Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, chockfull said:

Jumping in on one angle on this - sorry for any interruption of logic guys.  I would see myself as the "seed of Abraham" in a figurative sense.  Hebrews 11 to me kind of gives a flavor like "your believing makes you Israel" kind of thing.  

Which leads to a bit of enlightenment, yet another question.

Is "Israel" a figurative term in the Bible?  Here?  Where?

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.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Dispensationalism is a man-made, private interpretation of “ALL scripture”, DEAD doctrine, based upon early 19th century textual and critical evidence which relied completely upon the latest 16th cent

Hi Taxidev! imho, the entire “Biblical” and doctrinal underpinning Of TWIt’s private interpretation is based on the FALSE PREMISE (logical fallacy) Of dispensationalism. This was actually a world

So on the education dig I know that's pointed towards someone on this thread, but I think criticizing any of us on our education background is a bit obnoxious.   I mean my theological education was 4

1 hour ago, TLC said:

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?

This paragraph has a lot of questions that summarize a lot of the key concerns in the other thread on "Can salvation be lost" as well.  Just noting.

One of the trickiest cases I suppose with respect to both dispensationalism and can you lose salvation would be Judas Iscariot.

What does his life / spiritual destiny / rewards / whatever look like?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TLC said:

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"... 

I want to make sure that a "sensory oriented brain" and a "spiritually oriented brain" are not illusions brought about by an elitist spiritual attitude.  I mean records of Eli and Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, Moses, Noah.  Boy such a relief that I don't have a "sensory oriented brain" like those guys.

I guess what would go through my brain if someone claimed to be the "Israel of God" is asking them whether they are Jewish or not.  Then joking about who is buying lunch.  But maybe that's too sensory oriented LOL.  Actually I might also ask them if they were a person of color if they are native American, as "Israel" is a common first name among some tribes.

Isn't the point of Hebrews 11 that "believing" looks the same regardless of "administration"???

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Infoabsorption said:

Here's another perspective to consider. Could the covenant and the law be 2 separate things? The law being just one aspect of the covenant?

Covenant is just "agreement" right?  I mean sorry for the non-enlightened modern English but the only place I run into "covenant" in today's society is some of the following:

1. Some stupid legal agreement I have to sign with my neighbors so they can leave nasty notes if my trees aren't trimmed to their likng

2. Indiana Jones movies

3. Video games similar to Indiana Jones movies

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, chockfull said:

This paragraph has a lot of questions that summarize a lot of the key concerns in the other thread on "Can salvation be lost" as well.  Just noting.

One of the trickiest cases I suppose with respect to both dispensationalism and can you lose salvation would be Judas Iscariot.

What does his life / spiritual destiny / rewards / whatever look like?

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, chockfull said:

I want to make sure that a "sensory oriented brain" and a "spiritually oriented brain" are not illusions brought about by an elitist spiritual attitude.  I mean records of Eli and Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, Moses, Noah.  Boy such a relief that I don't have a "sensory oriented brain" like those guys.

I guess what would go through my brain if someone claimed to be the "Israel of God" is asking them whether they are Jewish or not.  Then joking about who is buying lunch.  But maybe that's too sensory oriented LOL.  Actually I might also ask them if they were a person of color if they are native American, as "Israel" is a common first name among some tribes.

Isn't the point of Hebrews 11 that "believing" looks the same regardless of "administration"???

 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chockfull said:

Covenant is just "agreement" right?  I mean sorry for the non-enlightened modern English but the only place I run into "covenant" in today's society is some of the following:

1. Some stupid legal agreement I have to sign with my neighbors so they can leave nasty notes if my trees aren't trimmed to their likng

2. Indiana Jones movies

3. Video games similar to Indiana Jones movies

Yes I agree 100%. It was the agreement God made with Israel. Hebrews chapter 8 describes the high priest offering gifts and sacrifices in the sanctuary(temple) and then in Hebrews 8:7 " For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." Then the last verse of Hebrews 8:13 states: " what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready(Gr."engys" near,soon) to vanish away." Then in the very next chapter and verse 9:1 it states " Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary." Hebrews 9 goes on to describe the altar and the ritual duty of the high priest offering the animal sacrifice. In Hebrews 9:11: But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,[e] then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Hebrews 9: 26:  Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 

