Hey folks. Just returned from an incredible journey to Africa where I stayed in a remote Masai village with the most amazing people I've ever met.
I'm just as pleased as punch with this thread. I've particularly enjoyed Steve Lortz's insightful posts. I think the most cogent challenge to the notion of a "grace administration" is Goey's concise comments about Eph. 3. If there is a way to clearly establish such an animal from within the scriptures I'm unaware of it. The meaning of Paul's statement is so clear, how can it be missed? It's speaking of his ministry to the Gentiles, to whom he is to "dispense" the gospel.
Now, I think I might be something of a dispensationalist, but only in the mainstream sense: the particulars of God's dealings with man have varied over history. However, the means of salvation (by faith alone, by grace alone) has never changed.
Yeah, I'd like to see Dave or VL present a convincing, even believeable, case.
Biblefan Dave - You wrote, "If there is an 'administration (oikonomia)of grace', how could it not represent a period of time?... In otherwords, how can administration be void of time?"
The word "oikonomia" may be considered the way you do in your post, but we have to ask ourselves, is that the way the Word of God uses it?
If Paul used it to mean "a period of time", then his use of it ought to be in consonance with his use of other "time" words, such as "aion" = "age"
If "oikonomia" were to mean a period of time, then we are living during an era which could be called the "age of grace", the "age of the mystery" or the "Church age".
Wierwille tied these all together by saying that the existance of the Church, as a distinct entity separate and discontinuous from Israel, had been hidden until it was revealed to Paul. This "age" was given to Paul, and it's full of the wonderful grace of God.
Let's see how Paul actually considered the period of time in which we live, by looking at his uses of "aion", the word that undisputably means "age".
quote: Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world ["aion" = "age"], but also in that which is to come.
Ephesians 1:21
Now let's look at what Jesus said,
quote: And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world ["aion" = "age"], neither in the world to come.
Matthew 12:32
Paul did NOT consider himself to be writing in a period of time different from the period in which Jesus spoke. There was no change of "age" between the time of the gospels and the time of Paul's letters.
Did Paul consider himself to be living in a wonderful period of time characterized by the grace of God?
quote: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world ["aion" = "age"], according to the will of God and our Father:
Galatians 1:3&4
According to Paul, God DOES extend grace to us, but it's not integral to the period of time in which we live. In fact, it's God's gracious will for us to be delivered OUT of this PRESENT EVIL AGE.
According to PFAL, God committed to Paul the "rules of life" for the period of time in which we live.
quote: But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
In whom the god of this world ["aion" = "age"] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...
II Corinthians 4:3&4a
and
quote: Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world ["aion" = "age"] nor of the princes of this world ["aion" = "age"], that come to naught:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world ["aionon" = "ages" pl.] unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world ["aion" = "age"] knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
I Corinthians 2:6-8
How can Paul consider this to be a "period of time" governed by "rules of life" given to him, when he calls the adversary and his minions the "god" and the "princes" of this age?
(By the way, the mystery that the princes of this age didn't know was NOT that Gentiles could have Christ among them, but that God was going to raise this pitiful guy on the cross to the "position" of Lord of Glory.)
How can the things Paul taught be considered the foundation for relating to God during this "adninistration" when Paul writes "We speak not the wisdom of this age... but the wisdom of God"?
quote: For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world ["aion" = "age"]...
II Timothy 4:10a
If this present period of time was committed by God to Paul, how then could Demas have forsaken Paul, having loved this present age?
The word "oikonomia" may or may not mean a "period of time" outside the writings of Paul. BUT, if Paul IS using "oikonomia" to indicate a "period of time", as Wierwille claims, why are the conclusions Wierwille draws about this present period of time so radically different from the things Paul wrote when he used "aion", the word which indisputably... unquestionably... catagorically... means a "period of time"?
Wierwille took advantage of an ambiguity in our understanding of "oikonomia" to read foreign meanings INTO the text. Wierwille taught things about "administrations" that directly contradict what Paul actually wrote about "periods of time".
I can't help but get off-thread a little (probably due to the fact that I couldn't care less what the "Holy Bible" has to say) but I've got to revisit Mr. Wierwille's supposed "doctorate".
BFD, there's no mystery surrounding how one obtains a Phd. There is a set, very well defined protocol in place. You fulfill the requirements, you get your degree.
As I remember it, one who is a Phd. candidate gets a mentor, works through the particulars of his area of interest and the specific topic of his dissertation, earns the necessary credits for his degree through an accredited university, then gives and defends his dissertation before a group of his peers. A copy of his dissertation is then kept in the archives of the university.
I've heard that the prestigious "Pike's Peak University" has since gone the way of all things, the degree-mill business not being as lucrative as it once was, I guess.
Be that as it may, I have a simple exhortation for you.
For the next three months just put all your Bible and WayWorld reading material aside. Start reading THE NEW YORK TIMES, SKEPTIC MAGAZINE, and SCIENCE and I guarantee you in just three months you won't know yourself.
You'll be asking honest questions about hitherto unapproachable subjects, having serious doubts about things that were absolutely iron-clad in your mind before, and generally just giving up on the knee-jerk, pre-chewed, answer-in-a-can type of thinking.
You might also want to lose the "I'll staighten out you poor pathetic bastards" tone in your posts. We've all "been there, done that" with that kind of poster.
George Aar - I've always enjoyed reading your posts, though we haven't interacted much at GreaseSpot. I can respect your decisions to believe the things you do, even though I have made different decisions.
"Skeptical Inquirer" is one of my favorite reads, but I'm too skeptical to believe everything they print :-D I'd add "Scientific American" and the "Wall Street Journal" to your list.
As far as "Comprendez vous?" goes, I learned all my French from Inspector Cluseau (sp?) :-D
(Did you realize we get our English word "geezer" from the French word "guiser", which, transliterated into English would be "wiser"? Cool, huh!?!)
The word "oikonomia" may or may not mean a "period of time" outside the writings of Paul. BUT, if Paul IS using "oikonomia" to indicate a "period of time", as Wierwille claims, why are the conclusions Wierwille draws about this present period of time so radically different from the things Paul wrote when he used "aion", the word which indisputably... unquestionably... catagorically... means a "period of time"?
