Consider the 12. For them the new testament began for them when Jesus said it did and before that even when that spirit began to build in their hearts. There are a few times where Jesus told Peter that he was receiving info from God. It's the same for every one, it starts when they start being born again.
Like I said earlier, if you think of it on a more personal level, things make more sense.
Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Immersed into Jesus Christ, his name, who he is, what the scriptures say of him. I'd say the 12 and more were immersed into what Jesus was teaching and showing them.
John's baptism-immersed into repentence-by water washing away sin.
Luke 3:21Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Acts 1:5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
perhaps all that really changed was their (Jesus and whomever he impressed) ability to "get it?" And the universe just plodded along with its usual evolving craziness. Though, of course, this new magnitude of "getting it" (like any new magnitude would) kinda also changes the universe in many ways, especially in how these folks could now help people (and new ways to .... them off)
as it pertains to the administrations/divine chunks of time...perhaps all this splitting hairs over laws and vague testaments is in the way of seeing that it really is a simple matter of day after day after day (on big and little clocks all at once).
there is no such thing as the "last" day.
though this is not to say that "days of the lord" do not come and go (as in ages)
one day....such and such applies, the next day, all kinds of crap has changed.
simply cuz it has. if God just is, and whatever changes are just are, then there still seems a divine hand in things, imo.
the obvious and the irrevocable suchness as it is...divine no matter how you approach it
also, how much more vast has the entire universe gotten in the past 2000 years? ten times larger? a hundred times larger? a thousand? regardless, even ten times is enough to change the unfolding perceptions of time itself, I would say (in all perceptions that are not simply timeless). perhaps as the wheel grows, its revolutions do as well.
It's profitable as well as entertaining to compare notes on what we think "this" means, or "that". Certainly not something we were encouraged to do in TWI. I feel strongly about the conclusions I've come to, and I'm willing to argue them (in the finest sense of the word "argue").
But the truth is, I also am one of the blind men exploring the elephant. I will tell you an elephant is like a rope, because I first came across the tail. You others may well tell me it's like a wall, or a snake, or a tree, or a leaf; depending on the particular part YOU came across first.
All of you can learn something from what I write. The objective elephant's tail IS like a rope. But I need to stay receptive to the things YOU ALL have to teach ME also. The objective elephant is more than its tail.
There are two levels of knowing things. One level is knowing ABOUT something. Knowing ABOUT something is impersonal and indirect. It occurs at a linguistic level. It can be talked about using analytical language. I think the Bible uses "gnosis" in this sense at times.
The other level is KNOWING something by direct, personal experience. KNOWING something occurs at the pre- or sub-linguistic level of the mind, and it cannot be expressed in analytical language. Poetics (in the broad sense of the word; story-telling, figures of speech, formal poetry, myth-making, fables, parables... even comic books!) are the only forms of language that can express KNOWING. That's why it's called "poetic knowledge" in the classical education movement. I think the Bible sometimes uses "epignosis" to refer to what I might call "poetic knowledge".
Several times, Vertical Limit has written words to this effect, "If you think of it on a more personal level, things make more sense."
I take this as an appeal, on Vertical's part, for us to consider the poetic, as well as the analytical, sense of what the Bible and we ourselves mean when we use the phrase "born again".
I can extract the meaning of what the Bible says from the words and the grammar used ("exegesis"). That's what Wierwille claimed he was teaching us to do in PFAL. In reality, Wierwille was drilling us in a system of "eisegesis", reading foreign meanings into the text by subtly distorting meanings and grammar. PFAL focused almost entirely on acquiring knowledge through analytic means. Remember the Intermediate Class, and how the manifestations were analyzed to death? All of the poetic knowledge transmitted in PFAL was knowledge of submission and bondage.
As I say, I can extract the meaning of what the Bible says from the words and the grammar, but the information extracted will be mere knowledge. Only when I can connect the extracted meaning with my experience of the Spirit will I have poetic knowledge, or "epignosis".
Time to go fling a few more shovels' full (of snow... not the other stuff)! :-D
I think the real question of dispensationalism comes in its end, so to speak.
The issue is not whether God dealt with different people in different ways throughout history. He did. Everyone knows that. And if we were to agree, say, that those different ways of dealing with man should not be called dispensations or administrations, the central controversy would be far from over.