Maybe it's just me but it sure seems like Hebrews is talking about the soon end(at the time Hebrews was written) of the earthly temple system that occurred in 70AD. Hebrews 8:13 in this context then makes perfect sense: what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready(Gr. "engys" near,soon) to vanish away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Chockfull,

I hear you on the mental constructs thing you said:

One of the main things I struggle with regarding scriptures and how they relate to mankind through the centuries and millenniums is when I start to get a feel that the mental constructs involved in fitting together and making sense of scripture start to become more intricately involved than the scripture itself that is a red flag.   If I need a 10 page mental model to understand a 3 line scripture, that is the point I start questioning the logic that led me there.”

A few of my favs on systematic theology are Norman Geisler, Wayne Grudem,  Walter Elwell, and Bruce Waltke - but even so sometimes I have to really work at following what they say when I'm wanting to dig a little deeper into something I'm checking out - I don't buy into everything they say - I pick and choose what makes sense to my itty bitty noodle…anyway Geisler makes an interesting point on pages 437 - 439 in volume 4 of his Systematic Theology he talks about the development of a progressive dispensationalism   (and I know there are oodles of variations on dispensationalism anyway – but I still like to check out other viewpoints)

…anyway Geisler talks about historical-grammatical biblical hermeneutics through which an interpreter tries to take a neutral stance toward a text so as not to read their own view into it; whereas some theologians like Blaising and others (see progressive dispensationalism link)  believe that one’s theological pre-understanding should be allowed to influence his textual interpretation.

 

(personally I don’t have a problem with that – but I think that is something – perhaps the right of everyone who reads the scriptures should exercise as they grow in biblical knowledge – but for those dedicated to conveying the strict data of the text, I think traditional historical-grammatical hermeneutics are in order…but that’s just my personal preference - - I just want to see what the text says – then I’ll take it from there through the – dare I say it? – personal filter of everything I’ve learned thus far in life - and that’s not just the Bible but it’s life experiences, how “theories” worked or didn't work when put into practice...it's sort of like thinking out loud - speculating - I want to be very aware I may be going out on a limb - checking out some unchartered waters or something :spy: )

 

Geisler’s comment on Blasing and others who favor the progressive dispen. view is that it becomes an interpretive grid through which views and conclusions from contemporary scholarship might be read into the text - that may be foreign and contrary to the text when using the historical-grammatical method.

Personally, I like listening to all sides – that’s why I enjoy Grease Spot so much – and being comfortable with having a lot of my belief system in a state of flux…and some of what I’ve read about progressive dispen. does intrigue me. (I’ll get back to that further on with some interesting stuff out of another systematic theology book I like…change isn’t a bad thing…I may be old and stiff but I like to think my mind is still somewhat flexible and adaptive.)

== == == ==

TLC,

I always appreciate your thoroughness and inquisitiveness – and thanks for your thoughtful post…after some of what you said I think we may have more in common on this topic – although sometimes I’m tempted to think we are quibbling over semantics – but I guess that’s part of the process of clarification…However, please consider the following as a feeble attempt to answer when you said :

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?

 

...As I mentioned in the previous post of things like faith and the person of Jesus Christ transcending time and space whereas, folks in OT times may not have fully understood what things like sacrifices, ceremonies etc. foreshadowed – but I think they knew what it all pointed to - the sacrificial Lamb of God (Rev. 13:8) who would save them from their sins (Isaiah 53:5, 6)…

..but like you said there may have been an unfolding theme (perhaps an unfolding theme from man’s viewpoint anyway) of one simple plan – I believe Jesus Christ was always at the heart of that plan. I think this is something that one can infer from a lot of the things mentioned in Romans and Galatians – that there is only one way to salvation – by grace through faith and that there is only one gospel message. Way back in Genesis 3:15 we see the promise of the Savior; folks in the Old Testament looked forward to the promised Redeemer – even as far back as one of the oldest OT documents declared “I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth.” Job 19:25 – I could be wrong but I understand that to be how OT folks were saved – by a faith in the promised Savior...as one that believes in the pre-existence of Christ – I think John 1  shows a singleness in the purpose and plan of God all along – even from “in the beginning” 

== == == == ==

 

