It does make sense on the Biblical definitions vs. usages. What is the perspective on scripture that governs it? When we are talking about a term in the Bible, what carries greater weight, the meaning to the common people it was written (i.e. Paul's letters) - which would lead towards a secular definition of inspired words, or consistency with how other prophets or writers wrote or spoke words? The second approach would lead towards "usage" definition of words. Some tools are geared more towards some approaches. Strong's, Youngs, lexicons concordances are geared towards the "usage" definition. Some other lexicons delve more into the definition angle - like Kittel's I'm thinking of.
Were the words these writers wrote and spoke that which God inspired in their hearts and they crafted with their pens and tongues? Or were they words of a master marionnette, pulling the strings on the puppets in such a precise way that the touch is seen puppet to puppet?
I think in the Way we were trying to do mathematical proofs with people-oriented words.
I'm not sure there is a "one way fits all" answer to those first two questions, aside from saying "scope." It's simply whatever way makes the most sense and best fits with all other related scripture. And, depending on my familiarity with its usages in scripture, I may not be sure (or care) which way I lean towards. If the way its written in English makes really good sense just the way it is, trying to extract another meaning from it can actually be a deterrent or distraction from truth that is (to put it bluntly) as "plain as the nose on your face" when viewed from the right perspective. What's "the right" perspective? Well, one that at least has a big healthy dose of humility in it, I suppose (...as that's usually the most notable deficiency in perspectives that tend to end up being "not quite right.") After all, understanding (i.e., knowing exactly how it fits together in the overall scheme) spiritual things isn't really a product of the intellect, it is from the Lord. And you know, if the Lord doesn't open it for us, well... we can slice and dice and take it apart as many ways as can be imagined, we're never really going to be able to put the pieces together so that it makes sense to the human mind (and is genuinely "believable"), much less, make perfectly good sense.
No, I do not see the writers of scripture as the puppets of a master marionette. However, I do believe that God can at times (and many times has) work(ed) within the mind of man in such a way that we are... how shall I say it politely... quite unaware, if not outright oblivious, to His workings.
I'm not sure there is a "one way fits all" answer to those first two questions, aside from saying "scope." It's simply whatever way makes the most sense and best fits with all other related scripture. And, depending on my familiarity with its usages in scripture, I may not be sure (or care) which way I lean towards. If the way its written in English makes really good sense just the way it is, trying to extract another meaning from it can actually be a deterrent or distraction from truth that is (to put it bluntly) as "plain as the nose on your face" when viewed from the right perspective. What's "the right" perspective? Well, one that at least has a big healthy dose of humility in it, I suppose (...as that's usually the most notable deficiency in perspectives that tend to end up being "not quite right.") After all, understanding (i.e., knowing exactly how it fits together in the overall scheme) spiritual things isn't really a product of the intellect, it is from the Lord. And you know, if the Lord doesn't open it for us, well... we can slice and dice and take it apart as many ways as can be imagined, we're never really going to be able to put the pieces together so that it makes sense to the human mind (and is genuinely "believable"), much less, make perfectly good sense.
No, I do not see the writers of scripture as the puppets of a master marionette. However, I do believe that God can at times (and many times has) work(ed) within the mind of man in such a way that we are... how shall I say it politely... quite unaware, if not outright oblivious, to His workings.
So it seems study of scripture is somewhat of a jigsaw puzzle with common sense interlaced. Do I have a better approach? No, I believe I also function on somewhat of a blend of those aspects as well. Is my blend the same as yours? Probably not. So on the jigsaw puzzle side of things it seems we can come to some form of agreement on a "loose fitting". i.e. if a scripture context is talking about oranges, then an apple verse meaning in the midst doesn't flow. But I think there are degrees of this - one area in focus to me is fundamentalism, which I am growing away from. A recent highlight we had in the discussion was Peter's description in scripture of Paul's writings. The more strictly you try to squeeze scripture in my opinion the more it eludes you.
On the common sense side of things, we have a lot of things seemingly eliminated by common sense, or assumed by common sense. However, common sense carries an element of subjective opinion into it. This makes it difficult to reach common grounds, as what might be common sense in my family is sheer lunacy in another's family, for example.
As I am growing away from fundamentalism, my view of the fitting scriptures together is moving from a jigsaw puzzle approach to more of a topical approach and inspirational approach. Where there are holes I look to fill them more in the fashion you would a fiberglass hole - a bunch of layers of fiber and resin formed over the hole, not a precise matching to the edges. Anyway that's the best description I have to my approach lately and growth lately.
As to the Lord opening topics or not, I also view that as my personal journey - that certainly happens in my life. Something I possibly could have learned many years ago I learn now. I don't think there should be a predeterministic view towards this - each should grown in their continued personal journey along this path. Although I would say that the book of Revelation has quite a lot of speculative parallel imagery to people what with words in the book and modern technology.
As to God's workings, I view the human body working in that fashion - pain has an awareness to most body parts, emergency situations. But the intricate detail of how the foot and hand works has to have some form of specialization to it. I don't believe the intent of that imagery in Corinthians of the one body is that of a 3rd Reich lock-step sold-out group of individuals who have an inflated opinion of themselves. Yes God works in the one body. Yes I'm largely unaware of most of it - I'm only aware of some of which pertains to my life and direct surroundings, and not always aware of how God is working even there. I only get a glimpse at times. I view scriptures saying we see through a glass darkly as the reason for that.
Happened upon this relatively short (8:32 minutes long) video that notes a significant difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism that I happen to agree with.
Never heard of this guy before, so I don't know what else he speaks on or what his background it.
Happened upon this relatively short (8:32 minutes long) video that notes a significant difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism that I happen to agree with.
Never heard of this guy before, so I don't know what else he speaks on or what his background it.
I looked at this the other day. I'm not as well versed on terms like "covenant theology" - but I kind of get the gist of where they are going with it. If you look at Hebrews and God's relationship to Israel, basically it can be governed into periods of "covenants" or agreements between man and God in various forms as the explanation between dichotomies in scripture, and the migration of things over time.
To me that type of thinking makes more sense than a strict dispensational pattern where God is on a timeline and puny humans have to figure out where they fit before relating with Him.
Where I may differ from a "covenant" approach strictly is that I would question whether or not Jesus put an end to that type of thing with his instructions to not swear oaths but instead just mean what you say.
I looked at this the other day. I'm not as well versed on terms like "covenant theology" - but I kind of get the gist of where they are going with it. If you look at Hebrews and God's relationship to Israel, basically it can be governed into periods of "covenants" or agreements between man and God in various forms as the explanation between dichotomies in scripture, and the migration of things over time.
To me that type of thinking makes more sense than a strict dispensational pattern where God is on a timeline and puny humans have to figure out where they fit before relating with Him.
Where I may differ from a "covenant" approach strictly is that I would question whether or not Jesus put an end to that type of thing with his instructions to not swear oaths but instead just mean what you say.
What you might not be seeing (and haven't addressed) is the essence of covenant theology, which is that the church (of today) has (permanently) replaced Israel. However, if you prefer thinking of covenants into separate periods of agreements between man and God, it sounds like a more recent modification of it called "New Covenant Theology" (which may even allow for a physical, millennial kingdom.) Needless to say, these things can get complicated (and confusing) rather quickly. Try this, for starters:
You're quite the brave preterist, daring to accuse any one else of ignoring certain bible verses (as many as can be easily be thrown back at you)... which btw, I (personally) haven't "completely ignored" as you accuse. Hebrews is, in many respects, very delicate "advanced class" stuff... which most want to handle like a bull in a china shop. And when you merely look at or try to pick up (or out) little pieces of information from it, chances are that you are looking at broken glass, instead of seeing it as a fascinating (and previously hidden) overlay upon all that can or could be known by the senses (extending back through all of man's history here on earth.)
So why do you think (and say) that "the new" only overlapped the old for this wee short little 40 years or so? Or accuse me that I have completely ignored something which, quite frankly, I suspect you may have never bothered to consider or look at from the perspective I just spoke of?
