Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Sign in to follow this  
annio

Adam and Eve's relationship w/ God after the Fall and dispensationalism / covenant doctrines

Recommended Posts

Please guide me if there has already been a post on this topic, couldn't find it recently discussed- So! I have been realizing that the doctrine that A&E were totally separated from God/"died spiritually" immediately after falling in a totally black and white "picture", and the dispensational (administrations) doctrinal "boxing" taught by vpw et al has affected my life negatively. (I realize this is a huge topic, so will just throw out some  thoughts, and see if anyone is interested...)  There was zero Imago Dei teaching - that A&E were still functioning somewhat as God's image bearers. Or that GOD'S heart of unconditional love towards them did not change one iota; logically He would have grieved for the loss of the perfect relationship. And He had the plan for the Savior "ready to go". Eve believed she had birthed "a man from the Lord" - they still had many of the same Godly mental, emotional, etc patterns they had had, but now these would have been under attack, and the tempting, hindering, accusing, fear mongering, etc which is satan's influence in the world, would be influencing them. But they still had Truth deeply embedded and experimentally learned, correct?

I also think Dispensationalism keeps us (it did me) from really connecting Jesus' character to that of Jehovah, Elohim, (et al His names and "sides") in the Old Testament. So, yes, A&E became carnal, as we were/I was before getting born again. However, God had knit me together in my Mom's womb, He was working over-time to draw me to Him, and I was drawing towards Him years before I actually invited Jesus into my heart. And He still works thru many ppl and situations, and is not at all limited to just those who have His spirit residing them and have declared a life-long commitment to Him.  The "people without spirit are on the level of animals with just body and soul" teaching... That eroded humility and built up pride, and contributed to the "us/them dichotomy, like being the "special ppl", the born again ones, and then being in the "household" as well.

Covenant theology, the little that I know of it, seems much more revealing of a God of continual Presence, grace, relationship, mercy, support, and love. God had a covenant w/ A&E which they broke, but He was right there with the solution in Jesus; He just continually "adjusted things" to give room for man's free will. BUT all along He had His Plan A, what with foreknowledge and all. :anim-smile:  I think there is a lot more accurate continuity with the perspective that God is always interacting w/ His ppl (and often others) as the same covenanting Father, rather than thinking of Him primarily as a "boxer upper" of administrations...

And back to Adam and Eve - after they blew it, I think God got to really teach and help them, and then all mankind, right? (Well except for the nincompoops who just didn't listen.) Kind of like interacting with your teen-age adolescents - never a dull moment! Or like the younger son in the forgiving father parable, and the older bro as well...  After A&E turned away and disobeyed (maybe even just for a few seconds?), He could really reveal so much more about His character and person than they could have known before the fall, especially for us in Jesus and after Pentecost...

All for now. Blessings all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we've discussed covenantal versus dispensational before, but I'm not sure what thread it was on, and I think we're due for a new thread, anyway.

 

This is all just my thinking, so make of it what you will.

The "dispensationalism" we learned (renamed "administrations" by vpw)  came to us by way of Bullinger.   His idea was that history (past, present and future)  were divided into times that could be explained in terms of differences in how God related to man.      If it's called "administrations", then it's described in governmental terms.  "Dispensation" doesn't speak to our minds, and the usage has changed over the last century.     Back in twi, I took the same Greek word "oikonomia", and preferred its translation "STEWARDSHIP" over its translation of "administration."    With "stewardship" I thought the obvious questions were-  what is being stewarded (God's Word, IMHO), and who is acting as stewards?    The form of "God's Word" and who were the stewards changed over time.

As it turned out, I was thinking more along the lines of basic covenantal rather than dispensational.   I see an Almighty God dealing with his stupid, prideful children on the Earth.  He gives them things, he warns them about dangers and tells them what to do after "avoid the danger",  and He continues to Love His children even though they continue to mess things up across the centuries and millenia.   God makes covenants and carries them out, God expects us to keep our end of deals going,  and humans invariably mess that up one way or another.        

