TLC

So, that's your only care and concern? Not, what the truth is? Look, the fact here is, I really don't care much what your reason is or isn't for posting what you did. I was simply stating what it looks like, AND some number of reasons why it does. Why do you have to take this so personal? We both know it's not even a point of view that you actually believe, but rather, some bit of a reasoning process (that I plainly stated I wasn't familiar with and didn't make sense) which now appears far easier to avoid for what appears to me to be some rather emotional and artificial reason, rather than given much of any real thought to the points or questions already posed.

This "who is in charge" angle (or approach, if you prefer) to oikinomia is not something I've really encountered or thought much about before, and quite frankly, I'm just not sure how or someone else might see or want to frame it in those terms, aside from it being a strawman. It seems to me that a more biblical perspective deals with (and hence, is more important to understand) what is dispensed or administered, and perhaps why it is so... and not really so much (if at all) with who or where it comes from, and when or how it arrives. Regardless of whether or not anyone says they ended abruptly, even that can lack contextual meaning. In other words, "abruptly"... as compared to what? For instance, was there supposedly some blink of the eye when Adam instantly moved from one administration to the next? And if so, when was it? As soon as he ate, and "eyes were opened"? Or, when God asks, "Where art thou?" Or, when God said, "...unto dust shalt thou return"? Or, when God clothed them? Or, maybe when God "sent him forth from the garden"? Or, was it when God "placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims"? Well, perhaps all in one day is "abrupt" enough. But then, what about the change that occurred with Noah? Was that at the beginning of building the ark... or, after the flood ended and they disembarked? And then, what does one then say when it comes to the change with Abraham? Or with Moses? Is there some "abrupt" that happens in their life where some switch is flipped? One instant before it was this, the instant after it was that? Well, I don't doubt that you are well aware of the fact that there was some sort of change that occurred and is recorded in Genesis 3. Likewise with Moses... although you seem to have missed or skipped over both Noah and Abraham. Does it really makes much difference what name might be used (i.e., Paradise, Patriarchal, Law, Grace, etc.) to label and/or identify these changes? Not so much, I think. Call them whatever, as long as it's not too misleading or inappropriate. Seems to me it's far more important to realize what changed, and perhaps, why it changed. AND, is what appears to have changed so significant that it should be called a change in oikinomia? Ah... so now we arrive at the real heart of the issue. What sets apart or distinguishes one oikinomia from another? And it's back to possible definition(s) of oikinomia. In short, I think how someone defines it can certainly limit or restrict what "changes" they do or don't see (or want to see) or acknowledge in scripture. As noted in a previous post, I currently lean towards thinking of it as an economy. Didn't always think of it that way... but I do now. Economies tend to be rather intricate, though not necessarily complex. But almost always not easily understood, even by the most intelligent. Sometimes it just take the right angle, or perspective, on it to make perfectly good sense. Hence, there is beauty and wisdom inherent within "rightly dividing" (...separating?) the word of truth. Try forgetting anything that vpw or twi or anyone else has said about, or what you think you know about, 2Tim.2:15... and just for a minute, consider what that verse might really mean if the separating (right dividing) that is written there is about making the appropriate distinctions between the word of truth that was given "prescribed" for this day and time, and that which was given for any other day and time. Why else would Paul refer to it as "my gospel" (Rom.2:16). which (according to Gal.1:11,12) was not received from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ?

Geesh... can't say that I've ever even heard reasoning against seeing it as periods of time because there was some hard cut off point where one starts the other ends. When or where or why did "transition periods" get cut out of that picture? But, perhaps the intention is merely to make that particular aspect or perspective sound as difficult or as "unlikely" as possible... Personally, I've become rather fond of thinking of it in terms of an economy. Economies change (or evolve, if you prefer) over time. Even though that may not be a perfect way to see it, it makes plenty of sense to me. In a particular economic environment, certain things work great, some things sort work, and other things don't at all (i.e., you end up in the poor house.) Factor into that equation what is prescribed (or, "dispensed") for physical and/or spiritual health and well being in that particular economic environment, and you have a "dispensation." Furthermore, it makes the most sense from a global position, not having isolated bits and pieces or parts that operate independently or apart from the whole... 'cause when two economic systems enter the picture, one eventually overcomes or overwhelms the other and pushes it out or subjugates it. (i.e., puts it in the poor house.) which is why, I suppose, that the grace administration - as "good" and as overwhelming as it is - will need to be removed and taken out of the way for any other "system" to be viable.

Sounds simple enough. The question it leaves, of course, is what do you see or think that He expects of us? Something different?