Brother, the new covenant was offered to Israel by Christ during his ministry. Except for the remnant most of Israel of that generation rejected it. Hebrews 8:8-12 was a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34. The writer/writers of Hebrews quoted these verses in Jeremiah to show Jews that this new covenant was in play FOR ISRAEL at the time Hebrews was written and the old covenant system, temple and all, was about to go out of existence. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not referring to the millennium. The same thing with Isaiah 11 which is another example of dispensationalists assuming that old testament verses are referring to the 1000 years. Isaiah 11 was fulfilled in Paul's day. Paul quoted Isaiah 11 in Romans 15:12 to show that the Gentile(Wolf) and the Lamb(Jew) were at the time Paul made those statements dwelling with each other peacefully in the new covenant: https://adammaarschalk.com/2012/01/29/romans-15-shows-that-isaiah-11-is-fulfilled/
I could care less about advanced class bullsh!t. This stuff really isn't that hard to figure out. Just takes some common sense. Btw, dispensationalists do ignore certain verses. One common one is James 5:8. Also dispensationalists ignore certain Greek words. I think in any advanced Bible class it is taught that the English version of the Bible came from Greek texts. So according to dispensationalists this Greek word "engys" really means "imminence" which they continue to say means could happen at any time even thousands of years into the future. That is real clever because in Revelation 22:10 Christ told John: Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. "Near" according to the Greek interlinear(http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/22-10.htm) means "near" in place or time. I don't see any gray area there and dispensationalists are even distorting what the English word "imminence" means: "the state or fact of being about to happen" which the Greek word "Mello"(http://biblehub.com/greek/3195.htm) also means which was ignored by the King James translators as well and that was even before dispensationalism! An example of "Mello" being left out in the king James is Revelation 17:8: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/17-8.htm .The Greek interlinear reads like this: The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition. The King James reads this way:The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition. Look at it for yourself. And there are a lot more examples of the Greek "mello" being ignored in the Epistles by the King James translators. Enough for tonight. Be well.
What you might not be seeing (and haven't addressed) is the essence of covenant theology, which is that the church (of today) has (permanently) replaced Israel. However, if you prefer thinking of covenants into separate periods of agreements between man and God, it sounds like a more recent modification of it called "New Covenant Theology" (which may even allow for a physical, millennial kingdom.) Needless to say, these things can get complicated (and confusing) rather quickly. Try this, for starters:
I wasn't going to post anymore tonight but with this one I have to. Here is an example of dispensationalists trying to label preterists or anybody rejecting dispensationalism as promoting replacement theology or at times even labeling us as anti-Semitic. It is pure bullsh!t. What got replaced is the old covenant system spiritually, not Israel as a nation state or the Jewish people or even people practicing Judaism. Gary Demar ran into this b.s. years ago and here is his reply:
I debated whether I should wade into this discussion, not really knowing whether I'd have the proper time to respond.. But I wanted to at least throw out a "different" view for whatever it's worth.. To me, the different Dispensational and Covenantal theologies (since there are a myriad of both) never seem to fit completely for me..
Most "Covenant Theologies" went out the door (or at least out of favor) after World War 2, the reason being that most(not all) espoused replacement theology. That is, Israel was replaced with the Church, which in light of the Holocaust was a big big No No (think Anti-Defamation League). And so what took it's place was Dispensational theology, the young hatchling that had been gaining momentum in the early 1900s. If nothing more than the reason that at least now God has 2 blessed groups, the Israel of old (to be returned in the later ages) and the Church.
My problem with both of these, the replacement theology of some Covenant beliefs, and the way Dispensations relates to these 2 different groups, seems to once again paint God as one who discriminates with different plans for different races or groups of people. Personally I don't see the christian bible agreeing on this. While there is no doubt (in my mind at least) that God works with individuals or groups differently at times, giving each different affairs to handle on this earth(oikonomos) . But the plan of God, as represented in the Tanakh and christian writings, from the beginning has not been one of segregation, but one of uniting. There is one God, and one Lord. One Body and one Spirit. There is not Jew and Gentiles. There is one. That has been God's aim. His people. His congregation of the the righteous. And it is this congregation that has been given many different names. Whether it be Israel or the new creation, it is the same thing being mentioned. Mostly figuratively in the Tanakh and once the secret was revealed, it was given more descriptions. It had to remain a secret in the past, so the Tanakh describes this "shadow", this secret that God kept. It wasn't a thing called grace. He already spoke of grace. It wasn't the gentiles will be saved, this was spoken of too. It was Christ. It was our Lord, within whom the whole congregation of those who put their trust in Him (gentile or judean) would live. This is the secret Ephesians 3 speaks (at least for me).
God has only one group. One plan. One people. His people. And he made a covenant a covenant that was based on a permanent promise. Now as time progressed, he re-iterated this self-same covenant with different people. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, including creation itself. But another covenant was made. A covenant that brings death. A covenant of old. And it is passing away, but has not. Fur until the death has been destroyed, this covenant of old, also given to different people in different ways, is rather important. It was made with Adam and Eve at the beginning. It was given to the nation called Isael in the form of what is called Moses's law. And yet, all those to whom this covenant was NOT given (as spoken in Romans) still died because of it. Because it is still in effect, people still die. And Christ came to redeem us. By making the new way plain. By uniting all things under him. Not by keeping old man made distinctions. But one man. One spirit. One body. One new covenant that the scriptures say Paul ministered. The old covenant of the law still has a purpose, still is in effect, and one of those purposes is to bring us unto Christ. But once we have found our Lord, there is no need for the law. And He has given us new life. Life that the new covenant gives in him.
And at least for me, this is what the scriptures speak of. Divsions and discriminating is the opposie of what the God of my Lord spoke of. Jesus spoke before his death in a prayer to our Father, that we would be one. Yet we are divided. And if our understanding of scripture divides groups up, you have a salvation for Israel and a salvation for the Church. And now Christ also is divided. The word covenant in the Hebrew language actually doesn't mean covenant. It means a division. It means a cutting. But it also means the best choice.. The choice between those 2. Heaven or earth. Old or the new covenant. Israel of the flesh or Israel of God. Ephraim or Manasseh. God's people united under the lordship and direction of His annointed or united with the world. That is our covenant choice God has given and does not change. One that is permanent and one that is conditional which no man can obtain life by.
Forgot.. A chart.. Not one I made, not necessarily 100% accurate, but good enough for the topic at hand.
Brother, the new covenant was offered to Israel by Christ during his ministry.
You suppose that is and was the first and only time? Just what was it that "the old covenant" was supposedly patterned after?
22 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:
Except for the remnant most of Israel of that generation rejected it.
As did the generations that went before, and those that have come after.
22 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:
the old covenant system, temple and all, was about to go out of existence.
Yeah, try telling an orthodox Jew that.
22 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:
I could care less about advanced class bullsh!t.
So I noticed. (btw, statement had nothing to do with anything twi did or didn't promote. Hebrews isn't milk, and not for babes. It's nothing short of nice chewy steak.)
22 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:
Btw, dispensationalists do ignore certain verses.
So what if many or most of them do or did? I thought the discussion was here and now, not with them. If you're only interested in (or intent on) promoting preterism, try starting a new thread and take it there and see how much interest you can stir up with it.
I debated whether I should wade into this discussion, not really knowing whether I'd have the proper time to respond.. But I wanted to at least throw out a "different" view for whatever it's worth..
glad you did
11 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
God has only one group.
you real sure 'bout that? 'cause my Bible says that God quite intentionally separated Israel from all the other nations of the world. Why? Or what for, if (as you say) He has only one group?
Besides, don't you think it a bit strange that God would tell Abraham that He would multiply "thy seed" both as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the sea shore? Ever wonder why they are added together, rather than given as one or the other. Furthermore, what's this "marriage of the Lamb" in Revelations 19 all about if there's really only one?
12 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
And he made a covenant a covenant that was based on a permanent promise. Now as time progressed, he re-iterated this self-same covenant with different people. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, including creation itself. But another covenant was made. A covenant that brings death. A covenant of old. And it is passing away, but has not.
I might be able to better get what you're thinking is if you had been a bit more explicit on the details. When you say, "another covenant was made"... seems you might be referring to the law (of Moses)? I'm a bit lost. Isn't that which he gave to Israel patterned after that (heavenly) which already was?
12 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
A covenant of old. And it is passing away, but has not. Fur until the death has been destroyed, this covenant of old, also given to different people in different ways, is rather important. It was made with Adam and Eve at the beginning.
Hmm... now it seems you have it backed up to Adam, at the beginning. Okay, let's go with that. What isn't clear, though, is whether you're thinking of one covenant with two sides (one side life, one side death), or two covenants (one all good - of life, another all bad - of death.) Seems like you want it to be two covenants, one given to one group of people, the other given to a different group of people in different ways.
12 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
Because it is still in effect, people still die.
If we left off calling this (whatever it is you're after here) a "covenant," it might actually make more sense to me. Death, which was in place (or "in effect") with Adam does indeed continue on through now. (even as it is written, it is appointed unto men once to die...)
