This Forum

[@@Paul@@]

Could someone tell me WHY this forum was created?

 

[FreeinChrist]

AV1611 requested it. I was thinking it was so that there could be discussion regarding dispensationism so that the topic wouldn't clutter up other forums.

Ideally, it would be a place where dispensationists could debate each other regarding Acts, Acts 28 classic vs. Pauline....but instead it is just a place for antidispies to attack dispensationism.
I beleive it would be better in a congregational forum, then it could actually be discussed.

 

[@@Paul@@]

I beleive it would be better in a congregational forum, then it could actually be discussed.

I agree, I think it should be moved.

 

[Iosias]

I agree, I think it should be moved.

PM Erwin...personally I believe that it should stay here but rearding non-dyspies...just ignore them, that what I am doing

 

[Terral]

Greetings:

Paul wrote >> Could someone tell me WHY this forum was created?

FreeInChrist>> Ideally, it would be a place where dispensationists could debate each other regarding Acts, Acts 28 classic vs. Pauline....but instead it is just a place for antidispies to attack dispensationism.
I beleive it would be better in a congregational forum, then it could actually be discussed.

Paul >> I agree, I think it should be moved.

Av >> PM Erwin...personally I believe that it should stay here but regarding non-dyspies...just ignore them, that what I am doing

The Dispensations are from God, while Dispensationalism is from men. I believe that this forum is in the right place, but it has the wrong name. So many people have a negative view of ‘dispensationalism’ that you set yourself up for that negative kind of writing. Is the topic of Dispensations according to Scripture or not? Yes it is. (Luke 16:2-4, 1Cor. 9:17, Eph. 3:2, Col. 1:25, etc.) Can we defend our views on God dealing with the different households of Scripture in different ways from the Bible? Yes we can. After all, God deals with the faithful believers in our gospel differently than unbelievers.

Peter, John and James represent members of the Kingdom church, where the Pharisees, Sadducees and Lawyers did not accept the gospel of the kingdom and were not baptized by John. Luke 7:30. Was Mosaic Law given to Israel of the flesh (Rom. 9:4) or the entire world? The Law was given to Israel only. Therefore, Paul might be writing to the unsaved (Rom. 2:5) or Jews under Mosaic Law (Rom. 2:17) or to saved members of the body of Christ and true believers (Rom. 12:4+5). Failure to recognize the different households/administrations of Scripture forces everyone to read Scripture from a single context; as if God is speaking to everyone all the time. That kind of interpretation is based upon ignorance. Therefore, those who profess to be ‘pastors and teachers’ here should be teaching what the Bible says about dispensations, and how those things affect how we interpret Scripture.


In Christ,

Terral

 

[thereselittleflower]

Greetings:



[/font][/size]


The Dispensations are from God, while Dispensationalism is from men. I believe that this forum is in the right place, but it has the wrong name. So many people have a negative view of ‘dispensationalism’ that you set yourself up for that negative kind of writing. Is the topic of Dispensations according to Scripture or not? Yes it is. (Luke 16:2-4, 1Cor. 9:17, Eph. 3:2, Col. 1:25, etc.) Can we defend our views on God dealing with the different households of Scripture in different ways from the Bible? Yes we can. After all, God deals with the faithful believers in our gospel differently than unbelievers.

Peter, John and James represent members of the Kingdom church, where the Pharisees, Sadducees and Lawyers did not accept the gospel of the kingdom and were not baptized by John. Luke 7:30. Was Mosaic Law given to Israel of the flesh (Rom. 9:4) or the entire world? The Law was given to Israel only. Therefore, Paul might be writing to the unsaved (Rom. 2:5) or Jews under Mosaic Law (Rom. 2:17) or to saved members of the body of Christ and true believers (Rom. 12:4+5). Failure to recognize the different households/administrations of Scripture forces everyone to read Scripture from a single context; as if God is speaking to everyone all the time. That kind of interpretation is based upon ignorance. Therefore, those who profess to be ‘pastors and teachers’ here should be teaching what the Bible says about dispensations, and how those things affect how we interpret Scripture.


In Christ,

Terral

Hi Terral . .

