ARCHIVE: The Twelve Dispensations - By Bob Hill

[biblicalanser4u]

thats cool. we can pick this up when your ready

 

[Evangelion]

I see that you're keen.

I see that you're keen.

Biblical -

Arbitary of what may I ask? Just want to make sure we are on the same wavelenghth.

I mean that you can have as many "dispensations" as you want, since none of them are defined by Scripture itself. So how do you know that you're getting it right? Bottom line - you don't. Your version of Dispensationalism is just as good as anyone else's.

This is not a sound epistemological base.

The Covenants are related to Dispensations.

Scripture, please!

In some cases Evan, covenants are what that particular dispensation is about.

For the sake of the argument, I shall allow you to develop this thought. :up:

Think on this if you will.

*thinks*

OK, I thought about it, and what I thought was "This isn't very interesting." Where do you go from here?

Now I am assuming your of the view that the Mosiac Covenant given to Moses is the Old Covenant?

Correct.

Or is it the Covenant of Works, made with Adam before the fall, promising Adam eternal life in exchange for his obedience, which when he fell, thereby ushering in the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, providing salvation for fallen man?

Crikey. If this is what happens when you've been studying Dispensationalism for too long, I don't want to go there already.

Lemme see here... no, I don't buy that at all. None of it. Why? Because it's not in Scripture, while the Old Covenant is.

The example I will give is the Noahic Covenant. This covenant is the basis for the Dispensation of Human Government.

Scripture, please!

The Dispensation of Law is simply the Mosiac Covenant. I hope that helps in your understanding.

Well I now have a list of your "Dispensations" (or some of them, at least.) What's next?

I had written:

The Dispensationalist must therefore hunt through the Scriptures and define his "dispensations" as he sees fit. You yourself have already admitted that we could arrive at anything from 3-37 different dispensations, depending on the terms of reference.

To which you responded:

True! And what exactly is wrong with hunting scripture? Are we not to study to show thyself approved? To find truth? Or are we just going to take someones word for it?

Well, hunting through Scripture is all fine and dandy, my friend... just so long as you're guided by Scripture at the same time. As it stands, your definitions are purely arbitrary. There's nothing in Scripture which specifies the parameters of each "Dispensation", so you're free to make it up as you go along.

Again - this is not a sound epistemological base.

I had written:

Dispensationalism leads to the unhealthy idea that the message of the early Christian community necessarily changed with the conversion of the apostle Paul. This stands in contrast to the Biblical data.

To which you responded:

Where is this in the scriptures? I find scriptures point in the other direction.

Both Peter and Paul claimed to preach that which was "written in the Law and the prophets." If they've got two entirely different messages, they can't both be preaching "from the Law and the prophets", can they? Both preached to the Jews (though Peter more than Paul), and both preached to the Gentiles. They went first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, after some of the Jews had rejected their message.

But guess what? Jesus himself had already done the same thing! Yep! Jesus preached to both Jews and Gentiles during his ministry. Not only this, but he had instructed the disciples to go first to the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6), in accordance with his parable of the wedding feast. After his resurrection, however, Jesus spoke these words in Mark 16:15:

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

"All the world" and "every creature." Not a word about the Jews. That's pretty clear to me. :up:

I had written:

Dispensationalism asserts that God will not deal with His people until the Second Advent. This too, stands in contrast to the Biblical data.

You responded:

How so again? Paul in Romans even states ungodliness will be turned away from Jacob and all Isreal will be saved by the coming of the deliverer, not before His coming. Reference Romans 11:26.

Try reading the first few verses for context:

Romans 11:1-5.
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Notice that he also says:

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

So some have not obtained; others have obtained, and eventaully, all Israel shall be saved.

Meanwhile, the OT informs us that God will continue to work with His people by fulfilling the prophecies which His prophets foretold. The re-establishment of the State of Israel is a classic example. Will "all Israel be saved" when Christ returns? Absolutely! And did Paul continue to preach the gospel message to the Jews? Absolutely! Even as late as Acts 18 he was preaching to the Jews, and they were converting! Even as late as Acts 28 he was preaching to the Jews, and they were converting!