12 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
The word covenant in the Hebrew language actually doesn't mean covenant. It means a division. It means a cutting. But it also means the best choice..
Interesting point.
13 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
The choice between those 2. Heaven or earth. Old or the new covenant. Israel of the flesh or Israel of God.
The general direction of that makes sense enough to me, but not the specifics. I'm more inclined to think of it as two sides of the coin, one side being the earthly, the other the heavenly. And I see the "Israel of God" not (completely) restricted to the genetic descendants of Abraham, but as being the flesh and blood people accepting/trusting in the promised Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ (who, as we know, was and will be plainly revealed and made known in the physical world.) Still, it is all by their senses. An earthly, sensual, and "believing" people of God (and primarily, though not necessarily exclusively, the genetic descendants of Abraham. Might include those in white robes mentioned in Rev.7:13.)
Of course, I might be mistaken, and have parts of this wrong. However, it does reflect my present view on some number of things that I don't see as being (probably for good reason...) perfectly clear and plainly spelled out in scripture.
you real sure 'bout that? 'cause my Bible says that God quite intentionally separated Israel from all the other nations of the world. Why? Or what for, if (as you say) He has only one group?
Here is another example of ignoring certain verses. In this case Romans 10:12: " For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
Israel was separated from the Gentile nations in the old covenant. Show me in the new testament where Israel is still separated. Not talking about physical Israel as a nation state or the Jews as a race of people. Spiritually speaking, in the new covenant which is currently in progress, there is no difference.
Here's the full definition. I also am showing my work.
"
Oikonomia(also spelledoikonomeia,economiaoreconomy) literally means "household management," the "law of the house," or "house building," and refers primarily to two related concepts in the Orthodox Church—the divine plan for man's salvation and the specificepiscopalapplication of thecanonsin the life of the Church. The latter usage is a derivation of the former.
Oikonomia is one of two ways of observing the Canons of the Church, the other isAkriveiaor strict adherence (precision, exactness). Whereas the application ofOikonomiais generally regarded as being a more flexible application or interpretation of the Canons, the application ofAkriveiais regarded as being a more precise and strict one.Pastoral Discretionis of key importance in either application."
Chockfull, thanks for the info / links on oikonomia... the etymological root of our word “economy”...which originally meant house management- - but current definition in use usually means ‘management of MATERIAL resources ‘ dates back to late 15th century (from what I’m able to find from quick internet search)...but I think the linkage between the two meanings is rather obvious - in the work force we refer to those responsible for the well-being of employees - from hiring to firing, payroll, benefits, keeping up on state/federal laws, etc. as the department of Human Resources...I think this goes along the same lines as your thing on oikonomia being a more flexible application or interpretation of the Canons ...as I mentioned in an earlier post - love is the fulfilling of the law and perhaps house management in the context of believers is just as much about how we deal with one another as about how God deals with us....just a thought.
Another word/idea that goes along these lines is “stewardship “ - the job of supervising, managing or taking care of an organization ,property, or resources. That makes me think of Luke 12:
42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Might be a good thing to ask ourselves occasionally in regards to any gifts, resources or responsibilities we’ve been given - “ am I being a good steward of all that?”
I can see how some folks get “dispensation “ out of that - dispensation being a system of government or organization AS EXISTING AT A PARTICULAR TIME- - I capitalized / bolded / italicized the last part of the definition to highlight what I think is the crux of dispensationalism - an historical progressive series or stages of development...but I think dispensationalism may be somewhat problematic by overthinking or complicating the supposed implications; dispensationalists tend to a literal interpretation of the Bible and also carry on like their way is the best and perhaps most accurate method to interpret the Bible.
Millard Erickson said something interesting about dispensationalism in his "Christian Theology" (on pages 1162, 1163), that despite the stress on literal interpretation - there is also a tendency toward a typological understanding in some narratives and poetic passages which at times approaches the old allegorizing method - which is to interpret or represent something symbolically. An example that Erickson gives on allegorizing is the frequent explanation of The Song of Solomon as showing Christ's love for his church - even though the book says nothing about Christ or the church...
generally I think dispensationalists do realize that salvation has always been the same - by grace through faith - I don't think they're promoting different means or methods of salvation - but rather promoting the idea there are different stages or phases to God's ultimate plan...I don't have a serious beef with much of dispensationalism since it does not ignore the simple things like grace and faith - and I can see the attraction it has for some folks who may not be familiar with systematic theology - like myself when I first took PFAL - it gave me a very convenient framework for understanding the Bible - although I now believe it was a flawed understanding - by my acquiring a wider scope of things... and I think one of the things missing in dispensationalism is the centrality of Christ.
besides that I suspect there's some kind of compartmentalization at play in dispensationalism to avoid addressing or even acknowledging contradictions in the Bible - I don't mean to digress into a debate on the inerrancy of scripture - but I do see why wierwille would use something like dispensationalism as one of the ways to get folks to believe conflicting ideas can co-exist.
My own opinion / speculation is to view the “divine plan for man’s salvation “ mentioned earlier - as perhaps a unified design that revolves around simple recurring themes like faith and the person of Jesus Christ (whether foretold, foreshadowed, illustrated or actively present)- - faith and Jesus Christ are not limited to a particular time - past, present or future...we must ask what is essential or what is of the greatest importance to the divine plan for man's salvation? My answer to that is Jesus Christ.
On 6/30/2018 at 9:59 AM, Infoabsorption said:
Here is another example of ignoring certain verses.
Actually, it looks to me like another example of you (or whomever you're quoting) not having much of a general comprehension (much less understanding) of dispensationalism.
you real sure 'bout that? 'cause my Bible says that God quite intentionally separated Israel from all the other nations of the world. Why? Or what for, if (as you say) He has only one group?
Yes, I'm sure. And I don't think one reason would be sufficient. There are quite a few. But one of the reasons, was as a shadow. For His people. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel (Rom 9). But God has and will intentially separate His people from all the "other" peoples of this earth. Israel was the name given to the man, Jacob. He came from Isaac, a shadow of Christ. And Jacob, a man of the flesh, who, like all men of the flesh wrestle against God (figuratively, as Hosea says Jacob wrestled with an angel, while Jacob says He saw God face to face), just as we all fought with God until just as Jacob did, were blessed of God and stopped wrestling, and on account of this, was renamed Israel. Jacob's change into Israel was a shadow of all those who put their trust in God.
Quote
Besides, don't you think it a bit strange that God would tell Abraham that He would multiply "thy seed" both as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the sea shore? Ever wonder why they are added together, rather than given as one or the other. Furthermore, what's this "marriage of the Lamb" in Revelations 19 all about if there's really only one?
You're mixing things up there.. Don't forget that Paul spoke of "thy seed" as being singular. That is referring to Christ. The seed that was promised to Adam and Eve. The seed that was prophesied of old. And in "thy seed" shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. All the nations (Israel didn't exist then). But Abraham had 2 sons, yes? Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac had 2 sons, yes? Esau and Jacob? The former being of the flesh, the later - chosen by God. And the Jews and other nations have been united under that seed. Abraham's seed, which is us united in Christ.
And maybe I forgot something, but doesn't marriage imply a joining together of 2 things into one? What 2 things would that be? Jews and Gentiles? Nope.. That was done in Christ. Could it be Ephraim and Judah?! No doubt there. For Israel and Judah shall be united once again. And the marriage shall be a fulfilling of one of God's great promises to His people, that is, all who put their trust in him(the corenerstone of Zion / Christ / lion of the tribe of Judah), for they shall not be put to shame.
I might be able to better get what you're thinking is if you had been a bit more explicit on the details. When you say, "another covenant was made"... seems you might be referring to the law (of Moses)? I'm a bit lost. Isn't that which he gave to Israel patterned after that (heavenly) which already was?
"another covenant", can be referred to as a covenant with it's basis in law. A covenant based on conditions. It is this covenant given to Adam and Eve, that once they failed to heed those conditions, they were kicked out of the garden.
Quote
Hmm... now it seems you have it backed up to Adam, at the beginning. Okay, let's go with that. What isn't clear, though, is whether you're thinking of one covenant with two sides (one side life, one side death), or two covenants (one all good - of life, another all bad - of death.) Seems like you want it to be two covenants, one given to one group of people, the other given to a different group of people in different ways.
There are 2 covenants. Galatians 3 sets these forth. The one of promise, which Christ is the mediator of, which is by promise. The other has it's basis in the law. They both have been in effect. And they both are important until death has had it's final defeat. They both are good. Just because the law brings death, Romans still says it is considered good. And as Galatians 3 states, is it against the promies of God? No, it's not. They both are entirely important. But for different reasons. They are both entirely for everyone and for our benefit. But we, who are in Christ, have died to the one, that we might be made alive by the other.
