TLC

hadn't read anything there before, but the following post from Tzaia on page 3 of that thread stirred up a response from me... so I thought that I might just as well copy it to this thread in doctrinal:

I'd never seen or read it prior to Waysider's link to it. That said, maybe it's worth putting a copy my previous post over in the doctrinal thread (if I can figure how to do it easily enough...)

Seems it does indeed come to that. Furthermore, there is a difference in the message (the gospel) that each spoke. Why the difference? In short, because "things changed." Before his death, Jesus Christ was a minister unto the circumcision. As were the 12 apostles. Period. (If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so... because I don't think it exists.) Whereas Paul very openly declares himself to be "the apostle" (not "an apostle") to the Gentiles. Why take Paul's word to be (as Jesus Christ's was during his ministry) "the word of God"? It's not the only one, but maybe one of the best reason is rather succinctly stated in 1Thess.2:13. Because it "effectually worketh also in you that believe." In other words, it just plain works. So, I take issue (and exception) with your statement that "there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed upon himself." However, the evidence (or proof, if you prefer) is something that each of us must garner for ourselves. What I have and hold won't suffice for you, nor anyone else. Just like no one else's would for me. We each must "prove it" for ourselves, even as we can (and should) prove for ourselves what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (see Rom. 12:2; Eph.5:10; 1Thes.5:21.)

It's interesting how any of us shape or define what success is or means. Frankly, I can't for sure tell by that what your view of it is. Perhaps I should have more carefully spoke of intelligence as it relates to spiritual perception. Seeing (or at least giving consideration to) what God's perspective on something might be, and not just what mankind might agree to call ethical, moral or intelligent.

Yeah, well. It actually might not be as extreme as you seem to think. As far as I can tell, there's a pretty large number of folk that think and call themselves Christian that would just as soon cut Paul's epistles out of the Bible, especially among those that are called (or viewed as being) "non-dispensationists." Personally, I don't think the gospel that Paul preached ever matched or synchronized very well with the gospel preached by James, the 12 apostles, and the church based in Jerusalem, even after Acts 15. Matter of fact, there's an interesting (but misunderstood and/or overlooked) verse in Phil.1:10 that refers to certain "things that are different." Of course, it doesn't help any that it was translated as "excellent" rather than "different."

While it certainly may shape certain views on eschatology, it is not actually about eschatology (much less, "only" about it.) Some here adamantly contend that dispensationalism itself is a modern invention. However, it's hard to get around the fact that Paul rather plainly speaks of "a dispensation of the gospel" (aka, the dispensation of the grace of God) that was committed to him, to "fulfill the word of God." Perhaps what we see that meaning depends on a bit on how oikonomia is perceived or understood. Personally, it makes perfectly good sense to think of it as an economy. There's a complexity to it when the layers are peeled back (to reveal the work of God.) Yet, on a much simpler note, it's a mere matter of what does or doesn't work at (or during) a particular point (or time.) One of the biggest pitfall (as I see it) to thinking in terms of an economy, is thinking of it in terms of (physical) wealth or well being rather than in terms of spiritual health & prosperity. The gospel (i.e., "good news") of an oikonomia is not focused on how to be kings or princes of the world. I think another somewhat obvious weakness to it is that, generally speaking, economies are more inclined to change by evolution, rather than being "dispensed" (from above) by revelation. BTW, I'm also not of the persuasion that the oikonomia of grace started on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. If Paul says it was given to him, then by golly, so be it. He pretty much says he was first saved by it, in 1Tim.1:15. (Check out the real meaning of that word "chief." I just don't see it meaning that he was the biggest or worst sinner ever saved.) Furthermore, neither do I think the birth of Jesus Christ or the start of his ministry coincide with the start of some different oikonomia than the one that was already in place. His life and his ministry here on earth was specifically to Israel, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers (even as so clearly and plainly stated in Romans 15:8.)

I knew there was better...

Maybe the phrase in and of itself wasn't as much the issue as the body language that went along with it. (And yeah, I think we've had enough experience with "Pollyanna's" over the years to spot the difference between someone possibly having an exceptionally pleasant day and those that reside in "la la land.") Perhaps you missed the actual intent (or reason) for my post, which was merely to show the extreme difference that can exist in the way people think (not an assessment or judgment on either) and the difficulty in communicating that results from it. Maybe there's a better example of it, but that (recent experience) is what came to mind.