I also agree it is in the right place . . it is a theological issue, not a congregational one . .

I don't see that any theological issue that deals with eschatology as warranting its own forum in the congregational forums where it can then be free from debate with others who do not agree with it . .

However, If THIS eschatological view is going to have its own forum, perhaps it would be better suited as a subforum under Eschatology . . .


And I agree with AV . . it is in the right place, and if you do not like the information those of us who are not dispensationalist are presenting, you can simply ignore it . .

There are serious issues this eschatological view point raises that need to be addressed in an open forum . . It is in the right place . .



Peace in Him!

 

[FreeinChrist]

Greetings:



[/font][/size]


The Dispensations are from God, while Dispensationalism is from men. I believe that this forum is in the right place, but it has the wrong name. So many people have a negative view of ‘dispensationalism’ that you set yourself up for that negative kind of writing. Is the topic of Dispensations according to Scripture or not? Yes it is. (Luke 16:2-4, 1Cor. 9:17, Eph. 3:2, Col. 1:25, etc.) Can we defend our views on God dealing with the different households of Scripture in different ways from the Bible? Yes we can. After all, God deals with the faithful believers in our gospel differently than unbelievers.

You have a point...if we could stick with the theology.

I was thinking it might fit a congregational forum because Reformed theology has a forum.

 

[TheScottsMen]

I have been thinking, I wonder if we could decide on dispensational fundamental issues that we all could agree on?

 

[In Christ Forever]

church, where the Pharisees, Sadducees and Lawyers did not accept the gospel of the kingdom and were not baptized by John. Luke 7:30. Was Mosaic Law given to Israel of the flesh (Rom. 9:4) or the entire world?

galatians 3: 7 Therefore know that [only] those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, [saying,] "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then those who [are] of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

The Law was given to Israel only. Therefore, Paul might be writing to the unsaved (Rom. 2:5) or Jews under Mosaic Law (Rom. 2:17) or to saved members of the body of Christ and true believers (Rom. 12:4+5).

According to my bible, the Seed already came. And since the Israelites don't believe in the NT as God's words, they will stay blinded until God opens their eyes to it. We can only pray for that.

galatian 3: 18 For if the inheritance [is] of the law, [it is] no longer of promise; but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise. 19 What purpose then [does] the law [serve?] It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not [mediate] for one [only,] but God is one.

Failure to recognize the different households/administrations of Scripture forces everyone to read Scripture from a single context; as if God is speaking to everyone all the time. That kind of interpretation is based upon ignorance.

Another words, it is either your interpretation or it is wrong, correct?
. Sorry, but if I am reading my bible right, only those of the faith of Jesus are saved. Whether Jesus comes back for Israel tomorrow or 10000 yrs from now, if they are not of the faith of Jesus, it appears they are loss. I will let God judge whether I am "ignorant" or not thank you.

Maybe the Isralis are basing their interpretation of scripture more out of ignorance than a blindness, as they appear to believe their "messiah" hasn't come yet. Mine has and because I am of the faith of Jesus and saved through the shed blood of Him on the CROSS, why should I worry about dispensations?
So please don't lay blame on me or others because of yours or the Israelis interpretations. God bless.


1 coring 6: 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

isaiah 5:2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected [it] to bring forth [good] grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 " And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it?Why then, when I expected [it] to bring forth [good] grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? 6 I will lay it waste; It shall not be pruned or dug, But there shall come up briers and thorns. I will also command the clouds That they rain no rain on it."

Therefore, those who profess to be ‘pastors and teachers’ here should be teaching what the Bible says about dispensations, and how those things affect how we interpret Scripture.

I think more people should just read the bible and let God lead them in it. After all, without His spirit, I wouldn't even know what a bible was.
Thank you for those words of wisdom

 

[Iosias]

I have been thinking, I wonder if we could decide on dispensational fundamental issues that we all could agree on?

I believe that a fundamental issue is that there is a distinction between Israel and the church.

 

[scham]

Ok can someone tell me what Dispensations means in simple english, to big of a word for my little brain to get around or understand.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Failure to recognize the different households/administrations of Scripture forces everyone to read Scripture from a single context; as if God is speaking to everyone all the time.