Quote
If we left off calling this (whatever it is you're after here) a "covenant," it might actually make more sense to me. Death, which was in place (or "in effect") with Adam does indeed continue on through now. (even as it is written, it is appointed unto men once to die...)
You are welcome to call it whatever you desire. A rose is still a rose by any other name. It is translated as a covenant in the Tanakh and as a testament sometimes in the Christian writings in English (thus the new testament instead of new covenant).
Quote
The general direction of that makes sense enough to me, but not the specifics. I'm more inclined to think of it as two sides of the coin, one side being the earthly, the other the heavenly. And I see the "Israel of God" not (completely) restricted to the genetic descendants of Abraham, but as being the flesh and blood people accepting/trusting in the promised Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ (who, as we know, was and will be plainly revealed and made known in the physical world.) Still, it is all by their senses. An earthly, sensual, and "believing" people of God (and primarily, though not necessarily exclusively, the genetic descendants of Abraham. Might include those in white robes mentioned in Rev.7:13.)
Am I misunderstanding you, in that you don't see those that trust "in the promised Messiah" as including you in that "Israel of God?? Since you do believe in Christ, yes? Messiah and Christ are just Hebrew/Greek words regarding the same thing. But you do see yourself as the "seed of Abraham" (according to Gal 3) yes?
Chockfull, thanks for the info / links on oikonomia... the etymological root of our word “economy”...which originally meant house management- - but current definition in use usually means ‘management of MATERIAL resources ‘ dates back to late 15th century (from what I’m able to find from quick internet search)...but I think the linkage between the two meanings is rather obvious - in the work force we refer to those responsible for the well-being of employees - from hiring to firing, payroll, benefits, keeping up on state/federal laws, etc. as the department of Human Resources...I think this goes along the same lines as your thing on oikonomia being a more flexible application or interpretation of the Canons ...as I mentioned in an earlier post - love is the fulfilling of the law and perhaps house management in the context of believers is just as much about how we deal with one another as about how God deals with us....just a thought.
Another word/idea that goes along these lines is “stewardship “ - the job of supervising, managing or taking care of an organization ,property, or resources. That makes me think of Luke 12:
42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Might be a good thing to ask ourselves occasionally in regards to any gifts, resources or responsibilities we’ve been given - “ am I being a good steward of all that?”
I can see how some folks get “dispensation “ out of that - dispensation being a system of government or organization AS EXISTING AT A PARTICULAR TIME- - I capitalized / bolded / italicized the last part of the definition to highlight what I think is the crux of dispensationalism - an historical progressive series or stages of development...but I think dispensationalism may be somewhat problematic by overthinking or complicating the supposed implications; dispensationalists tend to a literal interpretation of the Bible and also carry on like their way is the best and perhaps most accurate method to interpret the Bible.
Millard Erickson said something interesting about dispensationalism in his "Christian Theology" (on pages 1162, 1163), that despite the stress on literal interpretation - there is also a tendency toward a typological understanding in some narratives and poetic passages which at times approaches the old allegorizing method - which is to interpret or represent something symbolically. An example that Erickson gives on allegorizing is the frequent explanation of The Song of Solomon as showing Christ's love for his church - even though the book says nothing about Christ or the church...
generally I think dispensationalists do realize that salvation has always been the same - by grace through faith - I don't think they're promoting different means or methods of salvation - but rather promoting the idea there are different stages or phases to God's ultimate plan...I don't have a serious beef with much of dispensationalism since it does not ignore the simple things like grace and faith - and I can see the attraction it has for some folks who may not be familiar with systematic theology - like myself when I first took PFAL - it gave me a very convenient framework for understanding the Bible - although I now believe it was a flawed understanding - by my acquiring a wider scope of things... and I think one of the things missing in dispensationalism is the centrality of Christ.
besides that I suspect there's some kind of compartmentalization at play in dispensationalism to avoid addressing or even acknowledging contradictions in the Bible - I don't mean to digress into a debate on the inerrancy of scripture - but I do see why wierwille would use something like dispensationalism as one of the ways to get folks to believe conflicting ideas can co-exist.
My own opinion / speculation is to view the “divine plan for man’s salvation “ mentioned earlier - as perhaps a unified design that revolves around simple recurring themes like faith and the person of Jesus Christ (whether foretold, foreshadowed, illustrated or actively present)- - faith and Jesus Christ are not limited to a particular time - past, present or future...we must ask what is essential or what is of the greatest importance to the divine plan for man's salvation? My answer to that is Jesus Christ.
Good thoughts here. One of the main things I struggle with regarding scriptures and how they relate to mankind through the centuries and millenniums is when I start to get a feel that the mental constructs involved in fitting together and making sense of scripture start to become more intricately involved than the scripture itself that is a red flag. If I need a 10 page mental model to understand a 3 line scripture, that is the point I start questioning the logic that led me there.
We've traversed a few roads on the dispensationalism topic in this thread. We are looking at working definitions, we are delving into detailed discussions of ideas regarding the divisions of time as well as the stewardship of people's lives and materials. We are discussing covenant relationships between God and man. If I back up to a 15,000 foot level, this starts to make more sense. God cares about how we live our lives. Some important areas regarding stewardship of how we live our lives are how we take care of people and their lives, and how we take care of our things with a care towards not wasting physical resources God has richly provided us with. Also, that we keep God and humility towards and thankfulness for Him in the forefront of our minds, so as not to become elevated with our own importance.
Whatever rules regarding living and legal matters God has exist for a time, not for all time. One of Paul's comments in the Colossians letter talks about this. (Col 2:21-23 Berean study bible)
If I approach looking at the timelines of mankind laid out in the Bible more from this perspective to me it makes more sense. I don't need to sacrifice livestock because I don't own any other than what is processed in my freezer. But we still do food drives in churches. What God cares about is how I keep Elohim in my reverence, how I treat others, and how I steward my physicals.
I would agree with you that many times labels - "dispensationalists" , "fundamentalism", "covenant theory", "preterism", etc. impede progress in discussion - you mentioned that you thought dispensationalists generally think salvation is by grace through faith just like the rest of Christians. I think that humans like to sort other humans into buckets. If they can do that, rather than relying on thought power to interact with a person, they can rely on their previous experience interacting with a similar (to them) type of person and not have to re-visit logic and thoughts. They can dismiss another offhand. We all do this. It's not all bad. In a way it is a defense mechanism keeping us safe, and a way people think they are living avoiding the forms of all evil.
But the more real of a picture we want to have the more we are going to have to bypass this type of logic with each other and be real and authentic. It's hard work. Actually read every line. Actually consider every phrase. Actually look up references. Actually relate to each other even though we can't see each other and are missing visual and audio cues.
That's where I'm at. Thanks for all the discussion all.
Am I misunderstanding you, in that you don't see those that trust "in the promised Messiah" as including you in that "Israel of God?? Since you do believe in Christ, yes? Messiah and Christ are just Hebrew/Greek words regarding the same thing. But you do see yourself as the "seed of Abraham" (according to Gal 3) yes?
Jumping in on one angle on this - sorry for any interruption of logic guys. I would see myself as the "seed of Abraham" in a figurative sense. Hebrews 11 to me kind of gives a flavor like "your believing makes you Israel" kind of thing.
Which leads to a bit of enlightenment, yet another question.
Is "Israel" a figurative term in the Bible? Here? Where?
Jumping in on one angle on this - sorry for any interruption of logic guys. I would see myself as the "seed of Abraham" in a figurative sense. Hebrews 11 to me kind of gives a flavor like "your believing makes you Israel" kind of thing.
Which leads to a bit of enlightenment, yet another question.
Is "Israel" a figurative term in the Bible? Here? Where?
"Israel"- Hebrew, "beloved of God." ("Theophilus"- Greek, "beloved of God.") Galatians 4 seems to match your thinking. It contrasts the Law with the Promise, and it contrasts Abraham's children of Hagar (the bondwoman) with Abraham's children of Sarah (children of the promise), and says that the Law is analogous to the children of the bondwoman and corresponds to the nation of Israel, while the Promise is analogous to the children of Sarah, and that's US.
Galatians 4: 22ff
"22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."
===================================
That seems fairly straightforward to me, but it's not a universally-held read of those verses.
Here's the same verses, with me commenting along.
