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

9 hours ago, WordWolf said:

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.) 

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.

  

 

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLC:

"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... "

 

I have to see it work "on paper" if I'm going to take it seriously.  If it's "administrations" like the US government, then at any point, technically, one President or another is officially in charge, and the Secret Service are clear on who it is if no one else is.  In college, I was in a student organization for a number of years, and I discovered that it was actually important to know exactly who was in charge at any moment in the school year.  (I had written into the group's constitution the specific determinant on when the group's president changed- it was tied to the Final Exam schedule of the semester, so that the next president and cabinet was in power during Winter or Summer break, so they could get things prepared, and we were clear who was supposed to be prepping things.)     If it's a governmental thing, the US is hardly the only government where "who is in charge this minute" after elections has become a sticking point- I saw one country's president decide to vanish as soon as they lost re-election,  which prompted the president-elect to immediately assume the office to prevent an absence of president (he got sworn in immediately.)

It's not about how the ideas are made to sound, it's about trying to get clear concepts, then looking at them coldly and seeing if they hold up under scrutiny.  I don't hold to a doctrine if it doesn't withstand my scrutiny, whether or not I LIKE the doctrine.  (That's been true for a VERY long time.)     When vpw introduced the concept of "administrations" in pfal, he himself said that some of them ended ABRUPTLY, so the idea was introduced by him.  If that's not true but the rest is, I'm open to hearing how "transition periods" are supposed to work.   Adam and Eve were cast out of Paradise, and the Patriarchal "administration" supposedly began immediately.  Moses was given the Law, and the Law "administration" was in effect.  

Share this post


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

I have to see it work "on paper" if I'm going to take it seriously.  If it's "administrations" like the US government, then at any point, technically, one President or another is officially in charge, and the Secret Service are clear on who it is if no one else is.  In college, I was in a student organization for a number of years, and I discovered that it was actually important to know exactly who was in charge at any moment in the school year.  (I had written into the group's constitution the specific determinant on when the group's president changed- it was tied to the Final Exam schedule of the semester, so that the next president and cabinet was in power during Winter or Summer break, so they could get things prepared, and we were clear who was supposed to be prepping things.)     If it's a governmental thing, the US is hardly the only government where "who is in charge this minute" after elections has become a sticking point- I saw one country's president decide to vanish as soon as they lost re-election,  which prompted the president-elect to immediately assume the office to prevent an absence of president (he got sworn in immediately.)

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.

17 hours ago, WordWolf said:

It's not about how the ideas are made to sound, it's about trying to get clear concepts, then looking at them coldly and seeing if they hold up under scrutiny.  I don't hold to a doctrine if it doesn't withstand my scrutiny, whether or not I LIKE the doctrine.  (That's been true for a VERY long time.)     When vpw introduced the concept of "administrations" in pfal, he himself said that some of them ended ABRUPTLY, so the idea was introduced by him.  If that's not true but the rest is, I'm open to hearing how "transition periods" are supposed to work. 

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?

17 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Adam and Eve were cast out of Paradise, and the Patriarchal "administration" supposedly began immediately.  Moses was given the Law, and the Law "administration" was in effect.  

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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLC:

"But, perhaps the intention is merely to make that particular aspect or perspective sound as difficult or as "unlikely" as possible... "

TLC:

"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."

That's twice in 2 successive posts you've accused me of handling things dishonestly.   I don't know if you intended to be insulting like that, but that's what you're posting.  I was under the impression that you wanted to get into all of this because you wanted an intelligent discussion,  so I stayed in out of respect,  but I'm not going to bother if this is how it's going to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why do you have to take this so personal?"

You wouldn't like it if you were in a discussion, and suddenly disagreements went from actual discussing into

"So, that's your only care and concern?  Not, what the truth is?'

and .     

"...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"

I think you're being a bit more honest with "Look, the fact here is, I really don't care much what your reason is or isn't for posting what you did. "    Antagonistic responses are arriving independent of whether we're having a nice discussion or whether someone's trying to be dishonest, underhanded, or deliberately obtuse or obstructive.   If that's going to be the response style to everything, then go ahead and have the last word on the subject.  I thought you wanted to discuss and have an intelligent process going, I was obviously mistaken.

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...