Yet "Aion" was also unquestionably employed as a term of personification - in other words, "Aion" was to the ancients another term for a deity or a godlike being. In ALL of the passages you cited by Paul, this particular usage or understanding could and would work just as well if not better.
Devotees of Mithraism - which was quite popular throughout Paul's home territory of Tarsus,- referred to their god Mithra as "the Aion".
One might even argue that the term "Everlasting God" - the "God of this Aion" or "Aeonian God" could just as easily be the original meaning.
Ranging from Zoroastrianism to Gnosticism, the idea of "Time" was personified, and not always deemed literally as "a period of time".
When considering again the examples you cited, comprising of a succession of terms in reference to heavenly rulers or overlords,- "Aion" may easily be viewed as another parallelism that functions as and is supported by the other "rulership" terms in those contexts.
Sorry Steve, but this term "aion" is not off the "ambiguity" hook either.
It could mean a literal period of time - but could also be "The Aeon" or "Aeonian God".
George - I am known as "the Geezer" on some of the websites where I post, so I wasn't meaning in any way to impune YOU.
Danny - As with George, I recognize that you and I differ because we have chosen to accept different presuppositions. I admire the diligence both you and George have used to research, think through and articulate your positions, even though, starting from different assumptions, I arrive at different conclusions. When it comes to basic presuppositions, "De gustibus non disputandum est!"
Those things being said, I have some comments, Danny, on your post of 12/12/04, 05:25,
quote: Yet "Aion" was also unquestionably employed as a term of personification - in other words, "Aion" was to the ancients another term for a deity or godlike being. In ALL of the passages you cited by Paul, this particular usage or understanding could and would work just as well if not better."
Two points:
First, you wrote "'Aion' was to the ancients another term for a deity or godlike being."
SOME of the ancients, Danny, not ALL of them. Even though some ancients used "aion" with the sense you put forward, its primary, fundamental meaning in everyday language was the span of a life-time, hence, "a period of time".
Some of the ancient philosophies used the word "aion" to identify or personify certain "emanations" from "the great god", but not all. Stoicism was the predominant philosophy in the first century. I did a quick check of "The Origins of Stoic Cosmology" and "Greek Philosophical Terms", and I couldn't find any references to "aion" in relation to Stoicism.
Second, you wrote, "In ALL of the passages you cited by Paul, this particular usage or understanding could and would work just as well if not better."
If the uses I quoted were the ONLY places where "aion" occurred, your line of thinking would have some plausibility. However, let's look at Luke 18. The whole passage from verse 18 through verse 30 is instructive for those interested in the Biblical, rather than the dispensationalist concepts of salvation, since it equates the ideas of inheriting eternal life, entry into the kingdom of God, being saved, and receiving eternal life in the age to come.
But we're only going to look at two verses,
quote: And he [Jesus] said unto them [Jesus' followers], Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
Luke 18:29,30
The operant phrases are the last two. In the Greek they are, "en toi_kairoi_toutoi kai en toi aioni toi_erchomenoi zoen aionion"
"In this time and in the age that is coming life of the age."
The word "kairos" was a term of art in Greek military writing. It meant "the decisive moment", the time in a battle where to act means victory, and not to act means defeat. Here "kairos" is the object of the preposition "en", and it occurs in the dative case. This construction is an indication of time.
The conjunction "kai" creates a parallelism between the phrase "in this time [kairos]" and the phrase "in the age [aion] to come". The word "aion" is also in the dative case, and appears as the of object of "en". "Aion" here is also used as an indication of time.
I do not believe that Jesus, Luke or Paul used the word "aion" to mean a "deity or godlike being". I believe they all used it in its plain, ordinary sense of "a period of time".
You wrote, "Sorry Steve, but this term 'aion' is not off the 'ambiguity' hook either." If that's the way you choose to see it, Danny. But you're going to have to present solid evidence if you hope to persuade.
No, not huffy at all. Just a bit annoyed and wondering why an agnostic or atheist - bible rejector would bother to show up so often on bible doctrinal threads with derailing comments.
Goey -- simple (at least to me). Something about a dog returning to it's vomit -- comes to mind. Perhaps not in the case of George, but I wouldn't doubt it. There are areas in my life (that I am no longer connected with), that I continue to return to. Some "force" seems to draw me back to that which I no longer acknowledge.
So I guess we all do the same, just within our own boundaries, guidelines, "acceptable limits", etc. :)-->
I have no problem with anyone, of any persuasion, asking questions or making statements, in any of the threads available here at GSCafe. It never hurts to have one's belief's challenged, so that one has to think about what they believe, rather than accept it blindly.
Mental slumber, and lack of questions is what I was used to in twi. Not here.
My purpose was not to "persuade" but to correct and contest your original implication that
"aion" could refer only to a "period of time" - which you were gracious to acknowledge in
the course of your fine reply.
But for the benefit of others who are reading, I cite this additional meaning of "aion" , which BTW, I make no claim to being the only interpretation. Liddell, in addition to citing Steve's position, also confirms my observation:
I. lifetime, life, .
2. age, generation
3. one's life, destiny, lot, S.Tr.34, E.Andr.1215, Fr.30, etc.
II. long space of time, age
2. space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age, ho ai?outos this present world, opp. ho mell?Ev.Matt.13.22, cf. Ep.Rom.12.2; ho nun ai.
3. Ai?ho, personified, Ai?hronou pais E.Heracl.900 (lyr.), cf. Corp.Herm.11, etc.; as title of various divine beings, Dam.Pr.151, al.; esp.=Persian Zervan, Suid. s.v. H??os.
The full, unedited definition may be viewed at the Perseus website.
Of the Christian gnostic and Mandaean usage of "Aeon", Hans Jonas (The Gnostic Religion, p.54, footnote 9) writes:
"In the singular, "aeon" can simply mean "the world" and is as "this aeon" in Jewish and Christian thought opposed to "the coming aeon": here, the model was probably the Hebrew word olam (Aram. alma), whose original meaning of "eternity" came to include that of "world." The Mandaean plural almaya can mean "worlds" and "beings," the latter in a personal (superhuman) sense. Personification is joined to the New Testament concept of "this aeon" by expressions like "the god [or, "the rulers"] of this aeon."