Okay, you have kids. So do I (but maybe older than yours.) Do you know how many younger folks (in sales, mind you) can't make change in their heads if you hand them a 20? They've become so reliant on a machine telling them the answer, they don't bother even trying to figure it out. And, just about like a muscle in the body, when nerve cells (perhaps I should say, neural pathways) in the brain aren't used (repeatedly), they can atrophy. Matter of fact, there have been experiments done (on animals, of course) that have shown if one eye is covered up at an early developmental stage in life, the brain becomes "wired" to operate with the one eye, and the effect (or damage, really) is irreversible. The animal(s) ended up being permanently blind in the eye that was covered. (However, this did not have the same effect in adult animals, even when the eye was covered for longer periods of time.) For sure knowledge has, and will continue to increase. (I thought that was rather clear in my previous post.) And I don't disagree that this increase in knowledge will offer tremendous benefits to mankind and the future. Computers (and cell phones, which have greater and greater computing power every year) are fueling this tremendous explosion in knowledge, and capabilities of both the individual, and society as a whole. The amount of information (i.e., knowledge) nearly instantly available at our fingertips has become astronomical. And there is little doubt that it is putting more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer people. But the point is... who or what will all these advancements and benefits be attributed to? (And just how "intelligent" or smart it that, really?) Yeah, it's a sign of the times alright, make no mistake about it.

Might I suggest a simple experiment for you? Take a bean seed (which are all nice and big, nearly any kind will do) and plant it in a small pot or cup of dirt. Water it and keep the soil relatively moist for 3 or 4 weeks. Presumably, it will germinate and a little bean plant will have risen up out of the dirt. Okay, now go ahead and dig up the dirt around it and see if that bean seed is still there somewhere. Let's try looking at this from another angle. Do you see or think of yourself as your father's seed? Surely each of us were, and in a certain sense one might even say of themselves, "I am my father's seed." Is that literally true now? Do you see of think of yourself as a wee little sperm, with a wiggly tail? Of course not. Maybe you get the point. Or, maybe not. You tell me. But as I see it, seed is seed. It dies. It becomes something new. And when it does, it's no longer actually seen or thought of as "seed," except in a historical (or history looking forward) sense.

Sometimes people's thinking process seems to be on such different wavelengths (as appears to be the case here), communication between them is virtually impossible. For instance, the other day I said to the person that happen to sit next to me at a church barbecue (second attempt to engage in friendly conversation with them), "It sure is nice weather...," which prompted the immediate (canned) response of, "Yes, it's a gift of God..." which was the second time for what struck me between the eyes as... way, Way, WAY too pious for me to continue with. So, if you're perfectly content seeing (most) everything good as a gift from God, or any improvement in the condition of man as a part, a piece, or another step towards salvation... well, maybe that works just fine for you and your fellowship and believing with the Lord. And that's great, if that's the case. However, it doesn't work for me in my head. Unfortunately, I have to (undoubtedly its part of my background and my genetics) work much harder at it.

You said, "It is by His grace and His gift that is promised." After noting that I understood you intended "it" to be referring to salvation, I asked for clarification on what you thought or meant by "His gift that is promised" (given that it referred rather specifically to salvation.) But, when you ran around the barn and then went out to pasture to pick daisies and sing to the trees, I was quite lost as to what you were doing (and talking about) and pretty much figured you either didn't have a clue what was asked or were purposely avoiding it. (Either one bringing an end to the matter.)

so what?

not really. it's half a dozen ways out of synch with where the conversation is at.

says who? I disagree.

When seed is planted, it dies. I take it you have never farmed, or gardened, or for that matter... know an awful lot about agriculture in general.

I disagree with it.