Let's settle some things up front:
1. Before the fall of Adam, God dealt with man one way.
2. After the fall of Adam but before Noah, there didn't seem to be much of anything. "The Word in the stars" may be alluded to, but let's be honest, this time period was rather chaotic. Who was in charge, of anything, anywhere? Right. No one.
3. After Noah but before Moses, we see the concept of civil government instituted by God Himself. Seems to be His idea that men should actually have to answer to each other for the things they do. (2) and (3) are referred to by Wierwille as the "Patriarchal Administration," but even if that's wrong, I think we can all agree that there are differences in the Divine relationship with man between this period and period (1), not to mention the periods which follow. During these pre-Law periods, God can't very well accuse someone of, say, violating the Sabbath or failing to keep Passover, right? There's a distinction. The distinction is not defined by time, but it is marked by it.
4. The Law is given. We all agree that after the law was given, Israel was "under" the Law. Administration? Covenant? Ignore that question for now: it's irrelevant. It was the Law, either way, right? Even when Israel became a kingdom, the kingdom was under and subject to the Law, so the kingdom didn't affect the Law's pre-eminence in their society.
5. Christ is on earth. One year, three, whatever the length of time was. The Law, incidentally, is still in effect during this time period. Is it a separate "administration" or not. I don't know. I don't care. I know, and I think all will agree, that Christ was on earth and the Law was still in effect. At some point at or soon after Christ's crucifixion, the pre-eminence of the Law is gone. Was it when he said "It is finished?" Was it Pentecost? Don't know. But all will agree that the next time period, following the ascension, has different rules from the former. Is it a new dispensation/administration? A new covenant. Don't know. Don't care. We can all agree that it's a new something, because none of us are killing lambs on Nisan 14.
6. And now this post-Christ on earth period begins, and continues until...
WHAM! Here's our stumbling block. While most Christians will pretty much agree with everything that's been written thus far (save that which was intentionally left ambiguous), Christians vehemently disagree on what happens next. For many (not all) dispensationalists, this current time period ends with the rapture of the church. We're gone, bye-bye, seeya. Revelation, you may now begin.
But other dispensationalists, and covenant theologians, say "not so fast." There is no pre-Revelation (or pre-tribulation) rapture of the church (or "catching up," to use the proper Biblical term). No, we who live in this current age are an extension of what came before, not a "mystery" separate and apart from it. We are grafted onto Israel, not a different animal.
The pre-tribulation rapture rests squarely on the validity of dispensationalism. If dispensationalism should be disproven, there is no basis for a pre-tribulation rapture. And there's the conflict.
Never mind the thousands of years of common ground: the future is where the division is. The past is academic, almost, because we agree so much more often than not. But the possibility of being misled into accepting an anti-Christ doesn't exist for the pre-trib dispensationalist. The covenant believer is keenly aware of it (and is therefore vigilant, or paranoid, depending on your view. ;)--> ).
I'll say this: I don't know with absolute certainty whether dispensationalism is right or wrong. I don't know with absolute certainty whether there will be a pre-trib, post-trib, or mid-trib "catching up." I do know that I would rather be vigilant and wrong than be NOT vigilant and wrong.
I don't know if I've contributed to this discussion or needlessly prolonged it, but thanks for letting me say my peace.
Romans 5:12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
God is now ready to "deal" with man as he did with Adam.
I will say a little more, not to .... anyone off or draw attention to myself, but to consider the scriptures.
The day of Pentecost is the first time recorded specificly that anyone spoke in toungues as promised from Mark. "they shall speak with new tougues" On that day of pentecost many understood what these 12 were saying (possibly interpretation of tounges) while others thought they were drunk.
But consider Jesus when he said my sheep hear my voice and follow me and when he said why do you not understand my speech.
John 8:43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Of course he also said to those that couldn't understand his speech that they were of their father the devil. But I don't think that's true in every case. The parables had many scratching their heads and wondering what the heck he was talking about. At one point many quit following Jesus because of what he was saying.
So possibly Jesus was speaking in toungues and the 12 and more eventually began to understand what he was talking about even before Pentecost.
Does that stir the pot of dispensational thinking? Or is it off onto another subject.