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons[Ishmael and Jacob/Israel], the one by a bondmaid[Ishmael, Hagar's son], the other by a freewoman[Jacob/Israel, Sarah's son.].
23 But he who was of the bondwoman[Ishmael] was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman[Jacob/Israel] was by promise.
[Ishmael's existence was entirely due to an attempt to physically accomodate God without taking His promise literal- which would have been miraculous. Jacob/Israel's existence was entirely due to taking God's promise literally, it being a promise of a miracle.]
24 Which things are an allegory[They symbolize something]: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.[/b]["Answering to Jerusalem which now is" at the time of that writing was the literal 12 tribes of the nation of Israel. That corresponds to ISHMAEL, the child of the bondwoman, and they hold Mount Sinai as a huge deal.][/b]
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.[We are the children of promise, the children of The Promise of God- just as Jacob/Israel's existence as a son was entirely due to God's Promise. We correspond to Jacob/Israel, and a heavenly Jerusalem which is not a physical city on this planet.]
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
[God took care of Ishmael and he prospered-but nothing like the child of the promise prospered. Ishmael troubled Israel/Jacob then, and as of this writing, the Jews troubled the Christians. Both won't be dealt with on the same level any more than those were the first time. Jacob/Israel was a "type" of US, and Ishmael was a "type" of the Jews.
=======================================
Really, I think that's pretty straightforward. However, I obviously don't speak for everyone.
"There are 2 covenants. Galatians 3 sets these forth. The one of promise, which Christ is the mediator of, which is by promise. The other has it's basis in the law. They both have been in effect. And they both are important until death has had it's final defeat. They both are good. Just because the law brings death, Romans still says it is considered good. And as Galatians 3 states, is it against the promise of God? No, it's not. They both are entirely important. But for different reasons. They are both entirely for everyone and for our benefit. But we, who are in Christ, have died to the one, that we might be made alive by the other. "
I see it this way also, T&O. I think Galatians seems to address it more than once- since chapter 4 tackles it from a different angle.
Chockfull, thanks for the info / links on oikonomia... the etymological root of our word “economy”...which originally meant house management- - but current definition in use usually means ‘management of MATERIAL resources ‘ dates back to late 15th century (from what I’m able to find from quick internet search)...but I think the linkage between the two meanings is rather obvious - in the work force we refer to those responsible for the well-being of employees - from hiring to firing, payroll, benefits, keeping up on state/federal laws, etc. as the department of Human Resources...
Yes, but I think the word "economy" actually communicates something much more complex than that (which is why I like it, probably even more so than "dispensation" as long as financial prosperity isn't so elevated that it overpowers the overall sense of it.)
On 6/30/2018 at 1:16 PM, T-Bone said:
I can see how some folks get “dispensation “ out of that - dispensation being a system of government or organization AS EXISTING AT A PARTICULAR TIME- - I capitalized / bolded / italicized the last part of the definition to highlight what I think is the crux of dispensationalism - an historical progressive series or stages of development...
I'd be more inclined to agree with that if it were referred to as an economy existing at a particular time.
On 6/30/2018 at 1:16 PM, T-Bone said:
dispensationalists tend to a literal interpretation of the Bible and also carry on like their way is the best and perhaps most accurate method to interpret the Bible.
Hardly a fair criticism, as there's really nothing unusual or strange about someone (or some group) promoting "their way" as the best and perhaps most accurate method to interpret the Bible.
On 6/30/2018 at 1:16 PM, T-Bone said:
generally I think dispensationalists do realize that salvation has always been the same - by grace through faith - I don't think they're promoting different means or methods of salvation - but rather promoting the idea there are different stages or phases to God's ultimate plan...
by grace and through faith ? okay, sure. But let's get honest. What what does that really look like or mean on a practical level?
How do you think someone living in Israel at the time King David was saved? By believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead?
How could they, given that hadn't even happened yet?
What about Peter, or any of the other apostles, prior to Jesus Christ's crucifixion?
Do you suppose that no one was (nor could be) saved prior to his death and resurrection, simply because that is what you might see as being the crux for your own salvation?
On 6/30/2018 at 1:16 PM, T-Bone said:
and I can see the attraction it has for some folks who may not be familiar with systematic theology -
well, not to disappoint or surprise you, but I see the attraction even for some that are very familiar with systematic theology.
On 6/30/2018 at 1:16 PM, T-Bone said:
... and I think one of the things missing in dispensationalism is the centrality of Christ.
I see that statement as being a (rather common around here) misperception resulting from tainted twi teachings or practices (and, more candidly, a rather common miscommunication of some number of vpw's teachings on "Christ in you.")
On 6/30/2018 at 1:16 PM, T-Bone said:
My own opinion / speculation is to view the “divine plan for man’s salvation “ mentioned earlier - as perhaps a unified design that revolves around simple recurring themes like faith and the person of Jesus Christ (whether foretold, foreshadowed, illustrated or actively present)-
You're mixing things up there.. Don't forget that Paul spoke of "thy seed" as being singular. That seed is referring to Christ.
Of course it is, and I'm not mixing things up (except maybe in the heads of a few others here that have never considered it like this before.) Seed doesn't remain as "seed" after it germinates and grows. (see John 12:24.) The references you gave are to what was previously promised (in the future, from those it was given to.)
6 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
And maybe I forgot something, but doesn't marriage imply a joining together of 2 things into one? What 2 things would that be? Jews and Gentiles? Nope.. That was done in Christ. Could it be Ephraim and Judah?! No doubt there. For Israel and Judah shall be united once again. And the marriage shall be a fulfilling of one of God's great promises to His people, that is, all who put their trust in him(the corenerstone of Zion / Christ / lion of the tribe of Judah), for they shall not be put to shame.
Seems to me like you're only thinking about it from an earthly (sensual) perspective. But, you obviously got it all figured out, so let's leave it at that.
from the garden of Eden.
(to me, leaving that off is almost like saying that money is the root of all evil.)
6 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
There are 2 covenants. Galatians 3 sets these forth. The one of promise, which Christ is the mediator of, which is by promise. The other has it's basis in the law. They both have been in effect. And they both are important until death has had it's final defeat. They both are good. Just because the law brings death, Romans still says it is considered good. And as Galatians 3 states, is it against the promies of God? No, it's not. They both are entirely important. But for different reasons. They are both entirely for everyone and for our benefit. But we, who are in Christ, have died to the one, that we might be made alive by the other.
You are welcome to call it whatever you desire. A rose is still a rose by any other name. It is translated as a covenant in the Tanakh and as a testament sometimes in the Christian writings in English (thus the new testament instead of new covenant).
Am I misunderstanding you, in that you don't see those that trust "in the promised Messiah" as including you in that "Israel of God?? Since you do believe in Christ, yes? Messiah and Christ are just Hebrew/Greek words regarding the same thing. But you do see yourself as the "seed of Abraham" (according to Gal 3) yes?
As for covenants, and one of them being the law, I guess I just don't see there being only two.
And the questions in your last paragraph are rather mixed up (and far less than clear.) Do I see myself as Abraham's seed? Yes. But evidently not in the same sense that you might think of it.
But the more real of a picture we want to have the more we are going to have to bypass this type of logic with each other and be real and authentic. It's hard work. Actually read every line. Actually consider every phrase. Actually look up references. Actually relate to each other even though we can't see each other and are missing visual and audio cues.
That's where I'm at. Thanks for all the discussion all.
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
TLC
I'm not sure there is a "one way fits all" answer to those first two questions, aside from saying "scope." It's simply whatever way makes the most sense and best fits with all other related scripture. And, depending on my familiarity with its usages in scripture, I may not be sure (or care) which way I lean towards. If the way its written in English makes really good sense just the way it is, trying to extract another meaning from it can actually be a deterrent or distraction from truth that is (to put it bluntly) as "plain as the nose on your face" when viewed from the right perspective. What's "the right" perspective? Well, one that at least has a big healthy dose of humility in it, I suppose (...as that's usually the most notable deficiency in perspectives that tend to end up being "not quite right.") After all, understanding (i.e., knowing exactly how it fits together in the overall scheme) spiritual things isn't really a product of the intellect, it is from the Lord. And you know, if the Lord doesn't open it for us, well... we can slice and dice and take it apart as many ways as can be imagined, we're never really going to be able to put the pieces together so that it makes sense to the human mind (and is genuinely "believable"), much less, make perfectly good sense.