So I think you're over-stating the case when you say that Peter and Paul each carried a different message.

I had written:

Dispensationalism is associated with the twin heresies of OSAS and "Spirit baptism" as a replacement for Biblical baptism.

You responded:

Heresies Huh? I will respond to those in due time. But You can debate with me about babtism now in The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! If your up to it.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I was debating baptism on that thread for weeks before you came along. I eventually moved over to the Trinity thread, because I had finished with the baptism debate. I had dealt with every proof text that my opponents had thrown at me, and it had reached the stage at which people just weren't listening anymore. I suggest that if you want to see where I'm coming from, you can go back over the thread yourself, and take a look at my arguments.

I'm certainly not interested in repeating myself.

It's time for bed now (12:50 AM), so I'll see you tomorrow evening when I get home from work.


PS. "Soteriological" means "with regard to salvation." Soteriology is the study of salvation doctrines.

 

[drbrumley]

Evangelion,

I mean that you can have as many "dispensations" as you want, since none of them are defined by Scripture itself. So how do you know that you're getting it right?

Let's see, the argument here seems to be that dispensations are not defined. Well, let's look at the word shall we. I will even quote Mr. Hill because his definition is accurate.

What is a dispensation? The Greek word for dispensation, oijkonomiva - oikonomia, is defined in two ways. The first definition emphasizes the plan of management: The management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property. The second emphasizes the position entrusted to the administrator: The office of a manager or overseer, stewardship. We refer to the term of office of an American president as an administration. We could refer to it as a dispensation.

That seems pretty clear there. So to say that looking thru scripture one cannot find any differences is not exactly right. God has dealt differently with the men at different times during our history.

Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Dispensationalists do teach that man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.

Dispensationalism leads to the unhealthy idea that the message of the early Christian community necessarily changed with the conversion of the apostle Paul. This stands in contrast to the Biblical data.

Good grief!

Both Peter and Paul claimed to preach that which was "written in the Law and the prophets." If they've got two entirely different messages, they can't both be preaching "from the Law and the prophets", can they? Both preached to the Jews (though Peter more than Paul), and both preached to the Gentiles. They went first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, after some of the Jews had rejected their message.

Not two messages, different house rules.

But guess what? Jesus himself had already done the same thing! Yep! Jesus preached to both Jews and Gentiles during his ministry. Not only this, but he had instructed the disciples to go first to the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6), in accordance with his parable of the wedding feast.

Newsflash for you. Jesus was sent only to ISREAL. Do you need a reference here. Your in luck, I will provide you one.

Matthew 15:24 [Jesus] said, " I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. "

Christ did not limit His earthly ministry to Isreal because He had no love for or plan for reaching the Gentiles. His plan was to reach Isreal first and then through them to reach all of the other nations.

As far as the record is concerned Jesus ministered to only two Gentiles, a Roman centurion who had built a synagogue for the Jews and the woman above. Thats it. To say that He preached to both Jews and Gentiles is arbritary and to make a doctrine out of that is not sound.

Dispensationalism asserts that God will not deal with His people until the Second Advent

The boundary line between ours and the former dispensation is marked off in Scripture by Isreal's fall. Paul makes it very plain in Romans 11:12-15 that it was through the fall of Isreal the Gentiles had been blessed under his ministry. If we can locate Isreal's fall we can locate the dispensational boundary line. Romans 11, written at least three or four years before Acts 28 definitely announces that Isreal has already fallen. Likewise, in his very first epistle he announces concerning the Jews: " for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" 1Thess. 2:16. To me, in Paul's mind God's wrath was upon the Jew to the uttermost, which does not at all sound as though they were still in the good graces of God and still having the kingdom blessings offered to them.

And saying God still doesn't deal with Isreal is not quite accurate.
I agree with you that God played a major role in Isreal becoming a nation again. Noone said God does not deal with Isreal on this thread as of yet.

So before you start critizing dispensationalism, get the facts of what dispensationalists teach.