...this brings me to what I mentioned earlier about progressive dispensationalism and variants…It is always fun checking out other viewpoints on Grease Spot…this thread has been quite enjoyable – thanks to all for the great input!…this thread in particular got me to dust off some of my systematic theology books and reevaluate my beliefs on dispensationalism…

I’m glad to be doing that…on this topic I’m tempted to think of the Bible as almost something of a journal, written by folks inspired by God while on a spiritual journey…I don’t think any of them saw the whole enchilada…I think of my own journey - calling to mind the journals I kept while going through the way corps program and way beyond that to Grease Spot posts articulating the various changes I’ve gone through – and even still experience from time to time  - - it all represents a spiritual journey for me – I certainly don’t see the whole picture of my existence…maybe bits and pieces that inspire me, folks I’ve met, answers to prayers, illuminating experiences, trials that revealed what I’m made of… perhaps one little glimpse of the big picture throughout my corps journals and Grease Spot posts is that I still believe in my Lord Jesus Christ – which is an amazing thing if you could read some of my corps journals which reek of the indoctrination methods TWI used in an attempt to strangle the freakin’ life out of my relationship with the Lord...

Ok - so the content of my writings is a far cry from anything biblical – perhaps better suited for Mad Magazine :biglaugh:  - - but imagine if you will, those who were inspired to write the scriptures – they were also imperfect humans who did not have the big picture…they wrote from their vantage point in space and time… just a crazy thought: How does God see the plan of salvation compared to how people see it? Perhaps the biggest obstacle to being able to wrap our minds around all this is that we are bound by our physical limitations as well as our notions of space and time. To make sense of things - and even trying to make sense of spiritual things we might ask - when did that happen? When will that happen? Where did this take place? we want a context to place them in; we need a framework - a rough outline - the cover of the box of a huge puzzle that has the complete picture - this allows us to piece things together in a proper relation to other pieces.

What are those questions to a being who inhabits eternity? ( I Kings 8: 27-29; Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 26:4; 57:15; John 1:1; Rom. 1:20; I Timothy 1:17; Rev. 1:4)...kind of funny to imagine a comparative interview with God and a scientist asking them both when something took place?.... scientist: our research shows it was approximately x billion years ago...God: it happened exactly xx and a half billion years ago - I know I was there - I can still see it like it happened yesterday..

== == == ==

The following excerpts are from Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem, co. 1994, published jointly by Inter-Varsity Press and Zondervan Publishing House, pages 859 – 863:

Among evangelical Protestants there has been a difference of viewpoint on the question of the relationship between Israel and the church. This question was brought into prominence by those who hold to a “dispensational” system of theology. The most extensive systematic theology written by a dispensationalist. Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology, points out many distinctions between Israel and the church, and even between believing Isarel in the Old Testament and the church in the New Testament..

…While Chafer’s position continues to have influence in some dispensational circles…several current dispensational theologians, such as Robert Saucy, Craig Blaising, and Darrell Bock, refer to themselves “progressive dispensationalists”…They would not see the church as a parenthesis in God’s plan but as the first step toward the establishment of the kingdom of God…

…Progressive dispensationalists would see no distinction between Israel and the church in the future eternal state, for all will be part of the one people of God...

…The position taken in this book differs quite a bit from Chafer’s views on this issue and also differs somewhat with progressive dispensationalists. However,, it must be said here that questions about the exact way in which biblical prophecies about the future will be fulfilled are, in the nature of the case, difficult to decide with certainty, and it is wise to have some tentativeness in our conclusions on these matters…

…we should notice the many New Testament verses that understand the church as the “new Israel” or new “people of God.” The fact that “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph.5:25) would suggest this. Moreover, this present church age, which has brought the salvation of many millions of Christians in the church, is not an interruption or a parenthesis in God’s plan, but a continuation of his plan expressed throughout the Old Testament to a call a people to himself. Paul says, “For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal” (Rom. 2:28, 29)…

…Paul says that Abraham is not only to be considered the father of the Jewish people in a physical sense. He is also in a deeper and more true sense “the father of all who believe without being circumcised…[who] also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had” (Rom. 4:11, 12; cf. vv. 16, 18)...