Ah... so, perhaps you also think Rome is (or was) the "man child" that Rev. 12:5 speaks of. But, if so... then how is it that Rome is "caught up unto God, and to his throne"? After Pentecost (Acts 2)? mmmm.... okay, I guess. Maybe it was "in progress." But to be fair, I'm really not sure what all that might or might not mean or entail, and whether it was or wasn't, one way or the other at this point. Finalized? I'm not convinced. Granted, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed - which btw, wasn't the first time it was lost. And it's no secret that Israel (today) already has very advanced plans, and is prepared to rebuild and restart the temple in Jerusalem. Which in and of itself doesn't necessarily make the old covenant any less obsolete... but it does raise some doubt as to how "disappeared" it might be. Well, if the primary way that you've ever viewed (or understood...?) administrations was through the lens that vpw or twi (and some number of others) framed or portrayed it as, then I suppose it's easy to see why you might be somewhat glib about, or befuddled with, certain things. Yes, I do believe in a pre-trib rapture, which effects a change in what can be (and is, or will be) prescribed for spiritual health and well being (aka, salvation) during something referred to in scripture as "the time of Jacob's trouble." What that is exactly, and when or how long that might remain, seems to be much more difficult to put a finger on. However, you might also think it a bit strange that I'm not of the persuasion that there won't be such a thing as death during the 1000 (millennial) year reign of Christ here on earth. Yeah, the dragon (i.e., that old serpent, etc.) is bound a thousand years. But death itself is not mentioned as being bound or done away with during that time, even though "as the days of a tree are the days of my people," and "there shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed." So, apparently there is (or will be) something in effect that can (and likely, will) result in, shall we say... severe consequences? Rev. 19 [12] His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. [13] And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. [14] And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. [15] And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. But, least this sound or appear to be too foreboding, perhaps this might also be kept in mind: The law (to be) in effect is also not written in stone or inked on pages somewhere. (see Heb. 8:10;10:16.)

Doubt it would make much difference to me whether they were or weren't advocating that particular point of view, as long as they could discuss it rather plainly or clearly... or at least, somewhat sensibly. Personally (and as you are likely well aware of), I'm probably about as (or more) "dispensational" as any I've read about anywhere on this site. Although, seems what I ascribe to doesn't actually "fit" or align with what (at least, most) others here apparently see (or think they see) of it. Quite frankly, I had surmised (from other postings of yours) that you were in (or at least, mostly leaned towards) the "covenantal" camp. Evidently, I am mistaken... but, I sorta hoped that you would be able to shed a bit more light on this particular matter, given that none here at this site ever seems to have honestly cared for much more than the superficial sniping at the whole notion of "dispensations," not matter how it's viewed or defined.

Yes, I know of the promise(s) to (and covenant with) Abraham.. but perhaps you can explain exactly why or how you see that being a "covenant" with us? How are you defining a covenant, and what do you suppose the terms or conditions (if there be any) or fulfillment of it are, as it (i.e., the Abrahamic covenant... or something else?) specifically pertains to us?

I think you probably mean Gal. 4, but what might help me see your perspective on it more would be if you could lay out in your own terms what you see as the (or at least, some of the) basic parameters of this "covenant with us." Like I said previously, maybe it's more a matter of semantics, as I know there are different ways of interpreting or seeing what all is (and/or isn't) included or enveloped within a "covenant." Where or as it sits, the "two covenants" appear to be set or intended primarily as a means of comparison for those that are ... dare I say... stuck to (or at least, inclined towards or attracted to) the old?

ah... seems I missed the abbreviation part

Well, who are you addressing that to? ...as I've re-read my post three - no, four - times now, and I don't see how you could possibly think it sounded like I thought or meant the latter. In fact, if anything, seems to me it would have been far easier to think or question why it appears that I might be excluding all of Israel from the one body. Which, btw, I'm not inclined to exclude all... but, (contrary to certain other beliefs) maybe... some. Why, you might ask? Namely because I'm now of the persuasion that the one body (aka, the body of Christ) is not only introduced and embedded in its entirety - only - within Paul's gospel, I also think that Paul was the first participant (i.e., at the front of the line, or the "chief") and was set as a pattern for those that would follow suit. And no, I sure don't purport to have all (or even necessarily, a lot of) the answers to many of the questions that I suppose this sort of thing might stir up. Let's just say that I too, have had to "rewind" a fair bit of what I had been taught (and thought was true) previously, to even allow enough room in my head to consider the things this required, much less move in the direction it heads... Neither do I, the reason for which is rather plainly laid out in my earlier post referencing Heb.8:8-10. Can't say that I am sold on that, although it might be more an issue of semantics than doctrine. Personally, I still prefer to see and refer to it more as different "economies," which carry differing "prescriptions" for... well, maybe not the absolute best word choices here, but for lack of putting a lot more time or thought into it... "spiritual health and/or prosperity." One of the main reasons I suppose I balk at the reference to and use of "covenantal," is that I just don't see and am simply not convinced that during this day and time we are in any kind of "covenantal" relationship with God. Is there any evidence for it in any of Paul's writings?