 

[Evangelion]

.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Evang - this is your final warning keep your posts shorter!

 

[Evangelion]

Sorry, my mistake.

I'll re-post it as a two-part mini-series.

 

[Evangelion]

So, we have a new challenger, do we?

So, we have a new challenger, do we?

Well, well, well...

Let's see, the argument here seems to be that dispensations are not defined. Well, let's look at the word shall we. I will even quote Mr. Hill because his definition is accurate.

You mean that you will quote Mr Hill because you just so happen to agree with his particular model.

OK. So let's do that:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is a dispensation? The Greek word for dispensation, oijkonomiva - oikonomia, is defined in two ways. The first definition emphasizes the plan of management: The management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property. The second emphasizes the position entrusted to the administrator: The office of a manager or overseer, stewardship. We refer to the term of office of an American president as an administration. We could refer to it as a dispensation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That seems pretty clear there.

Yes, it defines the word "dispensation" very well - which is not what I had asked for. Remember, I had said to Bob:

• 
  The Dispensationalist must therefore hunt through the Scriptures and define his "dispensations" as he sees fit. You yourself have already admitted that we could arrive at anything from 3-37 different dispensations, depending on the terms of reference.

And I had said to Bob's friend:

• 
  I mean that you can have as many "dispensations" as you want, since none of them are defined by Scripture itself. So how do you know that you're getting it right? Bottom line - you don't. Your version of Dispensationalism is just as good as anyone else's. This is not a sound epistemological base.
  
  ...
  
  There's nothing in Scripture which specifies the parameters of each "Dispensation", so you're free to make it up as you go along.

That's what I'm talking about when I refer to "defining your dispensations." I'm not talking about the meaning of the word itself, but the scope of each "dispensation" as defined by the dispensationalist.

So to say that looking thru scripture one cannot find any differences is not exactly right.

Straw man. This is not what I had said.

God has dealt differently with the men at different times during our history.

Straw man. I had never denied this.

Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations

Well, according to Bob Hill, the Dispensationalist who started this entire thread:

• 
  We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.

So perhaps you'd like to tell Bob that he's got it all wrong?

and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another.

Straw man. This is not what I had said.

Dispensationalists do teach that man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.

So you believe in a different message for a different age. Fine. Since I had already agreed that is precisely what dispensationalists teach, I am at a loss to know why you're going over old ground now.

Not two messages, different house rules.

Well now, it appears that there is some measure of confusion in the Dispensationalist camp.

For example, while you have argued that there was only one message, another Dispensationalist tells me:

• 
  The simple fact is that while Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism generally, along with Modernism and Roman Catholicism, have considered Paul merely as one of the Apostles, entrusted with the same message the Twelve were sent to proclaim, the Scriptures clearly teach that this is not so. Paul's message and ministry were distinct and separate from theirs; to him was committed the doctrine and the program for a new dispensation, a new creation, the Church, never before even contemplated, except in the mind and heart of God.
  Full text available here.

So who am I expected to believe? The Dispensationalist, or... the other Dispensationalist?

I have already said that Dispensationalism is "hardly an exact science", and this only serves to confirm my point.

Newsflash for you. Jesus was sent only to ISREAL.

The word you are looking for is "Israel." Misspell it, and you remove a title of God from the name of His nation.

Not a good idea.

Do you need a reference here. Your in luck, I will provide you one.

Matthew 15:24 [Jesus] said, " I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. "

I have already agreed that this was his primary mission. But it did not exclude the Gentiles, and it does not automatically present us with a certain "dispensation."

Christ did not limit His earthly ministry to Isreal because He had no love for or plan for reaching the Gentiles. His plan was to reach Isreal first and then through them to reach all of the other nations.

This is all very well, and I agree with it in principle. But the plain fact remains that Christ visited the Gentiles during his ministry (even to the extent of leaving Jewish territory and preaching to the Samaritans), and they believed at the receipt of his message. The lines of demarcation are not as clearly drawn as you would have me believe. Indeed, Jesus himself comments on the fact that "no prophet is accepted in his own country." Many Gentiles heard him preach - he preached to them by choice, and they believed on his word.

