TLC

This might reflect the handicapped way my brain is wired differently than most, but after deliberately trying to see and think of it otherwise in scripture, I have yet to find anywhere in scripture where the usage of "Israel" plainly disassociates itself with (or distinguishes itself from) the sensory acknowledgement or recognition of, and obedience to, God. And you know, I've been looking for quite a while now (since taking on a bit of different perspective on Genesis, and the original sin)... but as of yet, I simply haven't found it. Think about it. When did Israel come about as a nation (or people)? When they were in (coming out of, actually) Egypt. Signs, miracles and wonders like the world have never seen for hundreds and hundreds of years after... and culminating in the life of Jesus Christ. Physical proof and eyewitnesses of his resurrection? More than you can shake a stick at. Do you know why? Because the Jews (aka, Israel) require a sign. Never could be relied upon to really trust (believe) God without it. So, imagine for a minute (if you can) what goes through my brain - which makes this inherent, semi-automatic connection between "Israel" and "can only believe what a sensory oriented brain says can be believed" - when someone says they (or "we") are "the Israel of God"... Really? What proof is it that you have or needed to believe? Maybe you think that was only the case back then (some 2000 or so plus years ago) and it won't be like that ever again. Have you read the book of Revelations lately? Or how about James? Or for that matter, any other... other than the apostle Paul. No wonder (and no surprise) that Peter said Paul's writings were "hard to be understood." Probably darn near impossible from "Israel's" point of view. Of course, maybe I've got this all wrong. But, if so, perhaps you wouldn't mind showing me otherwise from scripture. (And please do bear in mind that God repeatedly refers to and deals with "Israel" as a nation, not as individuals.)

Agreed.

from the garden of Eden. (to me, leaving that off is almost like saying that money is the root of all evil.) As for covenants, and one of them being the law, I guess I just don't see there being only two. And the questions in your last paragraph are rather mixed up (and far less than clear.) Do I see myself as Abraham's seed? Yes. But evidently not in the same sense that you might think of it.

Of course it is, and I'm not mixing things up (except maybe in the heads of a few others here that have never considered it like this before.) Seed doesn't remain as "seed" after it germinates and grows. (see John 12:24.) The references you gave are to what was previously promised (in the future, from those it was given to.) Seems to me like you're only thinking about it from an earthly (sensual) perspective. But, you obviously got it all figured out, so let's leave it at that.

Yes, but I think the word "economy" actually communicates something much more complex than that (which is why I like it, probably even more so than "dispensation" as long as financial prosperity isn't so elevated that it overpowers the overall sense of it.) I'd be more inclined to agree with that if it were referred to as an economy existing at a particular time. Hardly a fair criticism, as there's really nothing unusual or strange about someone (or some group) promoting "their way" as the best and perhaps most accurate method to interpret the Bible. by grace and through faith ? okay, sure. But let's get honest. What what does that really look like or mean on a practical level? How do you think someone living in Israel at the time King David was saved? By believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead? How could they, given that hadn't even happened yet? What about Peter, or any of the other apostles, prior to Jesus Christ's crucifixion? Do you suppose that no one was (nor could be) saved prior to his death and resurrection, simply because that is what you might see as being the crux for your own salvation? well, not to disappoint or surprise you, but I see the attraction even for some that are very familiar with systematic theology. I see that statement as being a (rather common around here) misperception resulting from tainted twi teachings or practices (and, more candidly, a rather common miscommunication of some number of vpw's teachings on "Christ in you.") call it an unfolding theme, and I'd agree.

Actually, it looks to me like another example of you (or whomever you're quoting) not having much of a general comprehension (much less understanding) of dispensationalism.

glad you did you real sure 'bout that? 'cause my Bible says that God quite intentionally separated Israel from all the other nations of the world. Why? Or what for, if (as you say) He has only one group? Besides, don't you think it a bit strange that God would tell Abraham that He would multiply "thy seed" both as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the sea shore? Ever wonder why they are added together, rather than given as one or the other. Furthermore, what's this "marriage of the Lamb" in Revelations 19 all about if there's really only one? I might be able to better get what you're thinking is if you had been a bit more explicit on the details. When you say, "another covenant was made"... seems you might be referring to the law (of Moses)? I'm a bit lost. Isn't that which he gave to Israel patterned after that (heavenly) which already was? Hmm... now it seems you have it backed up to Adam, at the beginning. Okay, let's go with that. What isn't clear, though, is whether you're thinking of one covenant with two sides (one side life, one side death), or two covenants (one all good - of life, another all bad - of death.) Seems like you want it to be two covenants, one given to one group of people, the other given to a different group of people in different ways. If we left off calling this (whatever it is you're after here) a "covenant," it might actually make more sense to me. Death, which was in place (or "in effect") with Adam does indeed continue on through now. (even as it is written, it is appointed unto men once to die...) Interesting point. The general direction of that makes sense enough to me, but not the specifics. I'm more inclined to think of it as two sides of the coin, one side being the earthly, the other the heavenly. And I see the "Israel of God" not (completely) restricted to the genetic descendants of Abraham, but as being the flesh and blood people accepting/trusting in the promised Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ (who, as we know, was and will be plainly revealed and made known in the physical world.) Still, it is all by their senses. An earthly, sensual, and "believing" people of God (and primarily, though not necessarily exclusively, the genetic descendants of Abraham. Might include those in white robes mentioned in Rev.7:13.) Of course, I might be mistaken, and have parts of this wrong. However, it does reflect my present view on some number of things that I don't see as being (probably for good reason...) perfectly clear and plainly spelled out in scripture.