might you mean... none that you believe, have heard about, or are aware of ? I think one of the (many) difficulties that preterism (for example) seems to have, is explaining the prophecy (concerning ruling with a "rod of iron") written in Psalms 2:9, and if or when it was (or is to be) fulfilled. Of course, it's rather plainly referred to again in Rev. 19:15. Now, please don't suppose that any change in administrations could or would automatically end something like grace, which can easily be shown to have been in operation (or existence, if you prefer) prior to this dispensation that Paul speaks of. However, Paul does refer some number of places to a (future) time when certain things would surely change. Israel would not remain "blinded" forever. Rom. 11:25. He speaks of a previous "fullness of time" in Gal.4:4, but more importantly, he speaks of "the dispensation of the fullness of times" in Eph. 1:10. Furthermore, there are those that have (rather intelligently) reasoned that Hebrews 8:8-10 likewise point towards something which hasn't yet happened, and is still future. And note that these verses very clearly refer to "a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." It even continues with "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant..." So, unless someone wants to totally ignore what is written right here in Hebrews, it seems rather obvious that there will never be some sort of "return to the law administration" that was initiated with Moses. Sorry, but I disagree. To put it bluntly, not only do I think that's a very loose (in fact, downright bad) translation, it's also not "the dispensation of grace in a nutshell." I might have started by saying the mystery is far more than that... but the "that" part of it simply looks too messed up for me to refer to it as any kind of starting point. Where did that word "Israel" magically come from, and why is it surreptitiously inserted into that verse? If Rom. 8:17 so plainly speaks of us being joint-heirs with Christ, then I see absolutely no reason to change from that and say that we are anything less than heirs together with him (i.e., Christ) here in Eph. 3:6. Don't bother with Gal. 3:29, because there is neither Jew nor Gentile there, and the promise being referred to was made to Abraham and his seed (i.e, Christ)... not seeds, as of many (i.e., the nation of Israel.) Neither does Eph.3:6 say something about Gentiles being members together (with Israel.) The word "together" isn't there, is it? So... why add it? Then we get to this little matter of "the gospel." What gospel? Or should I ask... which, or who's, gospel? The failure (in twi, most notably for this discussion) to "rightly divide" (i.e., make an accurate distinction) between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace (not to mention any failures in understanding dispensations) has undoubtedly resulted in a whole lot of confusion, in a lot of sincere people looking for sensible answers. At least, that's how I see it.

When did (or do) these words stop being true? Matthew 7 [13] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: [14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

A simple yes or no doesn't need any more interpretation, much less a master's degree in comprehending Mark Sanguinetti's vague exegesis of scripture.

Rob Bell skirts the issue better than you. But, evidently neither of you care to address the issue head on.

Mark, do you advocate universal salvation?

And there were others, prior to Darby. https://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Before-Darby-William-Watson/dp/1942614039 Personally, I think it dates back to Paul. Of course, most that post or read here don't believe anything even remotely close to that, and contend that where ever that word is written in scripture it means something else. However, not many see the difference that Paul refers to in Philippians 1:10, nor can imagine what all might be meant with the instructions to rightly divide the word of truth. I'm inclined to agree...

...what an obvious case of projection: so much for any "discussion" of Bell's position on the issue... sayonara.

He's sure not the first to speak out against hell being some place of eternal torment, which incidentally, I agree with (and quite frankly, have known from a time that was many moons before twi..) Seems to me that doctrinally speaking, even vpw and twi would (have) agree(d) with him on that. (Which gives be pause in pondering why this particular thread was introduced here...) What is questionable, however, is the notion of universalism... that eventually, none can - or will - resist the will (i.e., love) of God, and will (inevitably) be saved. Although Bell appears to lean in that direction in his book, it also appears that (perhaps for questionable reasons) he is (intentionally) rather vague, if not downright elusive, on the matter. It's not that I think any of us can (nor should we think should need to try to) account for everything. But this little matter (or issue, if you prefer) is neither little, nor insignificant, by any means... and to appear to be so wishy washing on it come across to me as being very "questionable." Why skirt the issue? Has he genuinely... -or perhaps, purposefully ... not thought it all the way through to a logical or reasonable conclusion to the matter? If not... why not? Perhaps his "outside the box" thinking simply isn't as original or as "creative" as might be imagined...