No, I do not see the writers of scripture as the puppets of a master marionette. However, I do believe that God can at times (and many times has) work(ed) within the mind of man in such a way that we are... how shall I say it politely... quite unaware, if not outright oblivious, to His workings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So it seems study of scripture is somewhat of a jigsaw puzzle with common sense interlaced. Do I have a better approach? No, I believe I also function on somewhat of a blend of those aspects as well. Is my blend the same as yours? Probably not. So on the jigsaw puzzle side of things it seems we can come to some form of agreement on a "loose fitting". i.e. if a scripture context is talking about oranges, then an apple verse meaning in the midst doesn't flow. But I think there are degrees of this - one area in focus to me is fundamentalism, which I am growing away from. A recent highlight we had in the discussion was Peter's description in scripture of Paul's writings. The more strictly you try to squeeze scripture in my opinion the more it eludes you.
On the common sense side of things, we have a lot of things seemingly eliminated by common sense, or assumed by common sense. However, common sense carries an element of subjective opinion into it. This makes it difficult to reach common grounds, as what might be common sense in my family is sheer lunacy in another's family, for example.
As I am growing away from fundamentalism, my view of the fitting scriptures together is moving from a jigsaw puzzle approach to more of a topical approach and inspirational approach. Where there are holes I look to fill them more in the fashion you would a fiberglass hole - a bunch of layers of fiber and resin formed over the hole, not a precise matching to the edges. Anyway that's the best description I have to my approach lately and growth lately.
As to the Lord opening topics or not, I also view that as my personal journey - that certainly happens in my life. Something I possibly could have learned many years ago I learn now. I don't think there should be a predeterministic view towards this - each should grown in their continued personal journey along this path. Although I would say that the book of Revelation has quite a lot of speculative parallel imagery to people what with words in the book and modern technology.
As to God's workings, I view the human body working in that fashion - pain has an awareness to most body parts, emergency situations. But the intricate detail of how the foot and hand works has to have some form of specialization to it. I don't believe the intent of that imagery in Corinthians of the one body is that of a 3rd Reich lock-step sold-out group of individuals who have an inflated opinion of themselves. Yes God works in the one body. Yes I'm largely unaware of most of it - I'm only aware of some of which pertains to my life and direct surroundings, and not always aware of how God is working even there. I only get a glimpse at times. I view scriptures saying we see through a glass darkly as the reason for that.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Happened upon this relatively short (8:32 minutes long) video that notes a significant difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism that I happen to agree with.
Never heard of this guy before, so I don't know what else he speaks on or what his background it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I looked at this the other day. I'm not as well versed on terms like "covenant theology" - but I kind of get the gist of where they are going with it. If you look at Hebrews and God's relationship to Israel, basically it can be governed into periods of "covenants" or agreements between man and God in various forms as the explanation between dichotomies in scripture, and the migration of things over time.
To me that type of thinking makes more sense than a strict dispensational pattern where God is on a timeline and puny humans have to figure out where they fit before relating with Him.
Where I may differ from a "covenant" approach strictly is that I would question whether or not Jesus put an end to that type of thing with his instructions to not swear oaths but instead just mean what you say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
What you might not be seeing (and haven't addressed) is the essence of covenant theology, which is that the church (of today) has (permanently) replaced Israel. However, if you prefer thinking of covenants into separate periods of agreements between man and God, it sounds like a more recent modification of it called "New Covenant Theology" (which may even allow for a physical, millennial kingdom.) Needless to say, these things can get complicated (and confusing) rather quickly. Try this, for starters:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-john-piper-believe-about-dispensationalism-covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
Brother, the new covenant was offered to Israel by Christ during his ministry. Except for the remnant most of Israel of that generation rejected it. Hebrews 8:8-12 was a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34. The writer/writers of Hebrews quoted these verses in Jeremiah to show Jews that this new covenant was in play FOR ISRAEL at the time Hebrews was written and the old covenant system, temple and all, was about to go out of existence. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not referring to the millennium. The same thing with Isaiah 11 which is another example of dispensationalists assuming that old testament verses are referring to the 1000 years. Isaiah 11 was fulfilled in Paul's day. Paul quoted Isaiah 11 in Romans 15:12 to show that the Gentile(Wolf) and the Lamb(Jew) were at the time Paul made those statements dwelling with each other peacefully in the new covenant: https://adammaarschalk.com/2012/01/29/romans-15-shows-that-isaiah-11-is-fulfilled/
I could care less about advanced class bullsh!t. This stuff really isn't that hard to figure out. Just takes some common sense. Btw, dispensationalists do ignore certain verses. One common one is James 5:8. Also dispensationalists ignore certain Greek words. I think in any advanced Bible class it is taught that the English version of the Bible came from Greek texts. So according to dispensationalists this Greek word "engys" really means "imminence" which they continue to say means could happen at any time even thousands of years into the future. That is real clever because in Revelation 22:10 Christ told John: Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. "Near" according to the Greek interlinear(http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/22-10.htm) means "near" in place or time. I don't see any gray area there and dispensationalists are even distorting what the English word "imminence" means: " the state or fact of being about to happen" which the Greek word "Mello"(http://biblehub.com/greek/3195.htm) also means which was ignored by the King James translators as well and that was even before dispensationalism! An example of "Mello" being left out in the king James is Revelation 17:8: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/17-8.htm .The Greek interlinear reads like this: The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition. The King James reads this way: The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition. Look at it for yourself. And there are a lot more examples of the Greek "mello" being ignored in the Epistles by the King James translators. Enough for tonight. Be well.
Edited by InfoabsorptionGoof
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
I wasn't going to post anymore tonight but with this one I have to. Here is an example of dispensationalists trying to label preterists or anybody rejecting dispensationalism as promoting replacement theology or at times even labeling us as anti-Semitic. It is pure bullsh!t. What got replaced is the old covenant system spiritually, not Israel as a nation state or the Jewish people or even people practicing Judaism. Gary Demar ran into this b.s. years ago and here is his reply:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I debated whether I should wade into this discussion, not really knowing whether I'd have the proper time to respond.. But I wanted to at least throw out a "different" view for whatever it's worth.. To me, the different Dispensational and Covenantal theologies (since there are a myriad of both) never seem to fit completely for me..
Most "Covenant Theologies" went out the door (or at least out of favor) after World War 2, the reason being that most(not all) espoused replacement theology. That is, Israel was replaced with the Church, which in light of the Holocaust was a big big No No (think Anti-Defamation League). And so what took it's place was Dispensational theology, the young hatchling that had been gaining momentum in the early 1900s. If nothing more than the reason that at least now God has 2 blessed groups, the Israel of old (to be returned in the later ages) and the Church.
My problem with both of these, the replacement theology of some Covenant beliefs, and the way Dispensations relates to these 2 different groups, seems to once again paint God as one who discriminates with different plans for different races or groups of people. Personally I don't see the christian bible agreeing on this. While there is no doubt (in my mind at least) that God works with individuals or groups differently at times, giving each different affairs to handle on this earth(oikonomos) . But the plan of God, as represented in the Tanakh and christian writings, from the beginning has not been one of segregation, but one of uniting. There is one God, and one Lord. One Body and one Spirit. There is not Jew and Gentiles. There is one. That has been God's aim. His people. His congregation of the the righteous. And it is this congregation that has been given many different names. Whether it be Israel or the new creation, it is the same thing being mentioned. Mostly figuratively in the Tanakh and once the secret was revealed, it was given more descriptions. It had to remain a secret in the past, so the Tanakh describes this "shadow", this secret that God kept. It wasn't a thing called grace. He already spoke of grace. It wasn't the gentiles will be saved, this was spoken of too. It was Christ. It was our Lord, within whom the whole congregation of those who put their trust in Him (gentile or judean) would live. This is the secret Ephesians 3 speaks (at least for me).
God has only one group. One plan. One people. His people. And he made a covenant a covenant that was based on a permanent promise. Now as time progressed, he re-iterated this self-same covenant with different people. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, including creation itself. But another covenant was made. A covenant that brings death. A covenant of old. And it is passing away, but has not. Fur until the death has been destroyed, this covenant of old, also given to different people in different ways, is rather important. It was made with Adam and Eve at the beginning. It was given to the nation called Isael in the form of what is called Moses's law. And yet, all those to whom this covenant was NOT given (as spoken in Romans) still died because of it. Because it is still in effect, people still die. And Christ came to redeem us. By making the new way plain. By uniting all things under him. Not by keeping old man made distinctions. But one man. One spirit. One body. One new covenant that the scriptures say Paul ministered. The old covenant of the law still has a purpose, still is in effect, and one of those purposes is to bring us unto Christ. But once we have found our Lord, there is no need for the law. And He has given us new life. Life that the new covenant gives in him.