In Jonas' glossary (ibid, p.99), to "worlds" he writes:
"Almaya, can also mean "beings," sometimes also, in spite of the plural form, simply the singular "world"; mostly not certain which of the different meanings is intended in the given case."
I posed myself this simple question a few years ago: in addition to the Greek, is there any evidence in the Hebrew and Aramaic literature of this practice of personifying "age" or "aeon" (olam, alma) as a "being," as opposed to interpreting such as a literal space or epoch or duration of time?
I was soon rewarded with a fine, indisputable specimen from the Qumran "Dead Sea" Scrolls; section II of "The Genesis Apocryphon," which concerns the birth of Noah, and whose father Lamech suspected that his wife had consorted with one of the angels that descended from heaven (note the crucial role angels play throughout these passages):
"Behold, I thought to then within my heart that conception was (due) to the Watchers and the Holy Ones...and to the Giants...and my heart was troubled within me because of this child. Then I, Lamech, approached Bathenosh [my] wife in haste and said to her, '...but the Most High, the Great Lord, the King of all the worlds and the Ruler of the Sons of Heaven...tell me [this truthfully] and not falsely...by the King of all the Worlds..."
Note the couplets given in the typical pattern of Jewish parallelism:
...by the Most High
the Great Lord
King of all the worlds
And Ruler of the Sons of Heaven
The "Worlds" (Aram. almaya =Heb. olam= Gk.aion) are the "Sons of Heaven", which, as we know from other places ("sons of God" in Gen.6) - are "angels".
"Worlds" employed here, are not inanimate "ages" or literal "spans of time".
One may struggle in vain to find examples among the Stoics and other philosophical schools - but for goodness sakes, one need look no further than the Jews' own writings of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" (!)
As mentioned in the citation of Jonas, almaya
(= ages, worlds) was personified throughout the Aramaic literature of the Mandaeans, a sect which claimed to have descended from followers of John the Baptist. Jonas' work contains many examples from their writings, and I would encourage anyone interested to check out Jonas' work.
Now onto a couple of examples in the New Testament, bearing in mind what we just learned from the "Genesis Apocryphon"
Hebrews 1:1ff -
1. In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
2. But in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir
of all, through whom he also made the worlds
(Aram. almaya =Heb.olam= Gk.aion)
3. He reflects the glory of God, and bears the very stamp of his nature...he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High,
4. being made so much superior to the angels..
5. for to what angel did God declare...
6. "Let all Gods angels worship him."
7. Of the angels he declares,
8. "Who makes his angels winds
and his servants a flame of fire"
13. But to what angel has he ever declared... etc., etc., - angels are discussed into the next chapter - which discussion all commenced with "the worlds" or "the aeons" being "made".
But if that's not enough- how about the committee of translators and editors behind our "Revised Standard Version" (Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953)?
Col.1:26
"the mystery hidden for ages and generations"...
footnote c offers this alternate rendition:
"Or from angels and men "
Obviously they thought "ages" = "angels"
And "generations" = "men".
Now when you consider the examples from the Genesis Apocryphon, the Book of Hebrews; the Mandaean literature as well as the Nag Hammadi Library, for which I will not bother getting into here - where the godlike beings of "angels" are also ascribed the term "worlds" (Aram. almaya =Heb. olam= Gk.aion) - how can one not seriously contemplate the possible personification of "aeon" or "aeons" in other contexts of Paul, in which contexts other terms for "angels" also appear? i.e., the "Archons of this Aeon" in 1 Cor.2:6; "according to the Aeon, according to the Archon of the air" in Eph.2?
Again, much depends on the contexts in how aionos (as with any word) is employed.
It is not certain nor obvious that such was always employed in such a literal interpretation. I would encourage readers to experiment with both literal and personified meanings, because depending on the context - either are possible, from my personal observation.
Danny - In your post of 12/12/04, 05:25, you wrote, "When considering again the examples you cited, comprising of a succession of terms in reference to heavenly rulers or overlords, - 'Aion' may easily be viewed as another parallelism that functions as and is supported by the other 'rulership' terms in those contexts."
Let's look at Ephesians 1:21
quote: far above ["huperano" = "huper" ("over") + "ano" ("above") = "overabove"] all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in ["en"] this world ["aion" = "age"], but also in ["en"] that which is to come ["toi mellonti" = "the coming"]:
Ephesians 1:21 does NOT set up a parallelism between "aion" and the other dignities listed. They are all objects of the preposition "huperano". "Aion" is a noun denoting time, and is the object of the preposition "en", in the dative case. This is an expression of time, not of personification.
Beside which, if "aion" is understood to be the personification of an emanation from the "great god", what is that emanation understood to be, if not time itself? So we have a situation where we can understand "aion" in its simple, primary sense as "a period of time", or we can understand it as a convoluted personification which represents... A PERIOD OF TIME?
Matthew 12:32 mentions the idea of "this age" and "the age to come", but we learn more about the concepts from Matthew 13,
quote: Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
The field is the world ["cosmos" = "order"]; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world ["aion" = "age"]; and the reapers are the angels.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be at the end of this world ["aion" = "age"].
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Matthew 13:36-43
Notice that the "harvest" is NOT an angel. The angels are the "reapers". The harvest represents the end of this "aion" or "period of time".
Notice also that the enemy who sowed the tares is not an "aion" either. Dittos for the Son of man.
In the time before the harvest, the tares grow along with the good seed. In the time after the harvest, the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
This age ["aion"], and the age ["aion"] to come. Periods of time.
Let's review Luke, where Jesus was responding to the Saducees' question regarding the woman who had been married seven times,
quote: And Jesus answering said unto them, the children of this world ["aion" = "age"] marry, and are given in marriage:
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world ["aion" = "age"], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Neither can they die anymore: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
Luke 20:34-36
This age "age" and that "age".
Notice verse 36 does NOT say that "aion" means "angel". It says those who are counted worthy to obtain that age ["aion"] are like angels.