 

BTW, dispensationals don't seem to agree with each other.  Outside twi, some of them believe in dozens of dispensations.  EWB and vpw both said 7-  but vpw disagreed which they were.  Both had the original Paradise, then the Patriarchal, then the Law (of Moses)  as 1,2 and 3.      EWB said the next one was Grace.   vpw said the next one was "Christ", which was the year JC preached and healed and so on,  followed by "Grace" as #5 (Pentecost and now.)   vpw said the next will be the "Revealing" (the apocalypse and so on), ending only after the devil is destroyed at the end of Revelation 21, leading to the final Paradise or "Glory".          EWB had said that the Law was in effect until the Ascension- Pentecost, and Grace was #4.  That made #5 the "Revealing" (apocalypse), leading to Jesus' victorious reign of 1000 years, which is "MILLENIAL" and #6.  That left 7 the same-  "Glory."   I think the 1000 years is more likely to be an "administration" than the single year, no matter how significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

I think the 1000 years is more likely to be an "administration" than the single year, no matter how significant.

I personally think the notion of administrations/dispensations is malarkey. While I don't really view things the way covenant theology followers do, it still makes more sense to me.

Frankly, that "God makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust" suggests to me that the framework of the Bible is a box into which certain humans stuffed God based on the limits of human imagination at the time the various books were written. I believe there are things going on beyond what humans can perceive with our senses (as God) but they aren't limited to what are experienced by Christian believers.

That's just my two cents' worth of "insight." Ignore it if you choose. No skin off my nose and no prophecy of doom from me. :love3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually dispensationalism wasn't Bullinger's baby so much as JN Darby's idea (Darby predates Bullinger by a few decades) - Darby was a cultie too, member of the Exclusive Brethren.  And his ideas (including "The Rapture" caught on big time in the USA, not so much in the UK.  The UK has an "established church" that didn't give much credence to Darby's ideas, but in newly-growing USA, wow, this new idea gave rise to a lot of fanciful new psalms and doctrines.

 

Anyway, this thread is not about dispensationalism, as WW suggests.  It's about ideas of "spiritual death" as taught by TWI.  The whole idea seems nonsense to me (it did at the time, but hey, I was trying to take on the "right way of thinking" at the time).  God is not some thing  that is limited by what we think.  God can communicate with human beings (and with other creatures) in whatever way he chooses - by putting ideas into one's heart, mind, by physical signs and wonders, by the awesomeness of the skies around us and by what we see in nature. 

I don't think that God never communicated with A&E again.  Perhaps he could not communicate in the previous way, because by now their minds had become cluttered and doubtful of their own ability to perceive - after all, together they had just made the very first and most monumental f-up.  If any one of us had (let's be kind) accidentally or without understanding the consequences done something that had caused the death of hundreds or thousands of people, wouldn't we be a little antsy and confused?  Hard to talk to?  How much worse for them?  Would others still communicate with us?  Yes.  In the same way?  Maybe; maybe not; definitely with a lot more caution, I'd think, and they wouldn't necessarily trust us in another similar situation.  

We do know that A&E had children after "the fall" and they brought up those children (we know of only two, but likely there would be many more) in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.  We know they made offerings to the Lord.  One offering was acceptable, the other not - not because of its content but because of the heart behind the giving.  How did A&E know how to bring up children?  They'd never seen children before, much less know what their special needs were.  So who do you suppose taught them, and how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Course, all this thread presupposes that A&E existed as individuals and not as types or symbols. And also presupposes that the story is true and not a stylised form of storytelling or moralising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 6:41 AM, Twinky said:

Actually dispensationalism wasn't Bullinger's baby so much as JN Darby's idea (Darby predates Bullinger by a few decades)

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.