And at least for me, this is what the scriptures speak of. Divsions and discriminating is the opposie of what the God of my Lord spoke of. Jesus spoke before his death in a prayer to our Father, that we would be one. Yet we are divided. And if our understanding of scripture divides groups up, you have a salvation for Israel and a salvation for the Church. And now Christ also is divided. The word covenant in the Hebrew language actually doesn't mean covenant. It means a division. It means a cutting. But it also means the best choice.. The choice between those 2. Heaven or earth. Old or the new covenant. Israel of the flesh or Israel of God. Ephraim or Manasseh. God's people united under the lordship and direction of His annointed or united with the world. That is our covenant choice God has given and does not change. One that is permanent and one that is conditional which no man can obtain life by.
Forgot.. A chart.. Not one I made, not necessarily 100% accurate, but good enough for the topic at hand.
Covenants_Chart.pdf
Edited by TrustAndObeyAdd a chart, who doesn't like em?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You suppose that is and was the first and only time? Just what was it that "the old covenant" was supposedly patterned after?
As did the generations that went before, and those that have come after.
Yeah, try telling an orthodox Jew that.
So I noticed. (btw, statement had nothing to do with anything twi did or didn't promote. Hebrews isn't milk, and not for babes. It's nothing short of nice chewy steak.)
So what if many or most of them do or did? I thought the discussion was here and now, not with them. If you're only interested in (or intent on) promoting preterism, try starting a new thread and take it there and see how much interest you can stir up with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
glad you did
you real sure 'bout that? 'cause my Bible says that God quite intentionally separated Israel from all the other nations of the world. Why? Or what for, if (as you say) He has only one group?
Besides, don't you think it a bit strange that God would tell Abraham that He would multiply "thy seed" both as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the sea shore? Ever wonder why they are added together, rather than given as one or the other. Furthermore, what's this "marriage of the Lamb" in Revelations 19 all about if there's really only one?
I might be able to better get what you're thinking is if you had been a bit more explicit on the details. When you say, "another covenant was made"... seems you might be referring to the law (of Moses)? I'm a bit lost. Isn't that which he gave to Israel patterned after that (heavenly) which already was?
Hmm... now it seems you have it backed up to Adam, at the beginning. Okay, let's go with that. What isn't clear, though, is whether you're thinking of one covenant with two sides (one side life, one side death), or two covenants (one all good - of life, another all bad - of death.) Seems like you want it to be two covenants, one given to one group of people, the other given to a different group of people in different ways.
If we left off calling this (whatever it is you're after here) a "covenant," it might actually make more sense to me. Death, which was in place (or "in effect") with Adam does indeed continue on through now. (even as it is written, it is appointed unto men once to die...)
Interesting point.
The general direction of that makes sense enough to me, but not the specifics. I'm more inclined to think of it as two sides of the coin, one side being the earthly, the other the heavenly. And I see the "Israel of God" not (completely) restricted to the genetic descendants of Abraham, but as being the flesh and blood people accepting/trusting in the promised Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ (who, as we know, was and will be plainly revealed and made known in the physical world.) Still, it is all by their senses. An earthly, sensual, and "believing" people of God (and primarily, though not necessarily exclusively, the genetic descendants of Abraham. Might include those in white robes mentioned in Rev.7:13.)
Of course, I might be mistaken, and have parts of this wrong. However, it does reflect my present view on some number of things that I don't see as being (probably for good reason...) perfectly clear and plainly spelled out in scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
TLC stated:
Here is another example of ignoring certain verses. In this case Romans 10:12: " For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
Israel was separated from the Gentile nations in the old covenant. Show me in the new testament where Israel is still separated. Not talking about physical Israel as a nation state or the Jews as a race of people. Spiritually speaking, in the new covenant which is currently in progress, there is no difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Chockfull, thanks for the info / links on oikonomia... the etymological root of our word “economy”...which originally meant house management- - but current definition in use usually means ‘management of MATERIAL resources ‘ dates back to late 15th century (from what I’m able to find from quick internet search)...but I think the linkage between the two meanings is rather obvious - in the work force we refer to those responsible for the well-being of employees - from hiring to firing, payroll, benefits, keeping up on state/federal laws, etc. as the department of Human Resources...I think this goes along the same lines as your thing on oikonomia being a more flexible application or interpretation of the Canons ...as I mentioned in an earlier post - love is the fulfilling of the law and perhaps house management in the context of believers is just as much about how we deal with one another as about how God deals with us....just a thought.
Another word/idea that goes along these lines is “stewardship “ - the job of supervising, managing or taking care of an organization ,property, or resources. That makes me think of Luke 12:
42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Might be a good thing to ask ourselves occasionally in regards to any gifts, resources or responsibilities we’ve been given - “ am I being a good steward of all that?”
I can see how some folks get “dispensation “ out of that - dispensation being a system of government or organization AS EXISTING AT A PARTICULAR TIME- - I capitalized / bolded / italicized the last part of the definition to highlight what I think is the crux of dispensationalism - an historical progressive series or stages of development...but I think dispensationalism may be somewhat problematic by overthinking or complicating the supposed implications; dispensationalists tend to a literal interpretation of the Bible and also carry on like their way is the best and perhaps most accurate method to interpret the Bible.
Millard Erickson said something interesting about dispensationalism in his "Christian Theology" (on pages 1162, 1163), that despite the stress on literal interpretation - there is also a tendency toward a typological understanding in some narratives and poetic passages which at times approaches the old allegorizing method - which is to interpret or represent something symbolically. An example that Erickson gives on allegorizing is the frequent explanation of The Song of Solomon as showing Christ's love for his church - even though the book says nothing about Christ or the church...
generally I think dispensationalists do realize that salvation has always been the same - by grace through faith - I don't think they're promoting different means or methods of salvation - but rather promoting the idea there are different stages or phases to God's ultimate plan...I don't have a serious beef with much of dispensationalism since it does not ignore the simple things like grace and faith - and I can see the attraction it has for some folks who may not be familiar with systematic theology - like myself when I first took PFAL - it gave me a very convenient framework for understanding the Bible - although I now believe it was a flawed understanding - by my acquiring a wider scope of things... and I think one of the things missing in dispensationalism is the centrality of Christ.
besides that I suspect there's some kind of compartmentalization at play in dispensationalism to avoid addressing or even acknowledging contradictions in the Bible - I don't mean to digress into a debate on the inerrancy of scripture - but I do see why wierwille would use something like dispensationalism as one of the ways to get folks to believe conflicting ideas can co-exist.
My own opinion / speculation is to view the “divine plan for man’s salvation “ mentioned earlier - as perhaps a unified design that revolves around simple recurring themes like faith and the person of Jesus Christ (whether foretold, foreshadowed, illustrated or actively present)- - faith and Jesus Christ are not limited to a particular time - past, present or future...we must ask what is essential or what is of the greatest importance to the divine plan for man's salvation? My answer to that is Jesus Christ.
Romans 4
Hebrews 11
Hebrews 13
Edited by T-BoneRevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Actually, it looks to me like another example of you (or whomever you're quoting) not having much of a general comprehension (much less understanding) of dispensationalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Yes, I'm sure. And I don't think one reason would be sufficient. There are quite a few. But one of the reasons, was as a shadow. For His people. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel (Rom 9). But God has and will intentially separate His people from all the "other" peoples of this earth. Israel was the name given to the man, Jacob. He came from Isaac, a shadow of Christ. And Jacob, a man of the flesh, who, like all men of the flesh wrestle against God (figuratively, as Hosea says Jacob wrestled with an angel, while Jacob says He saw God face to face), just as we all fought with God until just as Jacob did, were blessed of God and stopped wrestling, and on account of this, was renamed Israel. Jacob's change into Israel was a shadow of all those who put their trust in God.
You're mixing things up there.. Don't forget that Paul spoke of "thy seed" as being singular. That is referring to Christ. The seed that was promised to Adam and Eve. The seed that was prophesied of old. And in "thy seed" shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. All the nations (Israel didn't exist then). But Abraham had 2 sons, yes? Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac had 2 sons, yes? Esau and Jacob? The former being of the flesh, the later - chosen by God. And the Jews and other nations have been united under that seed. Abraham's seed, which is us united in Christ.