Luke associates the resurrection from the dead, and not having to die anymore,... and becoming children of God, by the way,... with "that age", the age to come, not with "this age". This goes along with what we saw in Matthew, that the righteous shall shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father... when? In the age to come.
quote: And as he [Jesus] sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world ["aion" = "age"]?
Matthew 24:3
Can you see why the disciples were so interested in the transition from this period of time to the period of time which is to come? shining forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father... the resurrection from the dead... becoming children of God?
The New Testament contains a fully developed system regarding the arrangement of various "periods of time". Paul's uses of phrases denoting "this age" are in consonance with that system's arrangement. The system unambiguously uses the word "aion" to mean "a period of time".
Wiierwille's scheme of "administrations" uses a variant meaning of "oikonomia" to read a foreign arrangement of "periods of time" into the Bible. It is an exercise, not in exegesis, but in eisegesis. Wierwille's system of "administrations" contradicts the scriptural system of ages.
Ok, dealing with administrations, or dispensations, or ages, or eras, or the like. I don't much care what they are called.
But we are dealing with God's relationship with or governing of mankind. Upon Adam committing the original sin (BTW, I don't see where garden + tree + fruit + eat results in self-pleasure of anything related to that), there was an abrupt change in God's relationship to man. Prior to original sin, 1 commandment: see that tree, don't eat anything on it. Afterwards, it was basically man ruling man, as God permitted such to happen.
Some dramatically or radically altered events happened upon original sin. There was a period of time before sin entered the world. Then sin entered the world. Eventually Jesus Christ will destroy sin. Time Periods: Pre-Sin, Sin, Sin Destroyed.
During the period in which sin has been introduced into the world, there is a time when man rules man. There is a time under which God gives written laws to Israel Before laws, only communication with God through revelation or some from of coming into concrete form and the sharing of the information by word of mouth.
When God starts giving the laws to Moses, all of Israel is expected to obey the laws. Jesus fulfilled the law, thus people no longer expected to obey the laws, except 2: love God with all... and love thy neighbor as thyself.
Ok, there wasn't a radical difference between the period where man ruled over man and the law of given. Man was born as body and soul creations possessing a sin nature. Men (and women) could have spirit upon them both before the law was given and afterward until Pentecost. Yet, the way God governed or oversaw His people did change with the giving of the Mosaic laws. There was a different means or standard for measuring obedience.
Jesus Christ most certaily did fulfill the law. Upon and following the day of Pentecost, I was now available for a person to have spirit within them. There was never any record of a person being born again before Pentecost. Upon Pentecost, there was.
Jesus Christ said he would build his church. That was putting it in terms of the future meaning it had not happened at that time. Before Pentecost, only Jews and Gentiles are mentioned. After Pentecost, we can see a whole new group of people, church of God. The church of God or the body of Christ is never mentioned prior to Pentecost.
Peter asked Jesus if he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. A kingdom means rulership or governing. The word "oikonomia" means either stewardship or governing. Both stewardship and governing takes place over time. The kingdom wasn't presently restored to Israel, that would take place at a later time.
Jesus did not read "and the day of vengeance of our God". Day most certainly refers to time. The day of vengeance of our God is a future event.
Now the so-called Appearing Administration. There will be numerous radical changes the way God deals with mankind. First the rapture (or gathering together for those of you who don't get come up in whose terminology belongs to who). The rapture changes how God deals with the body of Christ. People will get new bodies. Chaos will exit on earth.
There are both of the resurrections of Israel. Radical changes will happen during those periods.
And finally Craig Martindale will destroy the devil. Sorry, I had an "Athletes of the Spirit Production" flashback. No, the devil will defeat the adversary.
There are the sufferings and the glory which follows. Those are distinct periods in time.
Do I think that the administrations, or dispensations, or eras, or epochs, or ages, or gumbafornicadeedles (yes, I made the stupid word up) are exactly as Bullinger and VPW laid them out. No. But, I certainly know that the conditions necessary for the new birth did not exist before Pentecost. Otherwise, Christ died in vain. So, the Covenant Theory that things just kind of evolved to this point doesn't ring true.
Personally, I would divide the Appearing Administration or Era or (insert preference here) into 3 different periods. Each event, coming of Christ and resurrections of Israel represent a distinct change in God's relationship to mankind.
quote:Ok, dealing with administrations, or dispensations, or ages, or eras, or the like. I don't much care what they are called.
BFD:
If you are a bible believin' type o' guy, shouldn't you be concerned about what something is called? That whole "God means what he says and says what he means" thang?
Have you ever heard of the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There was a period in which God gave laws to Moses and expected people to live according to those laws. God never demanded that we have an exact label for that time period. Therefore, if it makes no difference to God, it makes no difference to me. Again, I have been accused of only using Way terminology. Another gross exaggeration. But, some people in this forum seem to thrive on wild accusations and gross exaggerations. God did not demand we label time periods. As a matter of facts, we were told not to get hung up on holy days, etc. If someone wants to call it the Law Disemcantankerotamus, it's fine with me.
BF, I think you make some reasonable points in your 'administrations" summation above. At the same time, most statements really are at the least arguable, and worst they're unsupported & just speculation. Now I understand the system of logic that produces such conclusions, but i question the soundness of the logic. Taken at face value, some statemetns come off as wild fabrications without any direct support:
"Man was born as body and soul creations possessing a sin nature. Men (and women) could have spirit upon them both before the law was given and afterward until Pentecost." Hmmmm
"Upon and following the day of Pentecost, I was now available for a person to have spirit within them. There was never any record of a person being born again before Pentecost. Upon Pentecost, there was." Says who?
"First the rapture (or gathering together for those of you who don't get come up in whose terminology belongs to who). The rapture changes how God deals with the body of Christ. People will get new bodies."
"But, I certainly know that the conditions necessary for the new birth did not exist before Pentecost."
