TLC

Denounced by most here at GSC, for sure. But there are caveats I am inclined to make here, as there is something that is true to "the law of believing" (although not taught right in twi), and my understanding of how he taught "Christ in you" seems to be different than others here, and dispensationalism (like the rest of these things) is definitely not something new or original with vpw (nor was it taught right.) Not to say that this (or any other splinter group that I've heard of) has (or ever will have) it sorted out correctly, given the mistakes and misunderstandings that are so deeply imbedded in twi culture.

Hey... at least you didn't think you'd gotten born of the wrong seed.

Are you a fatalist?

Well, evidently I think it's possible to know (from what's written) a lot more of what they knew than you seem to think possible. (And, I also think it's just as important to consider what they probably didn't know.) Think it's still cursed? Exactly. That's the question that needs a better answer. If we can't work forward, then how about working backwards. Let's start with how anyone can be (or is) saved today, and never mind whether it applies anywhere else.

Does "accepting Christ" always necessarily make Christ Lord (viz., in your life)? Frankly, I'm not persuaded it does. Which raises a question of what you (or anyone else) thinks either of those statements mean. So, let me cut to the chase here. What is the relationship between either statement, and believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead? Is either one possible without the other? Because it appears to me that there have been deliberate efforts by some in positions of prominence (not by you, per se) to diminish and/or eliminate any need to believe in his resurrection.

Probably far, far more than He is ever given credit or thanks for! (Obviously, that's not in the sense of judgments.) However, speaking of judgment, it appears to me that God (being longsuffering as He is) tends to wait until iniquity has run its course in a nation and is "full" before judgment is unleashed (see Gen. 15:16; Rom. 11:25.) Perhaps it's akin to allowing someone to stick their foot so far down their own throat there's absolutely no way to retract or correct what's been done. Of course, where that is or what that means isn't exactly clear... and we never tend to have the sort of patience and longsuffering that we could ever relate much to it anyways. Yikes! Who in their right mind would?

Nor am I. But it's "the twi way." Agreed. Pretty well said. Seems I agree.

Never "pretended" they were the same. You asked how I got to home plate, and evidently weren't expecting or open to anything except answers in a format that you're accustomed to and conditioned in, and you have zero interest in first or second base because they're "the wrong direction" in your mind. Maybe you figure it out yourself someday (but I doubt it.) I'm done with it.

I'm nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. What, did you need chapter and verse quoted with each phrase before acknowledging that they were indeed "scriptural"? Furthermore, lest anyone forget, this thread didn't exactly start in a doctrinal forum - else I might never have gone there. But, since you asked (and since its not something fabricated on a whim), I steered into it by illustrating the basic fact that there was indeed a "dispensing" of something at various times which coincided with a significant change in the relationship between God and man. However, that part of it evidently either went over your head, or went clean clear through. (Which is probably why I might have avoided this aspect of it had it started some other way.) You want to drop it because its too hard for you to see any scriptural rational for it? Fine. Kindly lay off the unjust critique that it doesn't exist just because you can't (or don't care to ) follow it. Have at it. I can hardly wait to see your detailed Scriptural rationale and in-depth explanation of it. Who knows, maybe I'll like it.

If that were so, why is it that none of the prophets of old (who obviously had a connection of some sort restored) are ever thought of as being "born again"?

I think this is important to note, and am inclined to agree with it. Furthermore, I don't see the usage of it in 1Pet.1:23 being a simple one time event in the past (as would be indicated if in the aorist tense,) which doesn't exactly fit with its typically Christian "born again" usage or reference to it here in verse 23. However, it does fit with the living word of God (that is required for the purification of "your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren" that is written in verse 22...) yeah, well... I don't believe that, seeing he giveth to all life (and as noted in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being...") And even were it feasible for the soul to have any sort of consciousness or awareness apart from (or eternally distanced from) God - the crux of it being the awareness of their separation from God - there would be absolutely no will (nor reason) to remain alive. If there is no conscious in the grave (i.e., the first death), why suppose it would be any different in the second (forever) death?

Giving some consideration to the manifold wisdom of God, I don't know why you would insist on saying that God always had it planned by one way (unless you start with Genesis 1:2 and jump straight to Rev. 21.) Sure, I wouldn't have questioned it had you said that He knew which way it would play out. (Maybe He did, maybe He didn't. Frankly, I'm not sure. Either way, I believe He has the means to, and knows exactly how to keep it on track.) I'm just not so quick to think or say it was only planned by "one way." Perhaps you need to fill in a lot more details of what you see in "by way of His son."

No, it's an issue of the heart.

Yes, but it merely shifts the issue to knowing what it is to believe, or what is to be believed. Okay, "Believe God." Are you going to leave it at that with no other parameters? Then how does that fit with and what do you make of James 2:19?