Something, I'm not saying what, but something told me Steve L is not quite done with this topic. Perhaps it's because he's still breathing. I don't know. Steve?
quote: I can extract the meaning of what the Bible says from the words and the grammar used ("exegesis"). That's what Wierwille claimed he was teaching us to do in PFAL. In reality, Wierwille was drilling us in a system of "eisegesis", reading foreign meanings into the text by subtly distorting meanings and grammar. PFAL focused almost entirely on acquiring knowledge through analytic means. Remember the Intermediate Class, and how the manifestations were analyzed to death? All of the poetic knowledge transmitted in PFAL was knowledge of submission and bondage.
WOW man ~~~ that sounds pretty slitherly eh Steve Lortz... ain't it so eh~~~
Song
quote:Taking a break from shovelling snow.
hahahahahah & the difference between the s hit & shinola on high~~~
In some ways, the topic of dispensationalism has been my hobby horse. There have been times here and elsewhere that I've run threads on the questions Wierwille's brand raises. I haven't felt so directly involved with this thread, but that's enjoyable. I can pop in and out and see what other people are thinking without having to drag my butt to the library incessantly to argue my points.
There are times, also, when we need to look at things, and mull them over, instead of engaging in lightning flash repartee. That seems to be one of the refreshing aspects of this thread. I'll consider some of the things people have written, and get back to it in a few days time.
It's disappointing how little thought or imagination goes into the manner with which dispensationalists handle or "divide" the gospel writings.
If I was still a dispensationalist - if going by the notion of writings being addressed to "Jews, Gentiles or Church of God" -
I would prefer, for example, that the idea that "the Gospel of Matthew" was addressed Jews or a Jewish-Christian audience, while the "Gospel of Luke" was addressed to Gentiles or a Gentile-Christian audience.
For goodness sakes, the least a Bullinger or a Wierwille could have done is attribute at least one gospel to the gentiles, or to "us" - rather than cut off the gospels altogether, as being written or addressed to someone else.
1 Corinthians 10:32Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
This is the verse that was used to say that parts of the bible were written to one of these 3 groups. Context anyone? Sheesh, why were we not thinking?
The scriptures are for our learning, all of them new and old testament to ALL people.
So what does this mean?
Romans 15:4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
"aforetime" What time? Pfal says the day of pentecost. I don't buy it. It's a time and times in our life. Not a date recorded in the history books or in the scriptures. Yet it's in there, in the scriptures, as we live it.
Romans 2:10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11For there is no respect of persons with God.
Keep the elephant in mind while looking at the tail. Look at the whole picture. It's like a jigsaw puzzle. Some pieces fit slowly others go so fast you can barely keep up.
Love your posts Steve Lortz. Keep 'em coming when your ready.
I agree with Vertical Limit, that I Corinthians 10:32 is irrelevant regarding "to whom addressed". In truth, Wierwille and other dispensationalists abused the sense of I Corinthians 10:32 when they confused the use of "Gentiles" there with its use in Romans 11:13.
quote: For I [Paul] speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
In Romans 11:17,18,19 and 24 Paul says that these Gentiles had been grafted in among THEM, the believers from Jewish backgrounds.
In Romans 11:20 Paul says these Gentiles stand by faith.
In Romans 11:25 Paul calls these Gentiles "brethren".
These Gentiles are not unbelievers. They are members of the Christian congregation at Rome who came to Christ from Gentile backgrounds.
Romans 9-11 are as much addressed to Christians as Romans 8 is.
Romans 11:30 ties together with Ephesians chapter 2.
This truth raises some pertinent questions about Wierwille's free and easy view of grace, because Romans 11:22 says, "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God; on them which fell; severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
Wierwille posits that this verse cannot be addressed to Christians, because if it were, it would contradict Romans 8:38&39
quote: For I [Paul] am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to seperate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
These verses say "nor any other creature" will be able to seperate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, but they DON'T say I can't seperate MYSELF from the love of God.
How? By works?
I have heard people (and I have some specific ones in mind) preach "I wasn't saved by works, so how could I lose my salvation by works."
Well, I don't think a person can. But Romans 11:20&21 say,
quote: "...because of unbelief, they [unbelieving Jews] were broken off, and thou [believing Gentiles] standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
These verses say that we believers from Gentile backgrounds stand on the same basis as believing Israel, by grace through faith: and that we need to respect this truth; that if we abandon our faith, then we can be cut off, just like unbelieving Israel.
It's a sobering thought. It was meant to be. It was written to sober up the Roman Christians from Gentile backgrounds, who were boasting about their Christianity.