In reality, he didn't actually do any "boxing up" (i.e., containment) of dispensations. not only did he not rightly divide them (as plainly instructed to do in 2Tim2:15), seems he took, stole, borrowed or used (however you want to think of it) whatever he could from what was written to and intended specifically for Israel whenever it appeared to be advantageous to do so. so what if anyone talks about or makes some rather broad references to there being different "administrations"... yet in both doctrinal teachings and practice, fails to rightly separate and clearly note various distinctions (and similarities) between the message or purposes of them? for starters: have (live) life more abundantly - written to and for whom ? because that's sure not the kind of life or living that Paul made some great reference to in his epistles... (see Phil.4:11, 1Tim.6:6-8.)

don't frequently read (much less, post) here anymore... but reading that sure stirs the pot a bit. probably because it was an issue that often drew deeper thoughts outta me, even back in early 80's, maybe 'cause it didnt' fit and felt rather "off" to me. whatever our take or perspective on what believing is (or isn't), what I am fully persuaded of is that the only one that ever perfected it is the Lord Jesus Christ. And not only are we not capable of that (whatever "that" is), because he did (perfect it) ...not only do we not have to, neither do I think our day to day attention and efforts should dwell on it (i.e., our own "perfect" believing.) Fact is, far too much attention and effort in twi was focused on precisely that, and not on the simplicity of knowing the Lord, and merely allowing "his perfected ability" to shine and (relatively effortlessly) flow through us. Maybe it's a fine line or distinction that I'm trying to pencil out here... but it was certainly palpable enough, even "back in the day."

Seems to me it'd take a bit of work to make that much more confusing than you did, WW. But, to put it bluntly, guess I'm not buyin' it. For starters, why so nonchalantly entwine the entire notion of believing (anything) with what it might mean to believe God? Granted, the whole "positive or negative" approach to what believing is or means might be (i.e., probably is) misguided, especially if trying to restrict it to its biblical usage. Yet, I do recognize there is something (which I'll leave undefined) to positive (or negative) thinking that can and does have an effect on the reality that we live in. So... it's not that I necessarily agree with what or how vpw taught as "believing," but I certainly don't recall it being as kinky as your above presentation of it. However, it was long enough ago that... perhaps with what's been learned since then, I've parsed certain errors out of it and/or amalgamated certain incongruities in what was taught with what I currently believe to be the truth. That said, seems I recall that "believing" (in a more generic sense) was necessary to live. (Period.) In other words, if (or when) you stop believing, you die. In that sense, and from that perspective, everyone that is alive believes (something.) Perhaps this doesn't exactly fit with a more strict biblical definition (or usage) of believing... but I am inclined to think that there is something to it, even if "believing" isn't the perfect or most appropriate word to use for it. Furthermore, thinking is not believing. Thoughts and thinking occurs in the brain. Believing is an issue of the heart. And lastly, regardless of whatever this more (or most) generic "believing" is, or however (or whether) it is delineated and distinguished from "believing God," it denotes the active present. It does not go forward or backward in time. Yesterday is a record of what was believed. Tomorrow has no believing, because it is not here yet. In light of this, the word "believer" appears to have little or no clear meaning aside from the certain specific "one time" events affixed to it, as all living persons believe (and hence, are believers.) Likewise, seems the word "unbeliever" would only make any sense when related to specific one time events. Consequently, and regardless of how it was or wasn't taught or spoken of in twi, my perspective is rather simply on who or what a believer (or unbeliever) is or isn't. If in their heart (not merely the thoughts in their head), anyone ever truly knows (i.e., believes) that Jesus Christ died (for our sins, according to the scriptures) and rose again from the dead (according to the scriptures), then they are a believer. If they don't (or can't), then they are an unbeliever. Period. Has not one single jot or tittle to do with vpw, twi... or anything else, for that matter.

Since when (and/or where in the Bible) did God ever give preference to or choose any of those characteristics above humility? But, as with most that were ever sprinkled with twi's "special" pixie dust, perhaps such a forgotten and lessor quality probably would never make much of a difference anyways...

When did they stop using (or calling it) "Third Aid"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems I recall there being a "third aid" tent at Rock of Ages festivals. Did no one hear ever hear of it, or the reason why it was called that instead of the First Aid tent? Did no one else here ever ask anyone else in the ministry "did you pray about it"? Please tell me it's not so...

yeah, right. you got me all figured out...

To put it bluntly, unless you're trying to make some strange point about it being or using those exact words, there were so many times that I was asked "Did you pray about it," or that I overheard it being said to others, or that I asked it of someone else, at this stage in life it would be exceedingly difficulty (and pointless) to differentiate between them. Evidently I must have been around an entirely different genre of people back in those days, ..or I'm totally insane, and my memory of those days (and my life) is somehow entirely wrong and perverted. Or maybe it's simply a matter of what one actually heard, and/or might have paid attention to at the time when certain words were spoken.