Rapture and Transformation

[Windwalker]

Continued...

Believe it or not, there are certain views held by most Dispensationalists that I disagree with. But, I agree with the Dispensational way of understanding Scripture. It has contributed much to the Christian faith.

And that is why you are hesitant to allow anything in from outside to challenge that. You have found use for it. I personally find it useless, and in the modern sense, even a potentially dangerous way of thinking about God and truth in the world. But I'm not in the same place in my faith you are at in yours right now.

Once upon a time, I too found it helpful. Back when I needed tightly defined boundaries in life where things were spelled out in black and white terms. While a nice snug size 5 shoe is good for a small foot, when the foot grows to size 9 or 10, insisting that once helpful shoe should still be worn because it showed it was true back then, leads to a deformed and crippled foot. Spiritual growth, demands better supportive clothing, so to speak. That's why I retired that earlier set of clothes. They no longer fit me well. A size 10 foot, is not an apostate size 5 foot. It's simply a larger foot.

Really? Tell me what a dispensation is? As to the Covenants, yes there is an Old Covenant, and a New Covenant. Tell me what the Old Covenant was? And, explain to me what a Covenant between God and man is?

Good-Ole-Rebel

I may need to do this in a different post as that might take a lot of explanation. Basically, a dispensation is a period of time that someone trying to create a "model" of God's activity in the world attempt to map out. These are superimposed upon scripture, like sumperiimposting Greek gods on the night stars to see constellations. They are ways to think about history, from a particular human perspective.

The covenant metaphor that the early Hebrews used was adopted from the early Hittite civilization where you have relationships between the surerain and the vassal kings. The Jews used this to talk about their relationship with God as their suzerain and them as servants to him. The NT authors took that metaphor and expanded upon it to talk about a new set of terms in our relationship with God, which they realized as truth from the teachings of Jesus. Jesus's perspectives on God, led them in their creativities to tie the two together, take that covenant theme and make it a new covenant.

I could probably stand to explain that better or more accurately, given time, but that's enough as a general gist of it. I don't believe they saw 7 periods of time that scripture "revealed" that they could try to predict the future with. In reality, that's like tea-leaf reading. You see your own mind using that as a device. It's the same with with these "dispensations" seen in the Bible. It's pattern recognition, like seeing "bible codes", numbers hidden in scripture with special esoteric meanings. It's basically all just "Bible magic".

 

[james bond]

I believe the church and all believers are removed before the tribulation.

Yes, this is part of what we wait for. I just wanted to add that the Armageddon News seems to be a literal translation of the end times, i.e. prophecies. I think the video creators know this, but do it to get their point across. I think its message is clear using the Bible and that the information it provides is correct. I've watched a few of their vids now. It may be the whole movie (?). However, we will not know if Jesus will be breathing fire or things such as that haha. I read the Bible literally, but have learned to not read the prophecy parts as such. It's allegory and use of metaphor, so while the end times may be catastrophic and scary, it may not be bordering fantasy. I do believe it will be like no other natural catastrophe that we have witnessed. Good luck in your search.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I mentioned multiple other "restored truth" or "progressive revelation" sects that began around that time of Darby and his particular progressive revelation of the day, all doing the same things as his sect. Those have nothing to do with some new prophet adding scriptures. Yet, you focus on Mormonism exclusively in your refutation of the facts I presented?

It has nothing to do with them having new scriptures and you don't. They both are about "progressive revelation", some add new material, others find the hidden truths that Christians didn't see before, because God wasn't ready for them to see what you have today. It's all very mythological in nature. It's all doing the exact same thing, with just different window dressings. But they are the same thing in essence, despite how they clothe themselves.


Yes it does add something to scripture. It adds a particular filter through which to read scripture, which changes the nature and meaning of what you read. It adds a theological tint that affects how you read scripture. It adds an idea that superimposes itself upon scripture.

As a rough example for comparison's sake, when reading the writings of the Apostle Paul and you encounter things he talks about Jesus, do you find yourself seeing Jesus in the gospels and tying the two together? Do you look at what Paul says, and then think of something the gospels say, and say to yourself, "Yes, that's what Paul was talking about."?

When a modern scholar approaches the writings of Paul, what they have to do is remove anything the gospels may have to say about it, and read Paul without any prior understanding of what the gospels say. Why? Because they were written after Paul, so Paul would not have had what they say as any influence on his thinking. The gospels add a different layer of perception about Jesus, that Paul did not have. You cannot read what Paul says, and assume that Paul thought the same way the later gospel writers thought.

Now in your methodology, which is a premodern methodology, you see the writings of the NT as a magical creation, that all is intended to be read as a whole, and all must fit together because God was the sole author of it. That's a mythological approach to one's reading of scripture. It hangs together on faith that is "must" all work together. This is what you do. This is what Darby did. This is a theological perspective, not a critical understanding of the source materials using the tools of modernity. It assumes it's all one picture. It begins with that presupposition.