After pondering that for a bit, neither appears to adequately capture my particular taste... but, that's probably no surprise. However, I do think that "knowledge" continues to (and certainly has) increase(d.) Of course, there's caveats to not seeing that for what that actually means, so I'll try to explain some of my thoughts on this further. For starters, I don't equate that with men being more intelligent now than they were 2 or 3 thousand years ago. If anything, I'm of the persuasion that, mankind in general is less intelligent now than then - even though much greater knowledge exists now. But that raises a few questions. How can that be, how did that happen, and why is that? And t's not as though I'm convinced that information overload necessarily "dulls" the brain (though it might.) Looking back at the lifestyle of mankind over hundreds (and thousands) of years, there has been relatively little change up until about the last 140 years or so. Then, technology started transforming the world... on a rapidly accelerating pace. How or why did this happen? Did men all of sudden get smarter than any and all previous generations? I don't doubt than man would like to take credit for it. However, my view of it is that God "kept a lid on it" until it was time. The reason I think that? Straight from Dan. 12:4. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Interestingly enough, it doesn't appear to restrict what kind of knowledge shall be increased... and I see no reason not to think that it would also include knowledge of the truth. Furthermore, Hebrews rather plainly states (in the opening lines) that God has revealed Himself in various ways at various times over the years. Do you think He reached a point where He said, Enough... no more for man? I'm not even sure how to put into words some of the rest of my thoughts on this. Adam decides what his senses reveal to him is "real" and screws the pooch for the rest of us. We don't get a choice, as that then becomes the (only) reality man knows. Problem is, it's temporal. Nevertheless, man is ensnared by it (i.e., his senses.) He needs to be rescued. Rescued from the entrapment to his senses... by something/anything that is received and known by his senses? What a conundrum! Yet, little by little... over time... the "bits and pieces" of this unknown and unseen "spiritual reality" are laid out before us. BUT... man's intelligence is waning. His ability to put the pieces together and "figure it out" is falling down. Apparently he needs "more and more" pieces of the puzzle. Looking back at the first advent of Jesus Christ, it would seem that the scribes and Pharisees must have been as dumb as dirt not to know that it was "time" for the promised Messiah to arrive. It had all been foretold and prophesied, right down to the exact year. On top of that, more signs, miracles and wonders than had ever been seen before. Still, it wasn't enough. No wonder God "went another direction" with the apostle Paul. Set aside what your senses tell you? Can you believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead? Impossible. Yes, that's all that the senses mind will (or can) ever tell you. But, if you (have reason to, and can) step away from the reality of the world (and the life that you have in it) far enough to actually believe the impossible (that he lives)... there is something "more real" than what you are accustomed to thinking is real that lights up. A new way to see things becomes possible. Virtual reality... it's a "new age" phenomenon. Who or what determines what is "real" for each of us? Our minds. And wow... are things ever changing fast now. Knowledge is exploding upwards. Or, should I say, downward? (Because we all look down at our phones, right?) Or maybe it's, knowledge upwards, intelligence downwards. Think God is a step behind in keeping up with the rapidly depleting computing power of the mind, and its ability to figure out what is "real"? yeah, mmmm... seems I think not. But, attribute it to whomever (or whatever) you want.

If so, why weren't you equally offended by the post that implied willful ignorance? And why bother dragging vpw into the discussion? I'd be among the first to tell you that I think he was rather "mixed up" (to put it mildly) on dispensations. (And fyi, It took me years to so plainly see it and get to where I'm at now on the issue.) But thank you for the rest of your post, which is quite thought provoking and deserves a more careful answer (which I'll need more time for.)

Okay, so you acknowledge and accept what some of the early church fathers appear to have believed, but then use it to set up a straw man argument against dispensationalism? Had you said "as some dispensationalists do in this day & time," I'd have no issue with it. However, you didn't. Fact is, some (and I suspect, most) absolutely do not "thrust all of the eschatological prophecies" into the future (i.e., none have yet been fulfilled.) For example, which of the dispensationalists that you've read think or say that Luke 21:24 has yet to be fulfilled?

For anybody with enough courage to educate (and think for) themselves, yet still preferring to start by reading what other "probably a little better educated than certain folk here" have to say on the matter: https://www.christianbook.com/chafers-systematic-theology-4-volumes/lewis-chafer/9780825423406/pd/2345 https://biblereasons.com/dispensationalism-and-the-early-church-fathers/

Aside from what Adam (& Eve) might have originally started with and what Jesus Christ might have developed, I'm mostly inclined to say that nobody else has (ever had, or ever can have until the return) a "spiritually oriented [mind]." Maybe John the Baptist (if anyone else), but, I tend to think not. Maybe it has to do a bit with where I've come to in terms of understanding how the mind receives and processes information, and how it relates to believing. As mentioned a few days ago in the "Can salvation be lost" thread, I don't think believing originates in the mind (which is distinguishable from the heart.) However, on the surface, yes... believing looks the same.

Yes, it does cross over. Thanks for noting it. As for Judas, well... if the Lord says he lost one, it only makes sense that he was referring to Judas.

You're talking in circles, away from any direction I can make any kind of sense of.

Not nice to call it "just playing a big galactic game" given the seriousness (and the consequences) of it, but from a much more sober and strategic perspective, yes.