You suppose that is and was the first and only time? Just what was it that "the old covenant" was supposedly patterned after? As did the generations that went before, and those that have come after. Yeah, try telling an orthodox Jew that. So I noticed. (btw, statement had nothing to do with anything twi did or didn't promote. Hebrews isn't milk, and not for babes. It's nothing short of nice chewy steak.) So what if many or most of them do or did? I thought the discussion was here and now, not with them. If you're only interested in (or intent on) promoting preterism, try starting a new thread and take it there and see how much interest you can stir up with it.

Mind if I parse a few things from that? Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding, or if you intended it as (or to mean) something else. "It" - meaning salvation (which generally and basically speaking, I would take to mean the attainment of eternal life.) "by His grace" - I'll agree that without His grace, it's not happening." "and His gift that is promised" - it's actually very unclear to me exactly what you think this is, and/or what you intend it to refer to. If something (whatever it is) is only promised, then it's yet to be received. "mental beliefs" - Believing (from what I understand of it) doesn't originate (or exist) in the mind (i.e., our thinking, or thoughts.) It's much deeper than that. It's an issue of (and resides in) the heart. How things can, do, or might enter the heart (and how it is different from the mind) is a study in and of itself... something which far too few ever give much thought or enough consideration to. And yes, man is ultimately accountable for what he allows and holds in his heart. In other words... what he believes.

Perhaps what something looks like and what it's called can vary quite a bit... depending on whether you consider the path (that was) as being fixed (only one way for it to happen), or whether any room for any tweaking is allowed along the way. I'm sure Bobby Fischer had a plan when he played Spassky in '72. Was Spassy forced to take the rook on his 3rd from last move? Yeah, looked like it at that point. No other way would work or make sense. Did Fischer know he was going to win before Spassky made that move? Of course. Did Spassky know it? Evidently not. How far ahead did Fischer see it? Don't know. Maybe how "fixed" we see things depends a bit on a few things... like when and where we view it from. And I have no doubt that God sees things so far out in front of anyone else that it can be said that He declares the end (e.g., ...I win by checkmate) from the beginning. Doesn't mean there aren't any tweaks along the way... it simply means He knows what the end will be and how to get there.

Perhaps it is rather difficult to imagine what it must have been like prior to the flood, and the change afterwards. (Hence, the reason for his name. see Gen. 5:29.) Frankly, I am amazed at what can grow and come out of a garden so quickly at times, with such little effort on my part. And, I think if you follow the context of what is written in Isaiah 24, it looks to me more like the curse spoken of there is the result of a defiling of the earth by its inhabitants (because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant...) Now you're just plain being silly, as that's a question, not an answer. And it appears to me that you've only talking semantics. Regardless of what salvation is about, if it's about anything, it's conditional. Are you a universalist? (You don't much sound like one, but thought I'd better ask.)

What you might not be seeing (and haven't addressed) is the essence of covenant theology, which is that the church (of today) has (permanently) replaced Israel. However, if you prefer thinking of covenants into separate periods of agreements between man and God, it sounds like a more recent modification of it called "New Covenant Theology" (which may even allow for a physical, millennial kingdom.) Needless to say, these things can get complicated (and confusing) rather quickly. Try this, for starters: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-john-piper-believe-about-dispensationalism-covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology

Happened upon this relatively short (8:32 minutes long) video that notes a significant difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism that I happen to agree with. Never heard of this guy before, so I don't know what else he speaks on or what his background it.