On this last point, if people before Pentecost could not be saved by grace through faith, how then were they saved? I think this is an essential point. Orthodox dispensationalists do not believe as Wierwille did...that these people were saved by keeping the laws of God. What say you?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
34
19
37
Popular Days
Dec 10
26
Dec 9
20
Dec 21
13
Dec 22
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Biblefan Dave 23 posts
Vertical Limit 34 posts
Oakspear 19 posts
Steve Lortz 37 posts
Popular Days
Dec 10 2004
26 posts
Dec 9 2004
20 posts
Dec 21 2004
13 posts
Dec 22 2004
12 posts
TheEvan
Hey folks. Just returned from an incredible journey to Africa where I stayed in a remote Masai village with the most amazing people I've ever met.
I'm just as pleased as punch with this thread. I've particularly enjoyed Steve Lortz's insightful posts. I think the most cogent challenge to the notion of a "grace administration" is Goey's concise comments about Eph. 3. If there is a way to clearly establish such an animal from within the scriptures I'm unaware of it. The meaning of Paul's statement is so clear, how can it be missed? It's speaking of his ministry to the Gentiles, to whom he is to "dispense" the gospel.
Now, I think I might be something of a dispensationalist, but only in the mainstream sense: the particulars of God's dealings with man have varied over history. However, the means of salvation (by faith alone, by grace alone) has never changed.
Yeah, I'd like to see Dave or VL present a convincing, even believeable, case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
TheEvan
I've never said there was a grace administration. What do you want me to present as convincing and believable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Biblefan Dave - You wrote, "If there is an 'administration (oikonomia)of grace', how could it not represent a period of time?... In otherwords, how can administration be void of time?"
The word "oikonomia" may be considered the way you do in your post, but we have to ask ourselves, is that the way the Word of God uses it?
If Paul used it to mean "a period of time", then his use of it ought to be in consonance with his use of other "time" words, such as "aion" = "age"
If "oikonomia" were to mean a period of time, then we are living during an era which could be called the "age of grace", the "age of the mystery" or the "Church age".
Wierwille tied these all together by saying that the existance of the Church, as a distinct entity separate and discontinuous from Israel, had been hidden until it was revealed to Paul. This "age" was given to Paul, and it's full of the wonderful grace of God.
Let's see how Paul actually considered the period of time in which we live, by looking at his uses of "aion", the word that undisputably means "age".
Now let's look at what Jesus said,
Paul did NOT consider himself to be writing in a period of time different from the period in which Jesus spoke. There was no change of "age" between the time of the gospels and the time of Paul's letters.
Did Paul consider himself to be living in a wonderful period of time characterized by the grace of God?
According to Paul, God DOES extend grace to us, but it's not integral to the period of time in which we live. In fact, it's God's gracious will for us to be delivered OUT of this PRESENT EVIL AGE.
According to PFAL, God committed to Paul the "rules of life" for the period of time in which we live.
and
How can Paul consider this to be a "period of time" governed by "rules of life" given to him, when he calls the adversary and his minions the "god" and the "princes" of this age?
(By the way, the mystery that the princes of this age didn't know was NOT that Gentiles could have Christ among them, but that God was going to raise this pitiful guy on the cross to the "position" of Lord of Glory.)
How can the things Paul taught be considered the foundation for relating to God during this "adninistration" when Paul writes "We speak not the wisdom of this age... but the wisdom of God"?
If this present period of time was committed by God to Paul, how then could Demas have forsaken Paul, having loved this present age?
The word "oikonomia" may or may not mean a "period of time" outside the writings of Paul. BUT, if Paul IS using "oikonomia" to indicate a "period of time", as Wierwille claims, why are the conclusions Wierwille draws about this present period of time so radically different from the things Paul wrote when he used "aion", the word which indisputably... unquestionably... catagorically... means a "period of time"?
Wierwille took advantage of an ambiguity in our understanding of "oikonomia" to read foreign meanings INTO the text. Wierwille taught things about "administrations" that directly contradict what Paul actually wrote about "periods of time".
Comprendez vous?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Monsieur Lortz,
C'est "comprenez-vous" n'est pas?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Sorry VL, in my hasty reading of the thread I misattributed things to you. They rightly delong to Dave. And Geo., meaning the St.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I can't help but get off-thread a little (probably due to the fact that I couldn't care less what the "Holy Bible" has to say) but I've got to revisit Mr. Wierwille's supposed "doctorate".
BFD, there's no mystery surrounding how one obtains a Phd. There is a set, very well defined protocol in place. You fulfill the requirements, you get your degree.
As I remember it, one who is a Phd. candidate gets a mentor, works through the particulars of his area of interest and the specific topic of his dissertation, earns the necessary credits for his degree through an accredited university, then gives and defends his dissertation before a group of his peers. A copy of his dissertation is then kept in the archives of the university.
There is no evidence of VPW doing any of that.
There is this however:
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/quz_ipikepk.htm
I've heard that the prestigious "Pike's Peak University" has since gone the way of all things, the degree-mill business not being as lucrative as it once was, I guess.
Be that as it may, I have a simple exhortation for you.
For the next three months just put all your Bible and WayWorld reading material aside. Start reading THE NEW YORK TIMES, SKEPTIC MAGAZINE, and SCIENCE and I guarantee you in just three months you won't know yourself.
You'll be asking honest questions about hitherto unapproachable subjects, having serious doubts about things that were absolutely iron-clad in your mind before, and generally just giving up on the knee-jerk, pre-chewed, answer-in-a-can type of thinking.
You might also want to lose the "I'll staighten out you poor pathetic bastards" tone in your posts. We've all "been there, done that" with that kind of poster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
George Aar - I've always enjoyed reading your posts, though we haven't interacted much at GreaseSpot. I can respect your decisions to believe the things you do, even though I have made different decisions.
"Skeptical Inquirer" is one of my favorite reads, but I'm too skeptical to believe everything they print :-D I'd add "Scientific American" and the "Wall Street Journal" to your list.
As far as "Comprendez vous?" goes, I learned all my French from Inspector Cluseau (sp?) :-D
(Did you realize we get our English word "geezer" from the French word "guiser", which, transliterated into English would be "wiser"? Cool, huh!?!)
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Steve Lortz,
I've only recently gotten a tune-up on my high school French - a preparation for a trip to Cambodia (unfortunately not many speak it there anymore).