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 6:41 AM, Twinky said:

I don't think that God never communicated with A&E again.  Perhaps he could not communicate in the previous way...

I'm inclined to agree...

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest disagreement I have with the theology of "Dispensationalism" is the notion that the dispensation of grace will end at some point in the future which then triggers a return to the law administration. There is no exegetical justification for this viewpoint. There is no indication from the New Testament that the dispensation of grace mentioned by Paul will have an end. . Eph. 3:6 : This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. That is the dispensation of grace in a nutshell. The gentiles inclusion in the new covenant will have no ending and will proceed into eternity. Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together...the wolf being a symbol of the gentiles and the lamb a symbol of Israelites.  Darby, Bullinger etc. have added a lot of conjecture to a simple idea. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 10:58 AM, Infoabsorption said:

The biggest disagreement I have with the theology of "Dispensationalism" is the notion that the dispensation of grace will end at some point in the future which then triggers a return to the law administration. There is no exegetical justification for this viewpoint. There is no indication from the New Testament that the dispensation of grace mentioned by Paul will have an end.

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.

 

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 10:58 AM, Infoabsorption said:

Eph. 3:6 : This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. That is the dispensation of grace in a nutshell.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a fine, but critical distinction between "and the One Body includes members who were once Jew or Gentile, but now are neither" and "the One Body is composed of all the Jews and Gentiles."   It sounded like you meant the latter, info,  and my understanding is that the former happened.

 

For the sake of discussion, supposing "dispensationalism" is correct, then I don't see the need for the Law "Administration" to be back.  All those who number the dispensations say the next one follows.  For vpw, the Grace whatever ends and abruptly the "Revealing" (apocalyptic)  one steps in.   Bullinger said the same thing, only numbering "Grace" as 4th because vpw claimed Christ's physical ministry of 1 year was an  "administration" (I thought Jesus said otherwise, when he mentioned the jots and tittles.)  

If "covenantal" is correct, then the covenant "of Grace" ends when the people of that covenant all leave.  It's still in effect- it's just with them.  The previous covenant, of the Mosaic Law, was still in effect and has still been in effect- for Israel.    And another covenant will come into play once the "Grace" covenant has left Earth.  

 

 

Share this post


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

I think there's a fine, but critical distinction between "and the One Body includes members who were once Jew or Gentile, but now are neither" and "the One Body is composed of all the Jews and Gentiles."   It sounded like you meant the latter, info,  and my understanding is that the former happened.

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...

2 hours ago, WordWolf said:

For the sake of discussion, supposing "dispensationalism" is correct, then I don't see the need for the Law "Administration" to be back.

Neither do I, the reason for which is rather plainly laid out in my earlier post referencing Heb.8:8-10.

2 hours ago, WordWolf said:

If "covenantal" is correct,

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WordWolf said:

I think there's a fine, but critical distinction between "and the One Body includes members who were once Jew or Gentile, but now are neither" and "the One Body is composed of all the Jews and Gentiles."   It sounded like you meant the latter, info,  and my understanding is that the former happened.

 

For the sake of discussion, supposing "dispensationalism" is correct, then I don't see the need for the Law "Administration" to be back.  All those who number the dispensations say the next one follows.  For vpw, the Grace whatever ends and abruptly the "Revealing" (apocalyptic)  one steps in.   Bullinger said the same thing, only numbering "Grace" as 4th because vpw claimed Christ's physical ministry of 1 year was an  "administration" (I thought Jesus said otherwise, when he mentioned the jots and tittles.)  

If "covenantal" is correct, then the covenant "of Grace" ends when the people of that covenant all leave.  It's still in effect- it's just with them.  The previous covenant, of the Mosaic Law, was still in effect and has still been in effect- for Israel.    And another covenant will come into play once the "Grace" covenant has left Earth.  