 

[Evangelion]

Part II.

Part II.

Continued from the previous post...

drbrumley -

As far as the record is concerned Jesus ministered to only two Gentiles, a Roman centurion who had built a synagogue for the Jews and the woman above. Thats it. To say that He preached to both Jews and Gentiles is arbritary and to make a doctrine out of that is not sound.

Wrong. Jesus actively preached in Samaria. That is how he met the woman at Jacob's well. There is no getting around it - Jesus went into Samaria on his way to preach in Galilee (known to the Jews as "Galilee of the Gentiles", which should give you a hint about the sort of people who lived there), and found an opportunity to preach to the Gentiles of Samaria.

Thus:

• 
  John 4:39-42.
  And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
  So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
  And many more believed because of his own word;
  And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.

Jesus was invited to stay for a while and preach to the Gentiles. So he stayed for a while and preached to the Gentiles. And many of the Gentiles believed.

B. W. Johnson has this to say in his People's New Testament:

• 
  John 4:42 - Know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
  To the woman Jesus had said that he was the Christ. Now, by his teachings, many months before Peter's confession, the Samaritans pronounce him the Christ, the Savior, not of Jews only, or Jews and Samaritans, but of the world.

A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament) agrees:

• 
  The Saviour of the world (ho sōtēr tou kosmou).
  See Mat_1:21 for sōsei used of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term sōtēr to Jesus again in 1Jo_4:14. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (Joh_4:22). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (Joh_4:26) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews.

So they knew perfectly well that the salvation of God had come to the Gentiles and the Jews. This was the direct result of Jesus' preaching. Indeed, it was his personal message to them.

End of story.

The boundary line between ours and the former dispensation is marked off in Scripture by Isreal's fall.

This remains to be proved.

Paul makes it very plain in Romans 11:12-15 that it was through the fall of Isreal the Gentiles had been blessed under his ministry.

Very true. But did you take a little time to see what else he has to say about the Gentiles? And (more signficantly) what else he has to say about Israel?

If we can locate Isreal's fall we can locate the dispensational boundary line.

OK, well Paul actually refers to more than one "fall." He refers to the fall of Israel in the wilderness, and the fall of Israel when they encountered the stumblingblock that was "Christ crucified."

Romans 11, written at least three or four years before Acts 28 definitely announces that Isreal has already fallen.

Agreed. But I note with interest that you've skipped over the key verses of Romans 11. Any particular reason for that?

Likewise, in his very first epistle he announces concerning the Jews: " for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" 1Thess. 2:16. To me, in Paul's mind God's wrath was upon the Jew to the uttermost, which does not at all sound as though they were still in the good graces of God and still having the kingdom blessings offered to them.

...and yet, "all Israel shall be saved." And since (as you correctly observe) Acts 28 was not yet written by this stage, I am waiting to hear you explain why Paul was still preaching to the Jews in Acts 28, and why they still continued to believe.

Any suggestions?

And saying God still doesn't deal with Isreal is not quite accurate.

That is what I have been told by Dispensationalists. Don't blame me if they can't all agree on the rules.

Here, why don't we ask Bob Hill for his opinion...?

• 
  God used Paul to pronounce to the Jews in Rome that Israel had been set aside. This occurred in Acts 28:28. After this, the baptisms imposed on Israel, being fleshly ordinances (Heb. 9:10-13), were set aside until God would resume dealing with Israel in the tribulation.

Bob Hill says that "God would resume dealing with Israel in the tribulation." (And stop me if I'm wrong, but Dispensationalists believe that the tribulation has yet to occur.) So Bob is telling us that God "still doesn't deal with Israel." Are you now telling me something different?

This is all very interesting, by the way.

I agree with you that God played a major role in Isreal becoming a nation again.

In that case, you disagree with Bob Hill - another Dispensationalist.

Noone said God does not deal with Isreal on this thread as of yet.

Bob did, and since Bob's a Dispensationalist, I thought he was telling me what Dispensationalists believe. That was a reasonable inference, wasn't it?