I'm not sure there is a "one way fits all" answer to those first two questions, aside from saying "scope." It's simply whatever way makes the most sense and best fits with all other related scripture. And, depending on my familiarity with its usages in scripture, I may not be sure (or care) which way I lean towards. If the way its written in English makes really good sense just the way it is, trying to extract another meaning from it can actually be a deterrent or distraction from truth that is (to put it bluntly) as "plain as the nose on your face" when viewed from the right perspective. What's "the right" perspective? Well, one that at least has a big healthy dose of humility in it, I suppose (...as that's usually the most notable deficiency in perspectives that tend to end up being "not quite right.") After all, understanding (i.e., knowing exactly how it fits together in the overall scheme) spiritual things isn't really a product of the intellect, it is from the Lord. And you know, if the Lord doesn't open it for us, well... we can slice and dice and take it apart as many ways as can be imagined, we're never really going to be able to put the pieces together so that it makes sense to the human mind (and is genuinely "believable"), much less, make perfectly good sense. No, I do not see the writers of scripture as the puppets of a master marionette. However, I do believe that God can at times (and many times has) work(ed) within the mind of man in such a way that we are... how shall I say it politely... quite unaware, if not outright oblivious, to His workings.

You're quite the brave preterist, daring to accuse any one else of ignoring certain bible verses (as many as can be easily be thrown back at you)... which btw, I (personally) haven't "completely ignored" as you accuse. Hebrews is, in many respects, very delicate "advanced class" stuff... which most want to handle like a bull in a china shop. And when you merely look at or try to pick up (or out) little pieces of information from it, chances are that you are looking at broken glass, instead of seeing it as a fascinating (and previously hidden) overlay upon all that can or could be known by the senses (extending back through all of man's history here on earth.) So why do you think (and say) that "the new" only overlapped the old for this wee short little 40 years or so? Or accuse me that I have completely ignored something which, quite frankly, I suspect you may have never bothered to consider or look at from the perspective I just spoke of?

Your saying that God always had it planned "one way" appeared to going that direction, and I didn't see where or how you left room for free will.

True, hasn't been since Noah. Your sarcasm overwhelms me. Nothing is finished. I was fishing for a better or more detailed view of exactly what "trust" God means to you, and/or what you think it means to anyone else. And, your quotes are quite out of synch, and your questions don't have a short answer aside from noting that salvation involves both what's already done and what is yet to come.

Simple obedience to the teachings of Jesus can be (and probably is) taken by some to mean "making him Lord" in your life. However, while that may be a nice way to live life, there is nothing in that that involves believing anything more or beyond what can be known by your senses.

Doubts about why or how a person thinks they "make him Lord." If that requires a living Lord, which has a prerequisite of a resurrection, no problem. Yes, it's one event, but it's the key issue.

Perhaps it has more to do with the approach to biblical research. I suspect I was "as well" trained and indoctrinated into twi's methodology as anyone else here, probably more so than most. So, yeah... given sufficient time (and motivation), I have the both the materials and the means to dig into the etymology of pretty much anything appearing in scripture. And there was a time in life when that was pretty much the touchstone used for testing or "measuring" (so much softer a word than "judging") how much truth was in something. And you know... it did wonders for my ego. Like, wonders how it got so big? Oddly enough, after some number of rather significant "turn of events" over the last, oh, maybe 8 or 10 or 15 years or so (I won't bore you with any details), I've developed a new perspective on quite a number of things, including both how to do (and evaluate) biblical research. It's probably more of a "top down" approach, based of how it might fit within the overall framework of scripture, rather than a "bottom up" approach that seeks to define or establish basic building blocks prior to seeing what sort of construct can be built from them. Hence, when I see you talk about "Biblical definitions," in my mind I'm instead thinking about "Biblical usages." Not sure if that makes sense to you, or not...

scripture. (same as what Peter aligns it with.)

I have no doubt that worked just fine for an Israelite (back then.) But honestly speaking, I have plenty of reason to doubt that it works the same for anybody and everybody today. Because separated and apart from the resurrection, I see nothing that requires anyone to believe anything beyond or more than what they can know and believe by their senses. And as I see it, Israel is the proof (after hundreds and hundreds of years of repeated signs, miracles, and wonders) that "going by your senses alone" never had any long lasting effects, and is actually rather incapable of genuinely pleasing God. p.s. He was no longer dead, after the resurrection.

You don't need those exact words do you? If not, maybe one of the following will work for you: For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. ...whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. Or, maybe it is best left to be said in the words of another (like Peter): And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Seems I may not be as informed or aware of exactly what (or how) Geer may have taught this, but I (personally) am not sure that necessarily see or take Omniscience to mean the same as (or be the equivalent of) Omnipotence (or visa versa.) Furthermore, I don't have any real difficulty thinking of His Omnipotence (His unbound and unrestricted ability to create, change, conceal - or in short, "do" - whatever He wants) as something specifically reliant upon Omniscience. Now, as far as thinking about what Omniscience itself might means, it gets a bit more complex, as it appears (to me) to be bifurcated. From nearly all perspectives, it appears to be unrestricted and limitless. The one exception (of course) being that of "free will" - any further discussion of which wouldn't have much of any place here in this forum. However, I'll conclude this by stating the reason why this works, is because "love never faileth" - which God, in His infinite wisdom, surely knows.

ha! lucky you.