrites in Matthew 23:23, 24
23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.“
Edited by T-BoneFormatting and clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Interestingly, the Prophets isn't the Mosaic laws - they cover the laws of life, which don't begin and end with the old testament. Proverbs, also, covers the laws of life, and there quite a few verses in their regarding love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, how much plainer might you like it than what's written in Eph. 3:2?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Without my former "fundy" sunglasses on, my read of Ephesians 3 is Paul writing a letter to some Gentiles talking about his love for them and how he felt God wanted him to work with them specifically despite his more traditional background. Ephesians is a cool letter - full of love and positives. Power words and images.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
The only thing I see as “dead already”, is dispensationalism. IMO, it is a man-made, dead doctrine, nowhere close to ”god-breathed”. It is a 19th century systematizing of error based completely on private interpretation and confirmation bias.
80% of all new discoveries of MSS in many languages, critical texts in Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Latin, microfilm of many MS fragments, , Biblical Archaeology, etc. have been made since 1980! You hyperdispensationalists want to limit yourself to the 16th Century 1550 Stephens Critical Greek Text and the King James Version of the first English translation of Stephens from 1611, interpreted by a smart bunch of confident private interpreters from the 19th century who desperately wanted to “prove” the “inherent and inerrant accuracy of God’s matchless rightly divided word!”, then go right ahead. I prefer my meals organic and self-cooked, not re-heated, re-fried, or regurgitated. TY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I guess you’re referring to spiritual death - but I see nothing in NT docs to suggest that whether one is spiritually (or if you prefer metaphorically ) dead or not - we are all subject to moral laws - otherwise there would be no need to remind folks they should not lie, steal, etc. as we find throughout NT docs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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
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.