Wierwille did not particularly enjoy sobriety, and he loved to boast.
Should I judge whether or not another person is saved before the race is over?
No. The ONLY, ONLY, ONLY person who is qualified to judge anybody's salvation is Jesus Christ Himself. If I presume to judge another person's salvation, I'm trying to take over the job of being boss, from the guy I'm supposed to be serving.
Can I, and should I, judge people's actions? Definitely, including my own.
All for this post. I imagine it will stir up a few hornets, as well as thoughts :-D
You wrote, "I would prefer... the idea that 'the Gospel of Matthew' was addressed [to] Jews or a Jewish-Christian audience, while the 'Gospel of Luke' was addressed to Gentiles or a Gentile-Christian audience."
I have a copy of a book called "Paul on Trial" by John W. Mauck (2001, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, ISBN 0785245987). Mauck is a lawyer, rather than a theologian by trade, and he presents a very detailed and plausible case for Luke-Acts being the legal brief Luke prepared for Paul's defense at his trial.
If that were the case, then Theophilus would have been the Roman magistrate assigned to hear Paul's case on Caesar's behalf, and we would have a gospel and another book (Acts) addressed to a specific Gentile.
Mauck does an analysis of Unique Luke (Luke minus passages from Mark, minus passages from Q) that is very persuasive.
If it were the fact that Luke-Acts was Paul's legal brief, it would put their composition, as well as the compositions of Mark and Q, at a relatively early date.
Interesting, no? I think you would enjoy the book if you can find a copy.
33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
----
Romans 11:21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
The question is graffed into what? The mind of the Lord in verse 34 could be what the subject is, not eternal Life.
"God is able to graff them in again." Time after time the mercy and grace of God shows itself.
quote: Why can't we accept the idea that all the Books of the Bible are written to believers for life and godliness. While some of the O.T. rules no longer apply, the principles that point toward holiness are eternal. It makes for a much less stressful walk, IMHO.
What should I make of this?
Your first sentence reads like a question. I ask myself, "Does def59 ask this rhetorically? If so, then what is the point def59 is trying to make. Yet the sentence is punctuated as a statement, not as a question.
What do you mean by "that all the Books of the Bible are written to believers for life and godliness"?
You wrote, "...some of the O.T. rules no longer apply". What makes you think that? Which O.T. rules no longer apply, and which are still in force? How does the Bible explain that change?
How do you derive "principles that point toward holiness" from what's written in the text?
When the word "eternal" appears in the Bible, does it mean the same thing that WE mean when we use the word?
Yes, our walk can be much less stressful when we ignore these questions, but then again, life was much less stressful when we simply accepted whatever Wierwille said as truth, smilingly said "Bless you!" and went about our business of "moving the Word".
Personally speaking, I don't think the Old Testament was written to me, or anybody else except for one person, Jesus of Nazareth. He was the only one who HAD to understand it. He was the only one who could DO it.
Can I learn a lot from the O.T.? You betcha. But not by snoozing along grooving on the easy parts.
Was any part of the New Testament addressed specifically to me? No, not one word.
Do I need the N.T. in order to be saved? Not necessarily. I can call on God in the name of the Lord without an intensive and exhaustive knowledge of what's written anywhere in any book. The Father has spoken to us in these latter days through His Son.
Does a sharp knowledge of what's written in the New Testament help me understand how the first Christians understood their relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ? Does that help me understand MY relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ? Yes, it does.
The Doctrinal Forum seems a strange place to downplay the discussion of doctrinal issues.
def59 - I hope my last post didn't come across as too harsh and critical. It IS stressful to consider that long held assurances might be erroneous. The confidence I have now of God's love for me through Jesus Christ is stronger than it has ever been, because my understanding of what's actually written in His Word is stronger.
That is interesting. I hope David Anderson sees your post on this, because he came to a similar conclusion a few years ago concerning "Acts" in his "Two Ways of the First Century Church...", that it was originally a legal treatise written on Paul's behalf. It's nice to stumble across some independent corroboration every so often.
Steve L. you are being very thorogh in your research. Which ain't bad. While def made some general statements that are not specifically pointing out certain things.
2 ways of thinking. Both have it's good points. Combine the 2 and you get an even different perspective.
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
Vertical Limit
Let's look at it for a second.