So before you start critizing dispensationalism, get the facts of what dispensationalists teach.

Well I thought I had, but unfortunately, different Dispensationalists want to tell me different things.

*shrugs* Like I said - it's hardly an exact science, is it?

Now, let's review...

• You have spent most of your time attacking straw men.
  
• You have not even attempted to engage with my argument from Romans 11 (clearly articulated below.)

By the way - you might be interested in this brief debate which I had in the "Dispensationalism" forum.

 

[Evangelion]

I've used a maximum of three pages per post. :up:

That's one page below the average length of posts on the "General Theology" board.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I do not see all the posts on TOL. Just because there may be someone violating the rules elsewhere does not excuse those from violating the rules here.

It would be no big deal if I hadn't already warned you 3-4 other times.

 

[Evangelion]

Can I have a ballpark figure here?

Is three pages too long?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Sorry, my mistake.

I'll re-post it as a two-part mini-series.

Much better, thank you!

 

[Evangelion]

No worries, Knight. :up:

 

[drbrumley]

Evan,

That's what I'm talking about when I refer to "defining your dispensations." I'm not talking about the meaning of the word itself, but the scope of each "dispensation" as defined by the dispensationalist.

Just as with any doctrine which man tries to formulate from the revelation of the Word, it is to be expected that there would be differences of opinion on the subject of dispensations. Dispensationalists are no more agreed on the number and the divisions of the dispensations than christians are on the doctrines of election, baptism and the second coming of Christ. Some men call themselves either non- or - anti- dispensationalists,(you perhaps) arguing that lack of agreement is proof of the falseity of the doctrine. To say the least, this is a rather immature position to take. The lack of agreement should be a challenge to more diligent study. No one man, with the exception of Jesus Christ, has had all the truth. An open minded, unprejudiced study should bring believers closer to unity in this field. It is no mark of spirituality to call one self anti-anything that is in Scripture, simply to avoid differences or controversy.

What did Mr. Hill say that was so wrong? His quote you gave me is pretty accurate. The burden is on you to disprove it. So quit duckin it.

Mr. Hill's quote.

We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.

So please don't imply that we teach that we teach different ways of being saved. That would not be accurate.

So you believe in a different message for a different age. Fine. Since I had already agreed that is precisely what dispensationalists teach, I am at a loss to know why you're going over old ground now.

Great, let's move on to the meat of the subject then instead of you favorite pastime of making a play of wording.

Well now, it appears that there is some measure of confusion in the Dispensationalist camp.

Not at all.

For example, while you have argued that there was only one message, another Dispensationalist tells me:

The simple fact is that while Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism generally, along with Modernism and Roman Catholicism, have considered Paul merely as one of the Apostles, entrusted with the same message the Twelve were sent to proclaim, the Scriptures clearly teach that this is not so. Paul's message and ministry were distinct and separate from theirs; to him was committed the doctrine and the program for a new dispensation, a new creation, the Church, never before even contemplated, except in the mind and heart of God.

Again, back to an earlier statement I made:

Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Dispensationalists do teach that man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.

I have yet to meet one dispensationalists that disagrees with that statement. In your folly. you try to use this as some sort of division. Very bad and sad on your part. Again trying to make a play of words.

About Samaria on the next post.

 

[Evangelion]

drbrumley -

Just as with any doctrine which man tries to formulate from the revelation of the Word, it is to be expected that there would be differences of opinion on the subject of dispensations. Dispensationalists are no more agreed on the number and the divisions of the dispensations than christians are on the doctrines of election, baptism and the second coming of Christ.

Fine. So I'll thank you to stop talking about "what Dispensationalists believe" as if there's some sort of universal standard.

Some men call themselves either non- or - anti- dispensationalists,(you perhaps) arguing that lack of agreement is proof of the falseity of the doctrine.

*snip*

Straw man. I am not arguing that the lack of agreement is proof of the "falseity of the doctrine [sic]." I am arguing that you cannot talk about "what Dispensationalists believe" as if there's some sort of universal standard.