Hey! That's "Mr." Geezer to you!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
George Posted
George,Then why do you bother at all with these doctrinal threads? I mean you don't give a hoot about the Bible - so what's the point?
Don't you think you have rubbed our noses in your disdain for the Bible enough times by now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I agree.
I think that exhortations to critical thought have their place in
the GSC, especially to newer arrivals who have has limited
exposure to them.
Some threads, in fact, recommend skeptical thought and discussion
from that perspective.
However, not every thread DOES,
and it can be an unnecessary distraction from the discussion.
We ARE trying to discuss "dispensationalism" (aka various things)
in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Yet "Aion" was also unquestionably employed as a term of personification - in other words, "Aion" was to the ancients another term for a deity or a godlike being. In ALL of the passages you cited by Paul, this particular usage or understanding could and would work just as well if not better.
Devotees of Mithraism - which was quite popular throughout Paul's home territory of Tarsus,- referred to their god Mithra as "the Aion".
One might even argue that the term "Everlasting God" - the "God of this Aion" or "Aeonian God" could just as easily be the original meaning.
Ranging from Zoroastrianism to Gnosticism, the idea of "Time" was personified, and not always deemed literally as "a period of time".
When considering again the examples you cited, comprising of a succession of terms in reference to heavenly rulers or overlords,- "Aion" may easily be viewed as another parallelism that functions as and is supported by the other "rulership" terms in those contexts.
Sorry Steve, but this term "aion" is not off the "ambiguity" hook either.
It could mean a literal period of time - but could also be "The Aeon" or "Aeonian God".
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Goey,
"Don't you think you have rubbed our noses in your disdain for the Bible enough times by now?"
Getting a little huffy are we?
The title of the thread is "Wierwille's Wacky Dispensationalism", I thought a tidbit about his qualifications might be in order.
BTW, if my posts offend you, you can ignore them. God knows you wouldn't be the first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
George - I am known as "the Geezer" on some of the websites where I post, so I wasn't meaning in any way to impune YOU.
Danny - As with George, I recognize that you and I differ because we have chosen to accept different presuppositions. I admire the diligence both you and George have used to research, think through and articulate your positions, even though, starting from different assumptions, I arrive at different conclusions. When it comes to basic presuppositions, "De gustibus non disputandum est!"
Those things being said, I have some comments, Danny, on your post of 12/12/04, 05:25,
Two points:
First, you wrote "'Aion' was to the ancients another term for a deity or godlike being."
SOME of the ancients, Danny, not ALL of them. Even though some ancients used "aion" with the sense you put forward, its primary, fundamental meaning in everyday language was the span of a life-time, hence, "a period of time".
Some of the ancient philosophies used the word "aion" to identify or personify certain "emanations" from "the great god", but not all. Stoicism was the predominant philosophy in the first century. I did a quick check of "The Origins of Stoic Cosmology" and "Greek Philosophical Terms", and I couldn't find any references to "aion" in relation to Stoicism.
Second, you wrote, "In ALL of the passages you cited by Paul, this particular usage or understanding could and would work just as well if not better."
If the uses I quoted were the ONLY places where "aion" occurred, your line of thinking would have some plausibility. However, let's look at Luke 18. The whole passage from verse 18 through verse 30 is instructive for those interested in the Biblical, rather than the dispensationalist concepts of salvation, since it equates the ideas of inheriting eternal life, entry into the kingdom of God, being saved, and receiving eternal life in the age to come.
But we're only going to look at two verses,
The operant phrases are the last two. In the Greek they are, "en toi_kairoi_toutoi kai en toi aioni toi_erchomenoi zoen aionion"
"In this time and in the age that is coming life of the age."
The word "kairos" was a term of art in Greek military writing. It meant "the decisive moment", the time in a battle where to act means victory, and not to act means defeat. Here "kairos" is the object of the preposition "en", and it occurs in the dative case. This construction is an indication of time.
The conjunction "kai" creates a parallelism between the phrase "in this time [kairos]" and the phrase "in the age [aion] to come". The word "aion" is also in the dative case, and appears as the of object of "en". "Aion" here is also used as an indication of time.
I do not believe that Jesus, Luke or Paul used the word "aion" to mean a "deity or godlike being". I believe they all used it in its plain, ordinary sense of "a period of time".
You wrote, "Sorry Steve, but this term 'aion' is not off the 'ambiguity' hook either." If that's the way you choose to see it, Danny. But you're going to have to present solid evidence if you hope to persuade.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
George,
No, not huffy at all. Just a bit annoyed and wondering why an agnostic or atheist - bible rejector would bother to show up so often on bible doctrinal threads with derailing comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Goey -- simple (at least to me). Something about a dog returning to it's vomit -- comes to mind. Perhaps not in the case of George, but I wouldn't doubt it. There are areas in my life (that I am no longer connected with), that I continue to return to. Some "force" seems to draw me back to that which I no longer acknowledge.
Guess it is true -- opposites attract.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
So I guess we all do the same, just within our own boundaries, guidelines, "acceptable limits", etc.
:)-->
I have no problem with anyone, of any persuasion, asking questions or making statements, in any of the threads available here at GSCafe. It never hurts to have one's belief's challenged, so that one has to think about what they believe, rather than accept it blindly.
Mental slumber, and lack of questions is what I was used to in twi. Not here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Steve,
My purpose was not to "persuade" but to correct and contest your original implication that
"aion" could refer only to a "period of time" - which you were gracious to acknowledge in
the course of your fine reply.
But for the benefit of others who are reading, I cite this additional meaning of "aion" , which BTW, I make no claim to being the only interpretation. Liddell, in addition to citing Steve's position, also confirms my observation:
I. lifetime, life, .
2. age, generation
3. one's life, destiny, lot, S.Tr.34, E.Andr.1215, Fr.30, etc.
II. long space of time, age
2. space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age, ho ai?outos this present world, opp. ho mell?Ev.Matt.13.22, cf. Ep.Rom.12.2; ho nun ai.