But from a modern perspective, that presupposition does not fit the data when looked at through the lens of critical analysis. Yes, dispensationalism adds to the Bible this patenia of mythology that scripture as a consistent whole, and then from there it pieces together a map of what "God" is saying in it, like connecting the dots of the stars in the night sky to see a lion, or a scorpion, or a hunter. Now that the hunter in the sky, Orion, has been pointed out to you, it's all you see when you look at the sky. Your mind was conditioned by having that pattern presented to you, and "Now I see it too! It's really there!". But it really is not. It is just your mind you are seeing, not a hunter.

So it is when reading Paul. You have to read Paul without the benefit of the gospels, if you want to try to get to how Paul might have really thought about these things. It's the same thing with Darby or others finding "dispensations" in scripture. These are wholly superimposed patterns that they in their minds connected the dots like seeing constellations in the night sky. And they all started with the patentia of the theology that the Bible must be a whole, consistent, inerrant, infallible revelation from God. So, most certainly it adds to scripture. It adds this overlay that connects the dots for you magically.

Is the overlay wrong? Yes, from the perspective of critical analysis it is. It's a game of connect the dots. There is no big dipper in the sky. That exists in the mind. There is no dispensationalism in the Bible. That exists in the mind too. When viewed in a different light, that pattern doesn't exist. During the daylight, the big dipper isn't seen at all.


My knowledge is consistent with the Bible, as understood through a critical lens. I do not reject yours because it "does", which is absurd to say. Why would I reject truth and facts? What I am saying, is I don't see it the way you do. I do not see it through that premodern set of eyes, without knowledge of what critical scholarship shows us about the nature of scripture. I don't reject scripture. I simply see a larger picture of it, which acknowledges how you see it, but does not accept that at face value as the single truth of it, as you do. I don't reject God, in my not seeing truth in the ways you do.

Notice how I don't say you reject God, yet you seem to want to say that about all other Christians who are not mythic-literal believers?


Oh, I absolutely do not believe this. Why else do you reject modern scholarship and science? It certainly isn't because you yourself are qualified as a specialist in those fields and find flaws with their methodologies. A reject of it comes from a motivation to preserve what you have believed, and that motivation arises because these are viewed as threats to your beliefs. I guarantee it.


The fact that you called this Christian scholars unbelievers and rejectors of God, proves you view them as a threat. It also proves where you are at in your faith. Read Romans 14


I have produced a clear challenge to it. That you refuse to acknowledge anything I am saying, and instead saying things like I reject scripture, I reject knowledge, I reject God, others who are modernist and postmodernist in approach are not true Christians, and the like, proves very much that you feel threatened by it. These are things that a frightened person resorts to in order to not consider what others are saying. A


And this is exactly the point I just made above. Modernity removes that mythological patenia in examining the nature and content of scriptures. It's not a values thing. It's simply an approach to knowledge and understanding. I embrace that because it helps create a better, more encompassing understanding of truth.

When I say a "heap of writings", that is correct. The Bible is a compiled collection of dispearate writings over long periods of time. A heap, is simply the raw materials that one starts with in order to create and make useful things out of them. Theology is a shaping of that raw material into some useful application for the need at that time. This is why you see changes in how people think about God and the scripture throughout history. Truth is adaptive. It's not a "progressive revelation". Rather, it is a "adaptive" revelation. That means, it lends itself a raw material to be shaped and molded however it needs to be to meet the current needs.

What you are seeing as a linear progressive revelation from God, I see as an evolving, adaptive interpretation by humans in evolving social and cultural and economic circumstances. We are both seeing God, but though very different lenses. What I am expressing, shows what it looks like through a post-postmodern lens. It is still Christian faith, regardless.

What does matter the most however, is not whether one believes it's a consistent revealed whole, or not as a Christian. What matters is how we treat those who see truth and reality differently than us. What matters is the nature of love. Read Romans 14.


I could say you don't understand the Bible because you don't know how it was constructed, nor much about anything at a deeper academic level. However, you understand it through the set of eyes you have at this point in your life. You understand it, as best you can given the set of eyes you are using.

Yes, I understand the Bible. I understand it from the mythic-literal perspective, as that is what I learned and was taught as a student of scripture in my college days. I understand your doctrines and theologies quite well in fact. But I also have an understanding that you do not, and one that you appear opposed to considering because it would mean to you that what you believe isn't true.

I can truly say, I do understand how you read the Bible. But you cannot say the same of me. You do not understand that, as it's nothing you're allowing yourself to be exposed to.


Mine don't. Mine need to be based on knowledge and truth, and experience. They need to be informed by practice, and a wide range of as many perspectives as possible to prevent a myoptic, rigid and stifling perspective that leads to pride and self-righteous attitudes about me being right and everyone else being wrong. That leads to spiritual disease, where the Christian makes himself judge of all others.

I certainly find truth in scripture, but I also open my eyes to let light shine in upon it from many perspectives. You limit that exposure to what seem to amount to blinders on a horse, limiting what is allowed to be seen. I find that approach as a Christian, to be fear-based. "Don't listen to others, they could be the devil speaking!".