 

 

I addressed that to "infoabsorption", aka "info" and not TLC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLC: 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? "

 

The word "covenant" is used, in this context, in Galatians 3 and Hebrews 8.  Both compare and contrast the "covenant" with Israel and the "covenant" with us.   According to Hebrews 12:24,  Jesus is its mediator. 

"And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

If you need me to, I'll paste all of Galatians 3 and Hebrews 8 as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, WordWolf said:

I addressed that to "infoabsorption", aka "info" and not TLC. 

ah... seems I missed the abbreviation part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, WordWolf said:

The word "covenant" is used, in this context, in Galatians 3 and Hebrews 8.  Both compare and contrast the "covenant" with Israel and the "covenant" with us.   According to Hebrews 12:24,  Jesus is its mediator. 

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?

 

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Galatians 3 compares and contrasts the law and faith,  the law and "the promise".  and says that the faith part was a "covenant."   It says we're "heirs according to the promise", and "Abraham's seed". 

 

 

Galatians 3 (KJV)

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

 

 

So, Jew and Greek no more- child of God by faith in Christ Jesus,. and Abraham's seed, therefore heir according to the promise.

The contrast is stronger in Galatians 4.

 

Galatians 4 (KJV)

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

 

 

So, we're separate from the Jews, who keep the law.  We are "the children of promise."

 

Hebrews 8 gets into this "covenant" business again.

 

Hebrews 8 (KJV)

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

 

Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

 

Hebrews 11, after the entire run of the Hall of Fame, concluded thusly:

 

Hebrews 11 (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

 

For those unsure, that "without" is Elizabethan English again-  it's the antonym of "within."  "Without" meaning, in this instance, "those external to us."  We saw in Galatians that we're not folded into the Law, nor are those who keep the Law folded into us.  (I once heard someone claim that, based only on reading the archaic English, that this meant that they would "be made perfect" when they're with us, so they're not "without us."   A look at a more modern version should clear that one up.)

 

 

Hebrews 12 (KJV)

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

 

 

Hebrews 13 (KJV)

20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

 

 

The other chapters get into the yearly sacrifices under the law, which were not sufficient to fully expunge sin,  and contrast them with Jesus' sacrifice ONCE for all (men and time.)  I think that's off-topic for discussing covenants, although relevant for what Jesus did and why.

 

So, I see "covenants" discussed here, based on the usage of the word "covenant" and how it's used in these instances.

Edited by WordWolf
Formatting for ease of reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Galatians 3 compares and contrasts the law and faith,  the law and "the promise".  and says that the faith part was a "covenant."   It says we're "heirs according to the promise", and "Abraham's seed". 

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?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll probably want someone who's pushing that POV to chime in.  I'm not pushing dispensationalism, but I can explain it- and answered a question about that.  You had a GENERAL question about "covenantal",  so I answered that.    I'm more open to answering on things on which I've done my due diligence,  and I don't consider this to be one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 8:11 PM, TLC said:

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. 

I was going to list the various references to first century Judea and Jerusalem in Revelation but that would be incredibly lengthy post and off topic so I will try and provide a shorter answer. Given the time statements such as Revelation 22:06(....sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place), the "nations" must be a reference to the various territories within the land of Palestine during the first century: Judea, Phoenicia,  Galilee, Samaria, Idumea, Philistia ,Gualanitis Decapolis, Perea, Nabatea. Most Christians view the events of Revelation as occurring on a global scale mainly because of the translation of the Greek word "ge" as "earth". "Ge" can also be translated as "land". "Ge" is not referring to the world at large in Revelation. It is referring to certain geographic location namely the land of Palestine:   https://biblehub.com/greek/1093.htm   Strong's usage: the earth, soil, land, region, country, inhabitants of a region. From 66-70 AD God's judgement occurred on that area and it was done through the Roman army. Christ ruling the nations(of Palestine) with a rod of Iron was a play on words. That rod of Iron was actually symbolic of a sword. More literally it was thousands of Roman swords. Roman blades were made of iron:  https://www.timetrips.co.uk/rom-art-gladius.htm

 

On 10/28/2019 at 8:11 PM, TLC said:

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.