And maybe I forgot something, but doesn't marriage imply a joining together of 2 things into one? What 2 things would that be? Jews and Gentiles? Nope.. That was done in Christ. Could it be Ephraim and Judah?! No doubt there. For Israel and Judah shall be united once again. And the marriage shall be a fulfilling of one of God's great promises to His people, that is, all who put their trust in him(the corenerstone of Zion / Christ / lion of the tribe of Judah), for they shall not be put to shame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
"another covenant", can be referred to as a covenant with it's basis in law. A covenant based on conditions. It is this covenant given to Adam and Eve, that once they failed to heed those conditions, they were kicked out of the garden.
There are 2 covenants. Galatians 3 sets these forth. The one of promise, which Christ is the mediator of, which is by promise. The other has it's basis in the law. They both have been in effect. And they both are important until death has had it's final defeat. They both are good. Just because the law brings death, Romans still says it is considered good. And as Galatians 3 states, is it against the promies of God? No, it's not. They both are entirely important. But for different reasons. They are both entirely for everyone and for our benefit. But we, who are in Christ, have died to the one, that we might be made alive by the other.
You are welcome to call it whatever you desire. A rose is still a rose by any other name. It is translated as a covenant in the Tanakh and as a testament sometimes in the Christian writings in English (thus the new testament instead of new covenant).
Am I misunderstanding you, in that you don't see those that trust "in the promised Messiah" as including you in that "Israel of God?? Since you do believe in Christ, yes? Messiah and Christ are just Hebrew/Greek words regarding the same thing. But you do see yourself as the "seed of Abraham" (according to Gal 3) yes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hey TBone,
Good thoughts here. One of the main things I struggle with regarding scriptures and how they relate to mankind through the centuries and millenniums is when I start to get a feel that the mental constructs involved in fitting together and making sense of scripture start to become more intricately involved than the scripture itself that is a red flag. If I need a 10 page mental model to understand a 3 line scripture, that is the point I start questioning the logic that led me there.
We've traversed a few roads on the dispensationalism topic in this thread. We are looking at working definitions, we are delving into detailed discussions of ideas regarding the divisions of time as well as the stewardship of people's lives and materials. We are discussing covenant relationships between God and man. If I back up to a 15,000 foot level, this starts to make more sense. God cares about how we live our lives. Some important areas regarding stewardship of how we live our lives are how we take care of people and their lives, and how we take care of our things with a care towards not wasting physical resources God has richly provided us with. Also, that we keep God and humility towards and thankfulness for Him in the forefront of our minds, so as not to become elevated with our own importance.
Whatever rules regarding living and legal matters God has exist for a time, not for all time. One of Paul's comments in the Colossians letter talks about this. (Col 2:21-23 Berean study bible)
Alive in Christ
…21“Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? 22These will allperish with use, because they are based on human commandsand teachings. 23Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.…
If I approach looking at the timelines of mankind laid out in the Bible more from this perspective to me it makes more sense. I don't need to sacrifice livestock because I don't own any other than what is processed in my freezer. But we still do food drives in churches. What God cares about is how I keep Elohim in my reverence, how I treat others, and how I steward my physicals.
I would agree with you that many times labels - "dispensationalists" , "fundamentalism", "covenant theory", "preterism", etc. impede progress in discussion - you mentioned that you thought dispensationalists generally think salvation is by grace through faith just like the rest of Christians. I think that humans like to sort other humans into buckets. If they can do that, rather than relying on thought power to interact with a person, they can rely on their previous experience interacting with a similar (to them) type of person and not have to re-visit logic and thoughts. They can dismiss another offhand. We all do this. It's not all bad. In a way it is a defense mechanism keeping us safe, and a way people think they are living avoiding the forms of all evil.
But the more real of a picture we want to have the more we are going to have to bypass this type of logic with each other and be real and authentic. It's hard work. Actually read every line. Actually consider every phrase. Actually look up references. Actually relate to each other even though we can't see each other and are missing visual and audio cues.
That's where I'm at. Thanks for all the discussion all.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Jumping in on one angle on this - sorry for any interruption of logic guys. I would see myself as the "seed of Abraham" in a figurative sense. Hebrews 11 to me kind of gives a flavor like "your believing makes you Israel" kind of thing.
Which leads to a bit of enlightenment, yet another question.
Is "Israel" a figurative term in the Bible? Here? Where?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Israel"- Hebrew, "beloved of God." ("Theophilus"- Greek, "beloved of God.") Galatians 4 seems to match your thinking. It contrasts the Law with the Promise, and it contrasts Abraham's children of Hagar (the bondwoman) with Abraham's children of Sarah (children of the promise), and says that the Law is analogous to the children of the bondwoman and corresponds to the nation of Israel, while the Promise is analogous to the children of Sarah, and that's US.
Galatians 4: 22ff
"22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."
===================================
That seems fairly straightforward to me, but it's not a universally-held read of those verses.
Here's the same verses, with me commenting along.
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons[Ishmael and Jacob/Israel], the one by a bondmaid[Ishmael, Hagar's son], the other by a freewoman[Jacob/Israel, Sarah's son.].
23 But he who was of the bondwoman[Ishmael] was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman[Jacob/Israel] was by promise.
[Ishmael's existence was entirely due to an attempt to physically accomodate God without taking His promise literal- which would have been miraculous. Jacob/Israel's existence was entirely due to taking God's promise literally, it being a promise of a miracle.]
24 Which things are an allegory[They symbolize something]: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.[/b]["Answering to Jerusalem which now is" at the time of that writing was the literal 12 tribes of the nation of Israel. That corresponds to ISHMAEL, the child of the bondwoman, and they hold Mount Sinai as a huge deal.][/b]
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.[We are the children of promise, the children of The Promise of God- just as Jacob/Israel's existence as a son was entirely due to God's Promise. We correspond to Jacob/Israel, and a heavenly Jerusalem which is not a physical city on this planet.]
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
[God took care of Ishmael and he prospered-but nothing like the child of the promise prospered. Ishmael troubled Israel/Jacob then, and as of this writing, the Jews troubled the Christians. Both won't be dealt with on the same level any more than those were the first time. Jacob/Israel was a "type" of US, and Ishmael was a "type" of the Jews.
=======================================
Really, I think that's pretty straightforward. However, I obviously don't speak for everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
TrustAndObey:
"There are 2 covenants. Galatians 3 sets these forth. The one of promise, which Christ is the mediator of, which is by promise. The other has it's basis in the law. They both have been in effect. And they both are important until death has had it's final defeat. They both are good. Just because the law brings death, Romans still says it is considered good. And as Galatians 3 states, is it against the promise of God? No, it's not. They both are entirely important. But for different reasons. They are both entirely for everyone and for our benefit. But we, who are in Christ, have died to the one, that we might be made alive by the other. "
I see it this way also, T&O. I think Galatians seems to address it more than once- since chapter 4 tackles it from a different angle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
Then how do you explain Hebrews 8:13?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yes, but I think the word "economy" actually communicates something much more complex than that (which is why I like it, probably even more so than "dispensation" as long as financial prosperity isn't so elevated that it overpowers the overall sense of it.)
I'd be more inclined to agree with that if it were referred to as an economy existing at a particular time.
Hardly a fair criticism, as there's really nothing unusual or strange about someone (or some group) promoting "their way" as the best and perhaps most accurate method to interpret the Bible.
by grace and through faith ? okay, sure. But let's get honest. What what does that really look like or mean on a practical level?
How do you think someone living in Israel at the time King David was saved? By believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead?
How could they, given that hadn't even happened yet?
What about Peter, or any of the other apostles, prior to Jesus Christ's crucifixion?
Do you suppose that no one was (nor could be) saved prior to his death and resurrection, simply because that is what you might see as being the crux for your own salvation?
well, not to disappoint or surprise you, but I see the attraction even for some that are very familiar with systematic theology.
I see that statement as being a (rather common around here) misperception resulting from tainted twi teachings or practices (and, more candidly, a rather common miscommunication of some number of vpw's teachings on "Christ in you.")
call it an unfolding theme, and I'd agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Of course it is, and I'm not mixing things up (except maybe in the heads of a few others here that have never considered it like this before.) Seed doesn't remain as "seed" after it germinates and grows. (see John 12:24.) The references you gave are to what was previously promised (in the future, from those it was given to.)
Seems to me like you're only thinking about it from an earthly (sensual) perspective. But, you obviously got it all figured out, so let's leave it at that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
from the garden of Eden.
(to me, leaving that off is almost like saying that money is the root of all evil.)
As for covenants, and one of them being the law, I guess I just don't see there being only two.
And the questions in your last paragraph are rather mixed up (and far less than clear.) Do I see myself as Abraham's seed? Yes. But evidently not in the same sense that you might think of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Agreed.
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.