I think this is one of the primary fallicies of dispensationalism. This is simply not true.

As incomprehensible the idea may be to dispys, non-dispys do not need the concept of dispensations to know that God isn't speaking to everyone all the time in the bible. BTW, I do not subscribe to Covenant theology.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Ok can someone tell me what Dispensations means in simple english, to big of a word for my little brain to get around or understand.

I'll keep this as simple as i can.

It simply means "to dispense"...

6. dispensing: the distribution or giving out of something
dispensation of emergency supplies​

A DISPENSation would be a distribution of "something".

 

[@@Paul@@]

I have been thinking, I wonder if we could decide on dispensational fundamental issues that we all could agree on?

lol... i don't think so.

I believe this group was created in light of ALL the dispensational discussions in the "Fundamentalist Churches" forum.

........We need a "dispensationalist discussion" SUBforum within the "Fundamentalist Churches" forum..........

those who want to debate what is being said in there... can just call us out.

 

[Terral]

Hi GoldDragon:

Terral Original >> Failure to recognize the different households/administrations of Scripture forces everyone to read Scripture from a single context; as if God is speaking to everyone all the time.

Dragon >> I think this is one of the primary fallicies of dispensationalism. This is simply not true.

That is an unsupported opinion, Dragon. My post is about Biblical ‘dispensations,’ and you are trying to draw men’s ‘dispensationalism’ invention into the mix. My statement above is very much fact, and I will be happy to prove it.

Dragon >> As incomprehensible the idea may be to dispys, non-dispys do not need the concept of dispensations to know that God isn't speaking to everyone all the time in the bible.

What? In the world? Is a dispys? Oh, a dispensationalists. FYI, I argue with those folks all the time over many topics. Just because we disagree does not make me a ‘dispensationalist,’ or dispy, or whatever. Your response here is very much off topic and again your statements are mere unsupported opinion. If you would care to write a few paragraphs that disprove my original premise above, then I would be happy to give a thoughtful reply. My point is that everyone uses a knowledge of dispensations in interpreting Scripture all the time. All of God’s commands in Scripture do not apply to everyone. Your ‘dispy’ friends simply see more Administrations than you do.

Some among Israel accepted the Kingdom, and the ‘rest were hardened.’ Rom. 11:7. That simple fact gives you two groups of Jews; saved (Messianic; New Covenant; bride under Peter) and unsaved (Old Covenant; Mosaic; Legal). God will deal with both groups differently. Then, we have those who believe the gospel of Christ’s shed blood (members of the body of Christ: body under Paul; Eph. 4:12) and those who do not (unless you believe everyone is saved). Guess what? Now you have four different groups. Was Adam and Eve under Mosaic Law? Or before the Law? Bang! God dealt with the differently. Noah? Abraham? To each He made promises and dealt with them and their households accordingly.

Peter was the head ‘to the circumcised’ (Gal. 2:7) and Paul had the ‘gospel to the uncircumcised.’ Gal. 2:7. Do not try and sell me on the idea that Peter and Paul preached the same gospel. If so, then Christ had no reason to send Paul down to submit “the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles” and “in fear of failure.” Gal. 2:2. Peter was over the ‘bride’ (John 3:29) and Paul over the ‘body’ (Col. 1:24). The heads of those SEPARATE GROUPS sat on opposite sides of the table at the meeting in Jerusalem. Acts 15, Gal. 2. Those are the absolute facts, my friend.

Paul wrote to Gentiles (Rom. 11:13) while Peter, John, James and Hebrews does not speak to the Gentiles in the first person even once. Paul teaches Justification by faith apart from works (Rom. 4:4-6) to the body, and James teaches Justification by works and not by faith alone (James 2:20-24) to the bride. If you do no see it, then you simply do not see it. But again, those are the facts. God deals with the different administrations in different ways. That is why the term “dispensation” appears in your Bible. The ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2) is about the Gentile Body in the world today. Paul is our steward for this ‘one body’ (1Cor. 12:13, Eph. 4:4). After These Things (Acts 15:16) ; when the fullness of the Gentiles is complete (Rom. 11:25), then all Israel will be saved and the Jewish dominant ‘bride’ shall be formed in the same way that our Gentile body is being formed today.