…Hebrews 8 provides another strong argument for seeing the church as the recipient and fulfillment of the Old Testament promises concerning Israel. In the context of speaking about the new covenant to which Christians belong, the author of Hebrews gives an extensive quotation from Jeremiah 31:31 – 34, in which he says, “The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they will be my people” (Heb. 8:8 – 10)…It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the author views the church as the true Israel of God in which the Old Testament promises to Israel find their fulfillment.

Similarly, James can write a general letter to many Christian churches and say that he is writing “To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (James 1:1). This indicates that he is evidently viewing New Testament Christians as the successors to and fulfillment of the twelve tribes of Israel…

…Peter frequently speaks of New Testament Christians in terms of Old Testament imagery and promises given to the Jews. This theme comes to prominence in I Peter 2: 4-10, where Peter says that God bestowed on the church almost all the blessings promised to Israel in the Old Testament. The dwelling-place of God is no longer the Jerusalem temple, for Christians are the new “temple” of God (v. 5). The priesthood able to offer acceptable sacrifices to God is no longer descended from Aaron, for Christians are now the true “royal priesthood” with access before God’s throne (vv. 4, 5, 9).

 

End of excerpts

== == == ==

This thread has got me to look into the big picture – and ask what is God’s master plan? Is it one simple master plan – is it a series or phases that builds upon what’s gone before? Is the master plan of salvation veiled by the limitations and humanness of those who during their long and arduous journey wrote about it in the Bible? In reviewing some stuff I have on dispensationalism I found the above variant of progressive dispensationalism from Grudem’s book most interesting – I think because it’s trying to get a look at the big picture - - it’s more inclusive anyway - - it helps me get out of that can’t-see-the-forest-for–the-trees syndrome …where I’m not so focused on details that I fail to understand the overall issue…yeah… but check back with me in a year or two, I bet it will still be in a state of flux.  :rolleyes:

Edited by T-Bone
formatting and clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hebrews 1 verse 1 & 2 state:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Here is a very interesting time statement. I guess we are supposed to believe that "these last days" are the entirety of the church age. Could this actually be referring to the last days of the old covenant earthly temple system that was soon to vanish away?

Here is another one 1 John 2:18:

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

So this last "hour" has been in progress for 1900 + years?

And another one 1 Peter 4:7:

The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.

Here is an example of the Greek "engys" properly translated as "near". This is from the NIV.  Dispensationalists prefer the King James translation of "engys" to be "at hand". 
 

Edited by Infoabsorption
Addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dispensationalism is a man-made, private interpretation of “ALL scripture”, DEAD doctrine, based upon early 19th century textual and critical evidence which relied completely upon the latest 16th century “research”! LOL! Can you determine to be any more willfully ignorant of fact and evidence, 80% of which was unknown prior to 1980???

Bwaaaaaaahahahaha!

Edited by DontWorryBeHappy
Insanity!
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TLC said:

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/

 

 

Who determines what level of education qualifies someone to comment on a subject like dispensationalism? Do you mean someone like a “Pikes Peak Seminary” graduate? Or like other offshoot ministries who continue to propound the same nonsense decade after decade? 

Personally, I’m more concerned about what my Lord Jesus Christ had/has to say about spiritual matters than some intellectually lacking  know it all who took a 12 session class 40 years ago and pronounced themselves spokesmen for the “absent Christ”. 

If dispensationalism is so vitally important to the body of Christ, why doesn’t it say so somewhere in scripture that “If you don’t look at My Words through this filter there’s going to be consequences”?  Or “You’re just not going to understand My heart for your life unless these time periods are understood”?

IMHO. And I think the bottom line is that’s what really matters. What “I think” about what the Lord says. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TLC said:

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/

 

 

I read the commentary on "Dispensationalism & the Early Church Fathers". The section about Papias of Hierapolis really stood out because it mentions Eusebius commenting on Papias. I've read sections of Eusebius before. Even though I don't have formal education in history I'm a voracious reader. I'm basically a history geek. I don't deny that some of the early church fathers believed there would be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth and many of them did view the events in Revelation as future, but they didn't thrust all of the eschatalogical prophecies such as the prophecies recorded in Daniel, Matthew 24, Luke 21 etc. into the future as dispensationalists do in this day & time. Eusebius wrote this in his book Ecclesiastical History - Book 3 Chapter 5 http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0265-0339,_Eusebius_Caesariensis,_Church_History,_EN.pdf:

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by
a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to
leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella.
And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from
Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of
Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at
length overtook those who had committed such outrages against
Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of
impious men.
But the number of calamities which every where fell
upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the
inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of
men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by
famine, and by other forms of death innumerable, all these things, as
well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the
cities of Judea, and the excessive sufferings endured by those that
fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the
general course of the whole war, as well as its particular
occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation,
proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so
celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and
final destruction by fire, all these things any one that wishes may
find accurately described in the history written by Josephus."