My view of it sees these as two very different events. The wrath to come points to the tribulations written in Revelations (and referred to in Jeremiah as the time of Jacob's trouble.) The final judgement sounds like something after death, such as the great white throne. Of course, the question arises as to when anyone might have first known of either of these events, and why anyone that didn't know about them would need (or would think they needed) salvation from them. Really? And exactly what sort of evidence or scriptures might you be basing that statement on? Who or where do you see that anyone is saved by that?

So, you think what saves one person is no different that what saves anybody else?

Why suppose that everyone seeks rescue or deliverance from the same things? Furthermore, are you supposing that the conditions for salvation are the same for all?

No, I never said that. I very plainly said that I've "come back to liking dispensation" (and have given you several reasons since why.) Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. At first, man was put in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Then he was sent forth from it to till the ground from whence he was taken. Then, in addition to the green herb, every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for man. Of course, that all changed with Moses and the giving of the law. When did that change? Yeah, with the apostle Paul (see Col. 1:25). Of course, this is but one little aspect of it. But if anyone wants to blenderize it all and live on the slop, just don't blame God if you aren't feeling nourished by it, or it if makes you sick, or if you can't make sense of certain things. There's a (healthy) reason for the separations. Truth is, I also very much like the nuance of stewardships, in light of it involving different "economies." Perhaps its a reflection of certain fiduciary responsibilities. If you're going to prosper (or at least, not be sent to the poor house), you need to be able to recognize and adapt to what the "real" economy is all about. Sure, there may be patterns and similarities involved, but if you fail to see the differences... well, no need to go too deep into it. But if you really want to get deep into another perspective on it, there appears to be a certain "crossing over" involved with each change. (However, I'm not going there, as I couldn't even get you past the dispensing issue without you demanding - in typical twi fashion - "chapter and verse.")

Anyone want to consider whether the woman of Canaan (Matt.15:32) qualifies for being saved? Frankly, I don't think it can be ruled out. She did, after all, call him Lord and (evidently) believed him to be "the son of David..." which, as far as I know, actually appears to parallel the most basic (and essential) requirement for an Israelite's salvation.

Well, it just doesn't make much sense to me. Without a doubt, there would have been absolutely no one more qualified (from some number of perspectives) to address the nation of Israel on the subject matter than the apostle Paul himself. And, given that 2 Peter (which appears to be written to fellow Jewish believers that obtained "like precious faith") specifically mentions Paul as having "written unto you," the implication appears to be that he is referring to Hebrews. So, while it's not certain, it does seem this offers a fairly reasonable basis for it. Moderator's note: This post quotes an exceprt of a previous post that was deleted for reasons having nothing to do with this excerpt.

Seriously? It is no where near "impossible" to speculate what his disciples likely thought based on what is written about them, and what I said was plainly and most certainly not a "red herring" of any sort. (Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here of what a red herring is or means...) At times, especially when plumbing the depths of meanings in scripture, that speculation as to what it could or might mean is more than appropriate, it is essential. And there should have been no doubt that what I wrote was in fact, speculative (else I never would have said that I suspected something was likely.) But it does seem a bit odd to me that you would think and say that what is lost, is lost, or that you're not attempting to add more speculation here. Evidently you see everything that you have (and are) - or that anybody else should be - going to contribute to the discussion is... proven facts? the absolute truth? Well, what explanation might you have for "thy lot" in Dan. 12:13. Why are some to "meet the Lord in the air" and some (that are saved) not? Why do some come with the Lord (at his return) and some (that are saved) do not? Why are some said to be "arrayed in white robes" while some (that are saved) are not? Why do some have the Father's name written in their foreheads and some (that are saved) do not? .Why are some in "the first resurrection" and some (that are saved) not? Why are some referred to as "priests of God and of Christ" and some (that are saved) are not? Why do some come before the great white throne and some (that are saved) do not? Or, perhaps you suppose that these are all one and same once (or if) you're "saved." Oh yeah... I just remembered. You're not much into speculating. Seems I don't know (and can't guess) how you might address these things. (So, it'd probably only add a bit more confusion to the issue if I speculated that from a certain perspective, "perhaps" John 14:2 also points towards this.)

I realized that. My point was that the "new covenant" of Hebrews (as detailed further in verse 8) was promised to and with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," and again (in verse 10) "with the house of Israel." Furthermore, I don't really see this part of it as yet being fulfilled: "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts." Galatians 4:24ff more directly applies to my question (and I'm still pondering it), but it won't necessarily change my view of what is written in Hebrews - which I believe was specifically written to/for all of Israel (believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or not) and not (as you state) "Christians of a Jewish background."

Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance.

No, to clarify, I actually meant the end of life that is in the blood (i.e., physical death)... when any and all laws that might be thought applicable or pertinent to us most assuredly end. Romans 6:7 2 Tim.2:11 Heb. 6:1

Perhaps Eve needs to be included in that which was viewed as salvation. Evidently something was said (or happened) in Genesis 3 that resulted in Adam suddenly naming her "Eve," and her being "the mother of all living." Perhaps that was Adam's confession of believing God's words to her, that life could/would continue after failure. (It's mentioned again in 1Tim.2:15)