Dragon >> BTW, I do not subscribe to Covenant theology.

I am relatively new to this site, and everyone has these tags and labels to describe themselves that frankly I do not understand. My time has been spent reading the Bible cover to cover over and over again; the Pauline Epistles hundreds of times. I learned basic Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic from using the Concordances and Dictionaries; what the terms mean, and where they are used in Scripture (and not used). For years I spent time studying the differences in the Received Text versus the Critical (Nestle-Aland Text) and Majority Texts. My observation is that most people here would rather argue about how various dead guys interpreted the Bible, than discuss what the Scriptures actually say. But, do you know what? When we stand before the Throne of God, at the judgment seat of Christ (2Cor. 5:10), then none of that stuff is going to matter.

If one word of what I said above appears out of place, please cut and paste that part into your next reply and use supported statements to show my error. Nothing would make me happier than for someone here to turn on the lights, and give everyone a sharper view of God’s Word.

God bless,

Terral

 

[Gold Dragon]

Sorry about the term dispy. It was not meant to offend but just an abbreviation that I have seen other dispensationalists use to describe themselves.

If my post is off topic, then we can move it somewhere else. I was simply responding to a view that I often get from those who subscribe to dispensationalism that is simply not true, especially in my own personal case. Sorry to @@Paul@@ but I think he is used to my line of thinking and can probably explain what I mean in terms that dispensationalists will understand.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Failure to recognize the different households/administrations of Scripture forces everyone to read Scripture from a single context; as if God is speaking to everyone all the time.

I would change this word to some and agree with that statement.

Edit to add an emoticon and say that I appreciate the level headed way you approached my criticism.

 

[Terral]

Hi Dragon:

Dragon wrote >> Sorry about the term dispy. It was not meant to offend but just an abbreviation that I have seen other dispensationalists use to describe themselves.

No offense taken here, Dragon. Actually I was just at a loss; having not seen that term before. Why any member of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12) should want to be called a ‘dispensationalist’ is beyond me. My post to you could very easily be seen by some as an attempt at trolling. Actually, I am trying to separate the two separate issues here of Biblical ‘dispensations’ and man-made ‘dispensationalism.’ While it is very easy to tear down houses built by men, God’s word stands firm on how He deals with members of the various households of Scripture. I can write on the topics of dispensations, stewardships, administrations and God’s dealings with those individual members all day long without knowing one thing about what any of those dead guys wrote concerning ‘dispensationalism.’ Anyone wishing to use those works must also align themselves with what God’s Word says about the topic of dispensations. Frankly, I see no reason for the middleman.

Dragon >> If my post is off topic, then we can move it somewhere else. I was simply responding to a view that I often get from those who subscribe to dispensationalism that is simply not true, especially in my own personal case.

No sir. I am rarely for moving posts, and your writing is a tool to assist me in trying to bring the topic of ‘dispensations’ to the table. What I would like to discuss is what God’s Word has to say about the topics in this particular forum. While I disagree with many of the dispensationalist writers and posters, and particularly those who profess to be ‘hypers’ they are not 100 percent wrong about everything. I feel that my particular gift is in my ability to stand in the shoes of those with which I disagree and see things from their perspective. Using that tool allows all of us to learn even from the least among us. In the end, it is not about ‘who’ is right, but about ‘what’ is right when compared to God’s Word.

Dragon >> Sorry to @@Paul@@ but I think he is used to my line of thinking and can probably explain what I mean in terms that dispensationalists will understand.

My experience is that a dispensationalist is a member of the body of Christ who likes to divide things more than the average person. That is why that particular sect of Christians separate and label themselves by how they interpret the start of the church in Acts. When you tell them your views of either Acts 2, 9, 13 or 28, then they have a specific classification with which to tag you. I am an Acts 9 person myself, because the ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2) began the moment that Paul believed. (1Tim. 1:15+16). As Paul says,

“It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am first (protos). Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the first (protos), Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.” 1Tim. 1:15+16.