Consider the 12. For them the new testament began for them when Jesus said it did and before that even when that spirit began to build in their hearts. There are a few times where Jesus told Peter that he was receiving info from God. It's the same for every one, it starts when they start being born again.
Like I said earlier, if you think of it on a more personal level, things make more sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Also consider what it means to be baptized.
Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Immersed into Jesus Christ, his name, who he is, what the scriptures say of him. I'd say the 12 and more were immersed into what Jesus was teaching and showing them.
John's baptism-immersed into repentence-by water washing away sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Even Jesus received John's baptism.
Luke 3:21Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Acts 1:5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Immersed into what they already had-Holy Spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hi all.
been kinda following this interesting thread.
if i may....
perhaps all that really changed was their (Jesus and whomever he impressed) ability to "get it?" And the universe just plodded along with its usual evolving craziness. Though, of course, this new magnitude of "getting it" (like any new magnitude would) kinda also changes the universe in many ways, especially in how these folks could now help people (and new ways to .... them off)
as it pertains to the administrations/divine chunks of time...perhaps all this splitting hairs over laws and vague testaments is in the way of seeing that it really is a simple matter of day after day after day (on big and little clocks all at once).
there is no such thing as the "last" day.
though this is not to say that "days of the lord" do not come and go (as in ages)
one day....such and such applies, the next day, all kinds of crap has changed.
simply cuz it has. if God just is, and whatever changes are just are, then there still seems a divine hand in things, imo.
the obvious and the irrevocable suchness as it is...divine no matter how you approach it
also, how much more vast has the entire universe gotten in the past 2000 years? ten times larger? a hundred times larger? a thousand? regardless, even ten times is enough to change the unfolding perceptions of time itself, I would say (in all perceptions that are not simply timeless). perhaps as the wheel grows, its revolutions do as well.
and so a new brighter day dawns.
and we are a bit more confused
but also a bit more wiser
and so fasten yer friggin seatbelts...
+ODD
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Sirg...
Send me an email-the one I have will not work
And thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Taking a break from shovelling snow.
It's profitable as well as entertaining to compare notes on what we think "this" means, or "that". Certainly not something we were encouraged to do in TWI. I feel strongly about the conclusions I've come to, and I'm willing to argue them (in the finest sense of the word "argue").
But the truth is, I also am one of the blind men exploring the elephant. I will tell you an elephant is like a rope, because I first came across the tail. You others may well tell me it's like a wall, or a snake, or a tree, or a leaf; depending on the particular part YOU came across first.
All of you can learn something from what I write. The objective elephant's tail IS like a rope. But I need to stay receptive to the things YOU ALL have to teach ME also. The objective elephant is more than its tail.
There are two levels of knowing things. One level is knowing ABOUT something. Knowing ABOUT something is impersonal and indirect. It occurs at a linguistic level. It can be talked about using analytical language. I think the Bible uses "gnosis" in this sense at times.
The other level is KNOWING something by direct, personal experience. KNOWING something occurs at the pre- or sub-linguistic level of the mind, and it cannot be expressed in analytical language. Poetics (in the broad sense of the word; story-telling, figures of speech, formal poetry, myth-making, fables, parables... even comic books!) are the only forms of language that can express KNOWING. That's why it's called "poetic knowledge" in the classical education movement. I think the Bible sometimes uses "epignosis" to refer to what I might call "poetic knowledge".
Several times, Vertical Limit has written words to this effect, "If you think of it on a more personal level, things make more sense."
I take this as an appeal, on Vertical's part, for us to consider the poetic, as well as the analytical, sense of what the Bible and we ourselves mean when we use the phrase "born again".
I can extract the meaning of what the Bible says from the words and the grammar used ("exegesis"). That's what Wierwille claimed he was teaching us to do in PFAL. In reality, Wierwille was drilling us in a system of "eisegesis", reading foreign meanings into the text by subtly distorting meanings and grammar. PFAL focused almost entirely on acquiring knowledge through analytic means. Remember the Intermediate Class, and how the manifestations were analyzed to death? All of the poetic knowledge transmitted in PFAL was knowledge of submission and bondage.
As I say, I can extract the meaning of what the Bible says from the words and the grammar, but the information extracted will be mere knowledge. Only when I can connect the extracted meaning with my experience of the Spirit will I have poetic knowledge, or "epignosis".