 

Eusebius saw the "abomination of desolation" mention in Daniel as being fulfilled at the time just before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD.

 

Btw, Happy 4th! Be safe tonight.

 

 

 

 

 

B
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TLC said:

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/

So on the education dig I know that's pointed towards someone on this thread, but I think criticizing any of us on our education background is a bit obnoxious.   I mean my theological education was 4 years at the hands of a huckster who was the reason for this forum existing in the first place.  

If you want to direct criticism at education, I think VP pretty much is the center of attention there  A mail-order doctorate degree.  Wild stories to get in hippy girls pants, written up into a fairy tale novel of snow on gas pumps, repeated under the breath by admiring young people, and used to manipulate lives and amass a fortune that others are still using to mistreat people today.

The overall flavor I get as I am reading a lot of these sources, like the two above,  is that there is somewhat of an expectation that theology "develops" like other fields we are exposed to like philosophy, mathematics, electrical engineering, computer science.  There are "fathers" of say psychology like Sigmund Freud, BF Skinner, who developed significant ideas in their fields that become the foundation of the field for further learning.

The overall question it is starting to leave me with is when we are talking about theology and man's faith, is this something man originated or something God originated?  If it is something man originated, then it makes sense to track it as other fields we have.  Thoughts can develop over time, become tested with the scientific method, proven, and widely accepted.  They can help people over time.

However, if "theology" is something God originated, then the effort to continue constructing man's thought is nothing more than a modern tower of Babel.

I guess it's kind of weird, because we talk about the same thing from two different angles - "faith" in a way to indicate that it's a belief not a mental construct, and "theology" indicating man's systemic study of God which is 100% mental constructs.

So, which one is it folks in your opinion?

Edited by chockfull
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, chockfull said:

So, which one is it folks in your opinion?

For most people, I would venture to say it's a combination of both, usually biased in one direction or the other. Finding an acceptable balance seems to be the problem that vexes most.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Infoabsorption said:

I don't deny that some of the early church fathers believed there would be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth and many of them did view the events in Revelation as future, but they didn't thrust all of the eschatalogical prophecies such as the prophecies recorded in Daniel, Matthew 24, Luke 21 etc. into the future as dispensationalists do in this day & time.

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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chockfull said:

(SNIP)…

However, if "theology" is something God originated, then the effort to continue constructing man's thought is nothing more than a modern tower of Babel.

I guess it's kind of weird, because we talk about the same thing from two different angles - "faith" in a way to indicate that it's a belief not a mental construct, and "theology" indicating man's systemic study of God which is 100% mental constructs.

So, which one is it folks in your opinion?

Don’t Worry mentioned earlier that “dispensationalism” is man-made – that’s true and I would say the same for systematic theology and doctrine in general…I think organizing of anything is perhaps a natural response of our curiosity and a desire to understand…it’s how people attempt to construct a framework to arrange and interpret the data…perhaps one of the first forms of a nomenclature type discipline mentioned in the Bible is Genesis2:19:  Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

If indeed God put humans on the earth to rule and I guess be good stewards of it all – perhaps Genesis 2:19 suggests humans’ first baby steps at learning about their new world…I’ve shared this before about doctrine being man-made on a few threads – here’s one

T-Bone on doctrine and the Bible

we may like to think that authors of our favorite books on theology, philosophy...whatever - are somewhat "inspired" at times...that they are exercising good critical thinking methods...but that doesn’t make it so…maybe we’ll never know for sure…then again we might…but the show ain’t over until the fat lady sings about her liposuction.

 

...and happy 4th of July to all !!!! 

I am thankful for the freedom we have in this great country !

Edited by T-Bone
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chockfull said:

I think criticizing any of us on our education background is a bit obnoxious.

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.) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TLC said:

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? 