3. Ai?ho, personified, Ai?hronou pais E.Heracl.900 (lyr.), cf. Corp.Herm.11, etc.; as title of various divine beings, Dam.Pr.151, al.; esp.=Persian Zervan, Suid. s.v. H??os.
The full, unedited definition may be viewed at the Perseus website.
Of the Christian gnostic and Mandaean usage of "Aeon", Hans Jonas (The Gnostic Religion, p.54, footnote 9) writes:
"In the singular, "aeon" can simply mean "the world" and is as "this aeon" in Jewish and Christian thought opposed to "the coming aeon": here, the model was probably the Hebrew word olam (Aram. alma), whose original meaning of "eternity" came to include that of "world." The Mandaean plural almaya can mean "worlds" and "beings," the latter in a personal (superhuman) sense. Personification is joined to the New Testament concept of "this aeon" by expressions like "the god [or, "the rulers"] of this aeon."
In Jonas' glossary (ibid, p.99), to "worlds" he writes:
"Almaya, can also mean "beings," sometimes also, in spite of the plural form, simply the singular "world"; mostly not certain which of the different meanings is intended in the given case."
I posed myself this simple question a few years ago: in addition to the Greek, is there any evidence in the Hebrew and Aramaic literature of this practice of personifying "age" or "aeon" (olam, alma) as a "being," as opposed to interpreting such as a literal space or epoch or duration of time?
I was soon rewarded with a fine, indisputable specimen from the Qumran "Dead Sea" Scrolls; section II of "The Genesis Apocryphon," which concerns the birth of Noah, and whose father Lamech suspected that his wife had consorted with one of the angels that descended from heaven (note the crucial role angels play throughout these passages):
"Behold, I thought to then within my heart that conception was (due) to the Watchers and the Holy Ones...and to the Giants...and my heart was troubled within me because of this child. Then I, Lamech, approached Bathenosh [my] wife in haste and said to her, '...but the Most High, the Great Lord, the King of all the worlds and the Ruler of the Sons of Heaven...tell me [this truthfully] and not falsely...by the King of all the Worlds..."
Note the couplets given in the typical pattern of Jewish parallelism:
...by the Most High
the Great Lord
King of all the worlds
And Ruler of the Sons of Heaven
The "Worlds" (Aram. almaya =Heb. olam= Gk.aion) are the "Sons of Heaven", which, as we know from other places ("sons of God" in Gen.6) - are "angels".
"Worlds" employed here, are not inanimate "ages" or literal "spans of time".
One may struggle in vain to find examples among the Stoics and other philosophical schools - but for goodness sakes, one need look no further than the Jews' own writings of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" (!)
As mentioned in the citation of Jonas, almaya
(= ages, worlds) was personified throughout the Aramaic literature of the Mandaeans, a sect which claimed to have descended from followers of John the Baptist. Jonas' work contains many examples from their writings, and I would encourage anyone interested to check out Jonas' work.
Now onto a couple of examples in the New Testament, bearing in mind what we just learned from the "Genesis Apocryphon"
Hebrews 1:1ff -
1. In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
2. But in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir
of all, through whom he also made the worlds
(Aram. almaya =Heb.olam= Gk.aion)
3. He reflects the glory of God, and bears the very stamp of his nature...he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High,
4. being made so much superior to the angels..
5. for to what angel did God declare...
6. "Let all Gods angels worship him."
7. Of the angels he declares,
8. "Who makes his angels winds
and his servants a flame of fire"
13. But to what angel has he ever declared... etc., etc., - angels are discussed into the next chapter - which discussion all commenced with "the worlds" or "the aeons" being "made".
But if that's not enough- how about the committee of translators and editors behind our "Revised Standard Version" (Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953)?
Col.1:26
"the mystery hidden for ages and generations"...
footnote c offers this alternate rendition:
"Or from angels and men "
Obviously they thought "ages" = "angels"
And "generations" = "men".
Now when you consider the examples from the Genesis Apocryphon, the Book of Hebrews; the Mandaean literature as well as the Nag Hammadi Library, for which I will not bother getting into here - where the godlike beings of "angels" are also ascribed the term "worlds" (Aram. almaya =Heb. olam= Gk.aion) - how can one not seriously contemplate the possible personification of "aeon" or "aeons" in other contexts of Paul, in which contexts other terms for "angels" also appear? i.e., the "Archons of this Aeon" in 1 Cor.2:6; "according to the Aeon, according to the Archon of the air" in Eph.2?
Again, much depends on the contexts in how aionos (as with any word) is employed.
It is not certain nor obvious that such was always employed in such a literal interpretation. I would encourage readers to experiment with both literal and personified meanings, because depending on the context - either are possible, from my personal observation.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Danny,
Nice Work ........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Danny - In your post of 12/12/04, 05:25, you wrote, "When considering again the examples you cited, comprising of a succession of terms in reference to heavenly rulers or overlords, - 'Aion' may easily be viewed as another parallelism that functions as and is supported by the other 'rulership' terms in those contexts."
Let's look at Ephesians 1:21
Ephesians 1:21 does NOT set up a parallelism between "aion" and the other dignities listed. They are all objects of the preposition "huperano". "Aion" is a noun denoting time, and is the object of the preposition "en", in the dative case. This is an expression of time, not of personification.
Beside which, if "aion" is understood to be the personification of an emanation from the "great god", what is that emanation understood to be, if not time itself? So we have a situation where we can understand "aion" in its simple, primary sense as "a period of time", or we can understand it as a convoluted personification which represents... A PERIOD OF TIME?
Matthew 12:32 mentions the idea of "this age" and "the age to come", but we learn more about the concepts from Matthew 13,
Notice that the "harvest" is NOT an angel. The angels are the "reapers". The harvest represents the end of this "aion" or "period of time".
Notice also that the enemy who sowed the tares is not an "aion" either. Dittos for the Son of man.
In the time before the harvest, the tares grow along with the good seed. In the time after the harvest, the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
This age ["aion"], and the age ["aion"] to come. Periods of time.
Let's review Luke, where Jesus was responding to the Saducees' question regarding the woman who had been married seven times,
This age "age" and that "age".