The new covenant was in progress and offered to the Jews during the first century. Verse 6 states that Christ is the mediator of a better covenant(in the present tense when Hebrews was written ...during the first century). The first covenant was obsolete at the time Hebrews was written and ready to disappear(verse 13) and was finalized in 70AD. Hebrews 1 stated that they were in the last days in the first century: in these last days has spoken to us [b]in His Son etc.  In the last days of what? The old covenant temple system perhaps? The writer(s) of Hebrews quoted from Jeremiah to show Jews that the new covenant was available to them at that time.

I guess not every dispensationalist believes there will be a return to the law administration in the future. The way I understood it, the law was supposed to be reinstated during the 7 years tribulation period.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WordWolf said:

You'll probably want someone who's pushing that POV to chime in.  I'm not pushing dispensationalism, but I can explain it- and answered a question about that.  You had a GENERAL question about "covenantal",  so I answered that.    I'm more open to answering on things on which I've done my due diligence,  and I don't consider this to be one of them.

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.

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 1:09 PM, WordWolf said:

I think there's a fine, but critical distinction between "and the One Body includes members who were once Jew or Gentile, but now are neither" and "the One Body is composed of all the Jews and Gentiles."   It sounded like you meant the latter, info,  and my understanding is that the former happened.

I think it is both. Ephesians 2:14 speaks of the two as one. Eph. verse 12 states that the Gentiles were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise. They used figurative language and symbols to make sense of spiritual things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lean more in that direction than to dispensationalism, since I think it works on paper.   I haven't done a lot of research on it, and it hasn't come up except in discussions here.  So, it's not exactly a high priority.  I've more important issues I'm currently neglecting. :)   

 

As I see it, God's told different people what He expects of them, and what He offers them in return.   (Jesus told a parable about this, IIRC.)  We see different people co-existing, with different expectations,  Call those covenants if you want, or don't.   I think they're more relevant as subsets of a discussion of Final Judgement, but we're not having that discussion in this thread.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:

Christ ruling the nations(of Palestine) with a rod of Iron was a play on words. That rod of Iron was actually symbolic of a sword. More literally it was thousands of Roman swords.

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"?

21 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:

The new covenant was in progress and offered to the Jews during the first century.

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.  

21 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:

The first covenant was obsolete at the time Hebrews was written and ready to disappear(verse 13) and was finalized in 70AD.

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.

21 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:

I guess not every dispensationalist believes there will be a return to the law administration in the future. The way I understood it, the law was supposed to be reinstated during the 7 years tribulation period.    

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.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, WordWolf said:

As I see it, God's told different people what He expects of them, and what He offers them in return.  

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that saved by grace alone is the time we are living in now. There will be a time after Christians are 'raptured away' and during the apocalyptic, revelation period where one must refuse the 'chip' to be saved. Call them time  periods, admins, dispensations, ages, seasons, whatever you want BUT they do 'appear'  to be different time periods. As a side note...just working my way through '100'  on Netflix....uncanny parallel with the end times imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But-  are they different time periods because they're required to be-  as in "this period ended and this other one began at the same time",  or because different people are under different rules because that's what was asked of them?   Jesus told a parable about the workers in the field, with some angry because others got a better deal even though theirs was good.    Right now, if we're "under grace",  is "the law" just as effective as it was before, even if it's outmoded and obsolete?   If the answer is "yes",  then the critical difference is not the TIME, it is the RULES.  IF that is so, then it's not "time periods" as much as the relationships or covenants or sets of rules someone is under, and 2 or more sets can be in effect and work at the same time.    If it's  time-periods, then that can't be true- just as there's only one president of a nation at a time, only one government can legally rule a nation at a time (Obama's term ended and Trump's began, etc.) 

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...