Paul, then, became the pattern or example for the rest of us who would believe in Christ Jesus for eternal life. It was in that very moment that he became our father in Christ through the gospel; a bold statement that takes many back the first time they see it.

“For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet {you would} not {have} many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” 1Cor. 4:15.

Again, the reasoning behind this truth is that he was the ‘protos,’ i.e., first, in the same way that Adam was the first man of his race in Genesis 2:7. Note again that Paul did not become our father in the common sense, but his words are very precise and limited in scope. He became our father ‘in Christ Jesus,’ and ‘through the gospel.’ Christ Jesus is our Lord’s heavenly name used by Paul of Christ in the Spirit. Nobody else in Scripture refers to Our Lord as Christ Jesus except Paul. Therefore, we are being baptized into a Spiritual body that has a Heavenly Glory; and not merely into Jesus of Nazareth who walked the earth.

Dragon’s edited version of Terral’s Original >> Failure to recognize the different households/administrations of Scripture forces everyone to read Scripture from a single context; as if God is speaking to everyone all the time.

Dragon >> I would change this word to some and agree with that statement. Edit to add an emoticon and say that I appreciate the level headed way you approached my criticism.

Perhaps you have accurately found the short coming of my original statement. However, the sentence is written in the passive voice where the subject (everyone) is receiving the action expressed by the verb (forces). I could agree with your premise, if I had stated that “Dragon is forcing everyone to read Scripture from a single context . . .”. The idea nearer my original intent is: The failure to recognize different households’ forces the reader to interpret Scripture, as if God is speaking to everyone all the time. That takes us right back to my original hypothesis that everyone here is using a basic understanding of ‘dispensations,’ when they read their Bible. For example, the Lord of Hosts tells Saul the king,

'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" 1Sam. 15:3.

Are we to interpret this to mean that it is okay to go out and slay any man, woman, child or infant belonging to the Amalekites today? No. Those were specific commands given to Saul in a particular situation. It is understood that the Lord is not speaking to members of the body of Christ today. What if we find enemies of the Lord? Does the above verse give us license to put them to death? No. That is how the Lord dealt with the enemies of Israel in those Old Testament days. Therefore, without acknowledging the fact, everyone is reading the Bible from knowledge of ‘dispensations,’ when they interpret specific commands to others as pertaining to members of that individual household or administration. The same goes for Cain, when he killed his brother, and the Lord said,

“So the LORD said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him.” Gen. 4:15.

And yet, after Mosaic Law came to Israel Only (Rom. 9:4), the Law said an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” Ex. 21:24.

A knowledge of the ‘dispensations’ of Scripture answers most of the seeming contradictions.

God bless,

Terral

 

[Gold Dragon]

A knowledge of the ‘dispensations’ of Scripture answers most of the seeming contradictions.

Some require the concept of dispensations to answer these seeming contradictions.

Others like myself see no contradictions because of the use of contextual hermeneutic that is very similar to the basic one used by dispensationalists, without the use of the concept of dispensations. That hermeneutic requires looking at the literary, historical and cultural context of every passage in the bible to determine the original intent of the author and correctly apply it to our current cultural context. It also inolves viewing the bible as God's narrative revelation to mankind to be interpreted and applied instead of a series of laws and commands to be rigidly and literally followed.

I would also suggest that there are many other valid ways to interpret scripture that would not result in these "seeming contradictions".

Dispensations however are useful check for those to insist on seeing the entire bible as a series of literal commands from making more serious errors of interpretion. My perspective is that dispensationalism, while being a weak biblical interpretive model, is far superior to the one those same folks would use if they didn't use dispensations because of their perspective on the bible.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I do appreciate a dispensational forum, as its lately something I've been wanting to do - discuss issues with fellow dispensationalists.

Ideally, it would be a place where dispensationists could debate each other regarding Acts, Acts 28 classic vs. Pauline....but instead it is just a place for antidispies to attack dispensationism.

I say bring them on. Its so much easier to defend the home turf than it is to bring down a system. Some years ago I thought I'd go after the preterist point of view, especially those who had a Theonomic background. Instead of bringing the system down, I made new friends and developed a respect for different viewpoints, even though I still disagree.


Lamorak Des Galis