Time to go fling a few more shovels' full (of snow... not the other stuff)! :-D
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think the real question of dispensationalism comes in its end, so to speak.
The issue is not whether God dealt with different people in different ways throughout history. He did. Everyone knows that. And if we were to agree, say, that those different ways of dealing with man should not be called dispensations or administrations, the central controversy would be far from over.
Let's settle some things up front:
1. Before the fall of Adam, God dealt with man one way.
2. After the fall of Adam but before Noah, there didn't seem to be much of anything. "The Word in the stars" may be alluded to, but let's be honest, this time period was rather chaotic. Who was in charge, of anything, anywhere? Right. No one.
3. After Noah but before Moses, we see the concept of civil government instituted by God Himself. Seems to be His idea that men should actually have to answer to each other for the things they do. (2) and (3) are referred to by Wierwille as the "Patriarchal Administration," but even if that's wrong, I think we can all agree that there are differences in the Divine relationship with man between this period and period (1), not to mention the periods which follow. During these pre-Law periods, God can't very well accuse someone of, say, violating the Sabbath or failing to keep Passover, right? There's a distinction. The distinction is not defined by time, but it is marked by it.
4. The Law is given. We all agree that after the law was given, Israel was "under" the Law. Administration? Covenant? Ignore that question for now: it's irrelevant. It was the Law, either way, right? Even when Israel became a kingdom, the kingdom was under and subject to the Law, so the kingdom didn't affect the Law's pre-eminence in their society.
5. Christ is on earth. One year, three, whatever the length of time was. The Law, incidentally, is still in effect during this time period. Is it a separate "administration" or not. I don't know. I don't care. I know, and I think all will agree, that Christ was on earth and the Law was still in effect. At some point at or soon after Christ's crucifixion, the pre-eminence of the Law is gone. Was it when he said "It is finished?" Was it Pentecost? Don't know. But all will agree that the next time period, following the ascension, has different rules from the former. Is it a new dispensation/administration? A new covenant. Don't know. Don't care. We can all agree that it's a new something, because none of us are killing lambs on Nisan 14.
6. And now this post-Christ on earth period begins, and continues until...
WHAM! Here's our stumbling block. While most Christians will pretty much agree with everything that's been written thus far (save that which was intentionally left ambiguous), Christians vehemently disagree on what happens next. For many (not all) dispensationalists, this current time period ends with the rapture of the church. We're gone, bye-bye, seeya. Revelation, you may now begin.
But other dispensationalists, and covenant theologians, say "not so fast." There is no pre-Revelation (or pre-tribulation) rapture of the church (or "catching up," to use the proper Biblical term). No, we who live in this current age are an extension of what came before, not a "mystery" separate and apart from it. We are grafted onto Israel, not a different animal.
The pre-tribulation rapture rests squarely on the validity of dispensationalism. If dispensationalism should be disproven, there is no basis for a pre-tribulation rapture. And there's the conflict.
Never mind the thousands of years of common ground: the future is where the division is. The past is academic, almost, because we agree so much more often than not. But the possibility of being misled into accepting an anti-Christ doesn't exist for the pre-trib dispensationalist. The covenant believer is keenly aware of it (and is therefore vigilant, or paranoid, depending on your view.
;)--> ).
I'll say this: I don't know with absolute certainty whether dispensationalism is right or wrong. I don't know with absolute certainty whether there will be a pre-trib, post-trib, or mid-trib "catching up." I do know that I would rather be vigilant and wrong than be NOT vigilant and wrong.
I don't know if I've contributed to this discussion or needlessly prolonged it, but thanks for letting me say my peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Nice summation and post Raf.
Here's another summation...
Romans 5:12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
God is now ready to "deal" with man as he did with Adam.
Edited by Vertical LimitLink to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Or should I say man is now ready to deal with God as Adam could. hmmm, both are true I think...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
I will say a little more, not to .... anyone off or draw attention to myself, but to consider the scriptures.
The day of Pentecost is the first time recorded specificly that anyone spoke in toungues as promised from Mark. "they shall speak with new tougues" On that day of pentecost many understood what these 12 were saying (possibly interpretation of tounges) while others thought they were drunk.
But consider Jesus when he said my sheep hear my voice and follow me and when he said why do you not understand my speech.