These people think it: https://samuelwhitefield.com/974/when-do-the-times-of-the-gentiles-end

Actually TLC, I stand corrected. Of course not all dispensationalists believe that Luke 21: 20-24 has yet to be fulfilled. I remember one on this board who posted in doctrinal believes this was the Roman siege of 70AD. I think he sees the rest of the verses after verse 24 as future. However,  there are many dispensationalists who still believe that Luke 21 in its entirety is yet to be fulfilled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TLC said:

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? 

The abuse of classic logical fallacies is actually perpetrated by the hyperdispensationalists like Ethelbert and others, who frantically try to explain away their very own private interpretation of scripture by claiming ALL scripture is “god-breathed” and therefore inherently inerrant. They twist and twirl themselves through all sorts of logical fallacies to try and prove that what THEY THINK is the eternal perfection of all scripture, is indeed what God Himself thinks! LOL! How utterly absurd.

Logical fallacies? Start with the FALSE PREMISE that dispensationalism is god-breathed. Not one shred of proof ANYWHERE other than in the illogical ramblings of 19th century linguistic technocrats attempting to validate their opinions as being equally “god-breathed” and/or “rightly divided”. 

Then, add in multiple abuse of the RED HERRING fallacy. State opinions as fact and offer zero evidence other than self-serving “alternative facts” rhetoric based on one logical fallacy after another. Get your counter pointers lost in the red herring rabbit holes arguing useless non-information about manufactured arguments.

Then, let’s throw in a lot of STRAW MAN arguments, strewn across the desert of alternative facts these self-serving geniuses throw at REAL facts, textual and MS evidence that relies solely on 16th and 17th Century Critical Greek Texts and scholarship with only the limited materials available to them from Stephens Critical Greek Text Of 1550, and the “Royal Bible Translation” committee or whatever, which produced the 1611 AV, also known as the KJV. Again, IMO, to rely on 4-500 year old “textual research”, based upon compilation of the scant number of texts and MSS available to the small number of folks with the academic and scholastic training to translate them into 17th Century English is foolish at best. It is a grand effort in the futility of proving that “private interpretation” is god-breathed at it’s most fallacious core.

The entire dispensationalism myth is based upon a FALSE PREMISE, built upon the RED HERRING that ALL scripture is god-breathed, and is inherently inerrant, and can be ”orthotomounta’d” according to the principles of “in the verse, in the context, used before”, scripture build-up and without private interpretation. LOL! What a jargonic joke! Totally made up and with ZERO textual or MS evidence. PI with an inventive caveat! LOL.

The abject denial of facts, textual evidence, and volumes of critical evidence disproving any god-breathed “authenticity” of this man-made speculation would be laughable, were it not so insidiously false.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TLC said:

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.) 

The post implying willful ignorance doesn't ring a bell so I suspect the answer is I might not have seen it or it didn't sufficiently catch my attention?  I'm dragging vpw into it as the source of my education as well as most of our education on dispensationalism.  And obviating the fact that what we are doing here is not a research project by a group of people with PhD's in Biblical languages, it is delving into scripture by Christian laymen whose primary common experience is a class where we were trained in certain principles on "How the Word Interprets Itself" and that was labeled "Biblical research". I didn't research Bullinger, Darby, or Scofeld prior to the Way.  My feeling is if you don't drag vpw into the conversation then his presence will haunt you through his false doctrine that people don't even realize they still have stuck in the corners of their cranium.  But if that's not you then feel free to consider that part as me droning on.

Yes thanks for considering the rest of the meat of my post.  I enjoy the exchange with everyone and the viewpoints that are different than mine are not a personal affront or challenge but rather an augmentation of my view as I stop to consider the viewpoint.  

I think this thread is a good example that we haven't arrived at all the truth we need for this generation and need to keep studying and discussing.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 1:35 PM, Infoabsorption said:

Then how do you explain Hebrews 8:13?

In case no one answered this, Hebrews 8:13 just says, "When He[G-d] said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."..

As it says, it is growing old and ready to disappear [NASB]... That is, the covenant that brings death, the old covenant of the law.  So until you find death no longer happening on this earth, you can pretty much guarantee it is still in effect. As the christian writings state, "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;" and "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."  The latter describing the 2 covenants using the word law[nomos], since a covenant can not be changed or broken until fulfilled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...