Notice verse 36 does NOT say that "aion" means "angel". It says those who are counted worthy to obtain that age ["aion"] are like angels.
Luke associates the resurrection from the dead, and not having to die anymore,... and becoming children of God, by the way,... with "that age", the age to come, not with "this age". This goes along with what we saw in Matthew, that the righteous shall shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father... when? In the age to come.
Can you see why the disciples were so interested in the transition from this period of time to the period of time which is to come? shining forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father... the resurrection from the dead... becoming children of God?
The New Testament contains a fully developed system regarding the arrangement of various "periods of time". Paul's uses of phrases denoting "this age" are in consonance with that system's arrangement. The system unambiguously uses the word "aion" to mean "a period of time".
Wiierwille's scheme of "administrations" uses a variant meaning of "oikonomia" to read a foreign arrangement of "periods of time" into the Bible. It is an exercise, not in exegesis, but in eisegesis. Wierwille's system of "administrations" contradicts the scriptural system of ages.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Ok, dealing with administrations, or dispensations, or ages, or eras, or the like. I don't much care what they are called.
But we are dealing with God's relationship with or governing of mankind. Upon Adam committing the original sin (BTW, I don't see where garden + tree + fruit + eat results in self-pleasure of anything related to that), there was an abrupt change in God's relationship to man. Prior to original sin, 1 commandment: see that tree, don't eat anything on it. Afterwards, it was basically man ruling man, as God permitted such to happen.
Some dramatically or radically altered events happened upon original sin. There was a period of time before sin entered the world. Then sin entered the world. Eventually Jesus Christ will destroy sin. Time Periods: Pre-Sin, Sin, Sin Destroyed.
During the period in which sin has been introduced into the world, there is a time when man rules man. There is a time under which God gives written laws to Israel Before laws, only communication with God through revelation or some from of coming into concrete form and the sharing of the information by word of mouth.
When God starts giving the laws to Moses, all of Israel is expected to obey the laws. Jesus fulfilled the law, thus people no longer expected to obey the laws, except 2: love God with all... and love thy neighbor as thyself.
Ok, there wasn't a radical difference between the period where man ruled over man and the law of given. Man was born as body and soul creations possessing a sin nature. Men (and women) could have spirit upon them both before the law was given and afterward until Pentecost. Yet, the way God governed or oversaw His people did change with the giving of the Mosaic laws. There was a different means or standard for measuring obedience.
Jesus Christ most certaily did fulfill the law. Upon and following the day of Pentecost, I was now available for a person to have spirit within them. There was never any record of a person being born again before Pentecost. Upon Pentecost, there was.
Jesus Christ said he would build his church. That was putting it in terms of the future meaning it had not happened at that time. Before Pentecost, only Jews and Gentiles are mentioned. After Pentecost, we can see a whole new group of people, church of God. The church of God or the body of Christ is never mentioned prior to Pentecost.
Peter asked Jesus if he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. A kingdom means rulership or governing. The word "oikonomia" means either stewardship or governing. Both stewardship and governing takes place over time. The kingdom wasn't presently restored to Israel, that would take place at a later time.
Jesus did not read "and the day of vengeance of our God". Day most certainly refers to time. The day of vengeance of our God is a future event.
Now the so-called Appearing Administration. There will be numerous radical changes the way God deals with mankind. First the rapture (or gathering together for those of you who don't get come up in whose terminology belongs to who). The rapture changes how God deals with the body of Christ. People will get new bodies. Chaos will exit on earth.
There are both of the resurrections of Israel. Radical changes will happen during those periods.
And finally Craig Martindale will destroy the devil. Sorry, I had an "Athletes of the Spirit Production" flashback. No, the devil will defeat the adversary.
There are the sufferings and the glory which follows. Those are distinct periods in time.
Do I think that the administrations, or dispensations, or eras, or epochs, or ages, or gumbafornicadeedles (yes, I made the stupid word up) are exactly as Bullinger and VPW laid them out. No. But, I certainly know that the conditions necessary for the new birth did not exist before Pentecost. Otherwise, Christ died in vain. So, the Covenant Theory that things just kind of evolved to this point doesn't ring true.
Personally, I would divide the Appearing Administration or Era or (insert preference here) into 3 different periods. Each event, coming of Christ and resurrections of Israel represent a distinct change in God's relationship to mankind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Pardon my goof. Jesus Christ will defeat the adverary. And his "production" will be a lot better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If you are a bible believin' type o' guy, shouldn't you be concerned about what something is called? That whole "God means what he says and says what he means" thang?
AS Song would day "Just a thot"
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Oak,
Have you ever heard of the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There was a period in which God gave laws to Moses and expected people to live according to those laws. God never demanded that we have an exact label for that time period. Therefore, if it makes no difference to God, it makes no difference to me. Again, I have been accused of only using Way terminology. Another gross exaggeration. But, some people in this forum seem to thrive on wild accusations and gross exaggerations. God did not demand we label time periods. As a matter of facts, we were told not to get hung up on holy days, etc. If someone wants to call it the Law Disemcantankerotamus, it's fine with me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
BF, I think you make some reasonable points in your 'administrations" summation above. At the same time, most statements really are at the least arguable, and worst they're unsupported & just speculation. Now I understand the system of logic that produces such conclusions, but i question the soundness of the logic. Taken at face value, some statemetns come off as wild fabrications without any direct support:
"Man was born as body and soul creations possessing a sin nature. Men (and women) could have spirit upon them both before the law was given and afterward until Pentecost." Hmmmm
"Upon and following the day of Pentecost, I was now available for a person to have spirit within them. There was never any record of a person being born again before Pentecost. Upon Pentecost, there was." Says who?
"First the rapture (or gathering together for those of you who don't get come up in whose terminology belongs to who). The rapture changes how God deals with the body of Christ. People will get new bodies."
"But, I certainly know that the conditions necessary for the new birth did not exist before Pentecost."
On this last point, if people before Pentecost could not be saved by grace through faith, how then were they saved? I think this is an essential point. Orthodox dispensationalists do not believe as Wierwille did...that these people were saved by keeping the laws of God. What say you?
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.