John 8:43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Of course he also said to those that couldn't understand his speech that they were of their father the devil. But I don't think that's true in every case. The parables had many scratching their heads and wondering what the heck he was talking about. At one point many quit following Jesus because of what he was saying.
So possibly Jesus was speaking in toungues and the 12 and more eventually began to understand what he was talking about even before Pentecost.
Does that stir the pot of dispensational thinking? Or is it off onto another subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Bump.
Something, I'm not saying what, but something told me Steve L is not quite done with this topic. Perhaps it's because he's still breathing. I don't know. Steve?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
WOW man ~~~ that sounds pretty slitherly eh Steve Lortz... ain't it so eh~~~
Song
hahahahahah & the difference between the s hit & shinola on high~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
In some ways, the topic of dispensationalism has been my hobby horse. There have been times here and elsewhere that I've run threads on the questions Wierwille's brand raises. I haven't felt so directly involved with this thread, but that's enjoyable. I can pop in and out and see what other people are thinking without having to drag my butt to the library incessantly to argue my points.
There are times, also, when we need to look at things, and mull them over, instead of engaging in lightning flash repartee. That seems to be one of the refreshing aspects of this thread. I'll consider some of the things people have written, and get back to it in a few days time.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It's disappointing how little thought or imagination goes into the manner with which dispensationalists handle or "divide" the gospel writings.
If I was still a dispensationalist - if going by the notion of writings being addressed to "Jews, Gentiles or Church of God" -
I would prefer, for example, that the idea that "the Gospel of Matthew" was addressed Jews or a Jewish-Christian audience, while the "Gospel of Luke" was addressed to Gentiles or a Gentile-Christian audience.
For goodness sakes, the least a Bullinger or a Wierwille could have done is attribute at least one gospel to the gentiles, or to "us" - rather than cut off the gospels altogether, as being written or addressed to someone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
1 Corinthians 10:32Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
This is the verse that was used to say that parts of the bible were written to one of these 3 groups. Context anyone? Sheesh, why were we not thinking?
The scriptures are for our learning, all of them new and old testament to ALL people.
So what does this mean?
Romans 15:4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
"aforetime" What time? Pfal says the day of pentecost. I don't buy it. It's a time and times in our life. Not a date recorded in the history books or in the scriptures. Yet it's in there, in the scriptures, as we live it.
Romans 2:10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11For there is no respect of persons with God.
Keep the elephant in mind while looking at the tail. Look at the whole picture. It's like a jigsaw puzzle. Some pieces fit slowly others go so fast you can barely keep up.
Love your posts Steve Lortz. Keep 'em coming when your ready.
vert
Edited by Vertical LimitLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I agree with Vertical Limit, that I Corinthians 10:32 is irrelevant regarding "to whom addressed". In truth, Wierwille and other dispensationalists abused the sense of I Corinthians 10:32 when they confused the use of "Gentiles" there with its use in Romans 11:13.
In Romans 11:17,18,19 and 24 Paul says that these Gentiles had been grafted in among THEM, the believers from Jewish backgrounds.
In Romans 11:20 Paul says these Gentiles stand by faith.
In Romans 11:25 Paul calls these Gentiles "brethren".
These Gentiles are not unbelievers. They are members of the Christian congregation at Rome who came to Christ from Gentile backgrounds.
Romans 9-11 are as much addressed to Christians as Romans 8 is.
Romans 11:30 ties together with Ephesians chapter 2.
This truth raises some pertinent questions about Wierwille's free and easy view of grace, because Romans 11:22 says, "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God; on them which fell; severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
Wierwille posits that this verse cannot be addressed to Christians, because if it were, it would contradict Romans 8:38&39
These verses say "nor any other creature" will be able to seperate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, but they DON'T say I can't seperate MYSELF from the love of God.
How? By works?
I have heard people (and I have some specific ones in mind) preach "I wasn't saved by works, so how could I lose my salvation by works."
Well, I don't think a person can. But Romans 11:20&21 say,
These verses say that we believers from Gentile backgrounds stand on the same basis as believing Israel, by grace through faith: and that we need to respect this truth; that if we abandon our faith, then we can be cut off, just like unbelieving Israel.
It's a sobering thought. It was meant to be. It was written to sober up the Roman Christians from Gentile backgrounds, who were boasting about their Christianity.
Wierwille did not particularly enjoy sobriety, and he loved to boast.