What did Mr. Hill say that was so wrong?

You had said that there was no change in God's method of salvation.

Thus:

• 
  Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations

My quote from Mr Hill stands in direct contradiction to your statement.

His quote you gave me is pretty accurate. The burden is on you to disprove it. So quit duckin it.

If anyone's "duckin it" [sic]", it's you. I have presented you with a contradiction between your statement, and Mr Hill's. To date, this contradiction has not been resolved.

Mr. Hill's quote.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So please don't imply that we teach that we teach different ways of being saved. That would not be accurate.

Are you even reading this stuff? Look, I'll spell it out:

• Mr Hill says that there was a change in the method of salvation.
  
• This means that I have a Dispensationalist here who is talking about different ways of being saved. (One of which is no longer in effect.)
  
• That is precisely what I had said, and precisely what you had denied.
  
• I never claimed that Dispensationalists teach that there are different ways for modern Christians to be saved, if that's what you're thinking.

Please take the time to read my posts properly. I take the time to read your posts properly, and the least you can do is return the courtesy.

In your folly. you try to use this as some sort of division.

You have already agreed that there is division within the Dispensationalist camp. You don't call it "division" - you call it "difference of opinion" - but the net result is the same.

Very bad and sad on your part.

Don't blame me if you guys can't agree on the essentials.

Again trying to make a play of words.

Nothing of the sort.

About Samaria on the next post.

Good.

 

[IDF1]

Yeah, come on Bob, what are yoou doing man, youv'e just made a big statement and Evangelions taken it to pieces, come on man stand up for your self and what you believe.

 

[Evangelion]

LOL Gently, Bentley... So, you enjoyed my little stoush with the Dispys, eh?

I did too.

 

[drbrumley]

IDF1,

Welcome to TheologyOnline. FYI, I am not as blessed with time as Evan is, so forgive me if I don't answer right away. I listen to Evan, and prayfully consider an answer to him. If that takes a week or two, then so be it.

Yeah, come on Bob, what are yoou doing man, youv'e just made a big statement and Evangelions taken it to pieces, come on man stand up for your self and what you believe.

I'm not Bob. LOL! And I don't speak for him either.

But we seem to have here is a huge misrepresentation of words. I quoted:

Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. Dispensationalists do teach that God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.

Please note the key phrase of my answer:

Man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways.

Like I said earlier, Jesus saves. It is by the blood of Christ that ALL men have been saved. Past, Present, and Future. But Isreal in the Old Testament times didn't know who the Messiah was. But they expected him, so they had a faith in the coming Messiah.

Now Evangelion likes to say this is what Bob Hill doesn't mean. This is exactly what Bob means. Maybe Bob should have said something more about this to clarify the position. And I hope he does. But I know this is exactly what he means. This is exactly what Bob says in his thesis:

Bob Hill quotes: Abraham was justified by his faith-work of offering up his son. That was God's method of salvation just as circumcision was necessary. The faith-work did not provide the righteousness. Only Jesus Christ's faithfulness could do that. That is shown in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians.

Or did you just miss that Evangelion. Or are you just pertending he didn't say that?

So the rest of your rant on your post has been answered and needs no more clarification.

 

[Evangelion]

Well, again, Bob seems to have chosen his language with a cavaliar disregard for the very theological specifics he is supposed to be defining. It is one thing to say that man has been required to manifest his faith in different ways. It is quite another thing entirely, to say that God has decided to save man through a variety of methods. And yet, that is precisely what Bob has told us. Indeed, your citations merely prove my point - viz., that he has actually claimed both simultaneously!

So I don't want to hear any more about "What Dispys teach", as if there's some kind of hard-and-fast rules about what they teach and what they don't. It's simply a matter of personal choice.

As I said in the beginning, so I now say again - Dispensationalism is hardly an exact science.


PS. Bob appears to imply (if not assert), that circumcision was necessary for salvation. I hope he realises that this is totally false.

 

[Evangelion]

Oh yeah - and let's get another thing straight. I didn't write a "rant." If anything, that's what you did.