Should I judge whether or not another person is saved before the race is over?
No. The ONLY, ONLY, ONLY person who is qualified to judge anybody's salvation is Jesus Christ Himself. If I presume to judge another person's salvation, I'm trying to take over the job of being boss, from the guy I'm supposed to be serving.
Can I, and should I, judge people's actions? Definitely, including my own.
All for this post. I imagine it will stir up a few hornets, as well as thoughts :-D
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Here's one for the Invisible Dan -
You wrote, "I would prefer... the idea that 'the Gospel of Matthew' was addressed [to] Jews or a Jewish-Christian audience, while the 'Gospel of Luke' was addressed to Gentiles or a Gentile-Christian audience."
I have a copy of a book called "Paul on Trial" by John W. Mauck (2001, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, ISBN 0785245987). Mauck is a lawyer, rather than a theologian by trade, and he presents a very detailed and plausible case for Luke-Acts being the legal brief Luke prepared for Paul's defense at his trial.
If that were the case, then Theophilus would have been the Roman magistrate assigned to hear Paul's case on Caesar's behalf, and we would have a gospel and another book (Acts) addressed to a specific Gentile.
Mauck does an analysis of Unique Luke (Luke minus passages from Mark, minus passages from Q) that is very persuasive.
If it were the fact that Luke-Acts was Paul's legal brief, it would put their composition, as well as the compositions of Mark and Q, at a relatively early date.
Interesting, no? I think you would enjoy the book if you can find a copy.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Why can't we accept the idea that all the Books of the Bible are written to believers for life and godliness.
While some of the O.T. rules no longer apply, the principles that point toward holiness are eternal.
It makes for a much less stressful walk. IMHO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Good points def59.
I like these verses at the end of Romans 11
33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
----
Romans 11:21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
The question is graffed into what? The mind of the Lord in verse 34 could be what the subject is, not eternal Life.
"God is able to graff them in again." Time after time the mercy and grace of God shows itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
def59 - You wrote,
What should I make of this?
Your first sentence reads like a question. I ask myself, "Does def59 ask this rhetorically? If so, then what is the point def59 is trying to make. Yet the sentence is punctuated as a statement, not as a question.
What do you mean by "that all the Books of the Bible are written to believers for life and godliness"?
You wrote, "...some of the O.T. rules no longer apply". What makes you think that? Which O.T. rules no longer apply, and which are still in force? How does the Bible explain that change?
How do you derive "principles that point toward holiness" from what's written in the text?
When the word "eternal" appears in the Bible, does it mean the same thing that WE mean when we use the word?
Yes, our walk can be much less stressful when we ignore these questions, but then again, life was much less stressful when we simply accepted whatever Wierwille said as truth, smilingly said "Bless you!" and went about our business of "moving the Word".
Personally speaking, I don't think the Old Testament was written to me, or anybody else except for one person, Jesus of Nazareth. He was the only one who HAD to understand it. He was the only one who could DO it.
Can I learn a lot from the O.T.? You betcha. But not by snoozing along grooving on the easy parts.
Was any part of the New Testament addressed specifically to me? No, not one word.
Do I need the N.T. in order to be saved? Not necessarily. I can call on God in the name of the Lord without an intensive and exhaustive knowledge of what's written anywhere in any book. The Father has spoken to us in these latter days through His Son.
Does a sharp knowledge of what's written in the New Testament help me understand how the first Christians understood their relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ? Does that help me understand MY relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ? Yes, it does.
The Doctrinal Forum seems a strange place to downplay the discussion of doctrinal issues.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
def59 - I hope my last post didn't come across as too harsh and critical. It IS stressful to consider that long held assurances might be erroneous. The confidence I have now of God's love for me through Jesus Christ is stronger than it has ever been, because my understanding of what's actually written in His Word is stronger.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Steve,
That is interesting. I hope David Anderson sees your post on this, because he came to a similar conclusion a few years ago concerning "Acts" in his "Two Ways of the First Century Church...", that it was originally a legal treatise written on Paul's behalf. It's nice to stumble across some independent corroboration every so often.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Steve L. you are being very thorogh in your research. Which ain't bad. While def made some general statements that are not specifically pointing out certain things.
2 ways of thinking. Both have it's good points. Combine the 2 and you get an even different perspective.
btw I was glad to see that second post
:)-->
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.