I believe you have a limited perspective on what the truth of scripture is. "Mistaken" is not a word I would use. Closed off from other perspectives is where I would say you are mistaken. I think it is in fact a mistake to reject knowledge that challenges your faith.

continued.....

If you wan to compare any other than Mormonism to Dispensationalism and their accuracy in the Scriptures, by all means go ahead. I will respond. As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is a further understanding of Scripture.

I do not see just the New Testament as a supernatural work from God, and one work from God. I see the both Old and New Testament as the One Complete written Word of God, supernaturally inspired by God. Therefore it all must and does fit together. Miraculous...but then that is the way it is when your dealing with God.

I don't read Paul without the benefit of the Gospels. Where do you get such an idea?

As I said, your knowledge does not comply with the Bible. Thus I reject your knowledge.

Your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith. I reject their claims they make concerning the Bible. Are they all knowing? Are they still learning? What is their motivation? Do they come to God believing He exists, and to the Bible as the Word of God? No, they don't. Thus they have nothing to offer.

As I said, you haven't produced any threat against Dispensationalism. You simply give your opinions about it. Whenever you want to get into the Scriptures and prove to me Dispensationalism is wrong, let me know.

Well, as I said, you see the Bible as a 'heap of writings'. Dispensationalists and Christians see it as the Word of God.

As I said, you don't understand the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God.

Yes, I know your beliefs are not based upon the Bible. But mine and Dispensatinalism are. That is the way it is with Christians. We believe the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour.

My perspective is limited to Scripture. Whenever you want to discuss it, let me know.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Continued...


And that is why you are hesitant to allow anything in from outside to challenge that. You have found use for it. I personally find it useless, and in the modern sense, even a potentially dangerous way of thinking about God and truth in the world. But I'm not in the same place in my faith you are at in yours right now.

Once upon a time, I too found it helpful. Back when I needed tightly defined boundaries in life where things were spelled out in black and white terms. While a nice snug size 5 shoe is good for a small foot, when the foot grows to size 9 or 10, insisting that once helpful shoe should still be worn because it showed it was true back then, leads to a deformed and crippled foot. Spiritual growth, demands better supportive clothing, so to speak. That's why I retired that earlier set of clothes. They no longer fit me well. A size 10 foot, is not an apostate size 5 foot. It's simply a larger foot.


I may need to do this in a different post as that might take a lot of explanation. Basically, a dispensation is a period of time that someone trying to create a "model" of God's activity in the world attempt to map out. These are superimposed upon scripture, like sumperiimposting Greek gods on the night stars to see constellations. They are ways to think about history, from a particular human perspective.

The covenant metaphor that the early Hebrews used was adopted from the early Hittite civilization where you have relationships between the surerain and the vassal kings. The Jews used this to talk about their relationship with God as their suzerain and them as servants to him. The NT authors took that metaphor and expanded upon it to talk about a new set of terms in our relationship with God, which they realized as truth from the teachings of Jesus. Jesus's perspectives on God, led them in their creativities to tie the two together, take that covenant theme and make it a new covenant.

I could probably stand to explain that better or more accurately, given time, but that's enough as a general gist of it. I don't believe they saw 7 periods of time that scripture "revealed" that they could try to predict the future with. In reality, that's like tea-leaf reading. You see your own mind using that as a device. It's the same with with these "dispensations" seen in the Bible. It's pattern recognition, like seeing "bible codes", numbers hidden in scripture with special esoteric meanings. It's basically all just "Bible magic".

I am not worried about any challenge to Dispensationalism. Show me the Scripture.

Covenan'ts are not metaphors.

A Dispensation is not something someone is trying to create.

Try again. Plus, what is the connection between a covenant and a dispensation. Try and use Scripture if you know any.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sooda]

If you wan to compare any other than Mormonism to Dispensationalism and their accuracy in the Scriptures, by all means go ahead. I will respond. As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is a further understanding of Scripture.

I do not see just the New Testament as a supernatural work from God, and one work from God. I see the both Old and New Testament as the One Complete written Word of God, supernaturally inspired by God. Therefore it all must and does fit together. Miraculous...but then that is the way it is when your dealing with God.

I don't read Paul without the benefit of the Gospels. Where do you get such an idea?

As I said, your knowledge does not comply with the Bible. Thus I reject your knowledge.

Your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith. I reject their claims they make concerning the Bible. Are they all knowing? Are they still learning? What is their motivation? Do they come to God believing He exists, and to the Bible as the Word of God? No, they don't. Thus they have nothing to offer.

As I said, you haven't produced any threat against Dispensationalism. You simply give your opinions about it. Whenever you want to get into the Scriptures and prove to me Dispensationalism is wrong, let me know.

Well, as I said, you see the Bible as a 'heap of writings'. Dispensationalists and Christians see it as the Word of God.

As I said, you don't understand the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God.

Yes, I know your beliefs are not based upon the Bible. But mine and Dispensatinalism are. That is the way it is with Christians. We believe the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour.

My perspective is limited to Scripture. Whenever you want to discuss it, let me know.

Good-Ole-Rebel

So is this accurate?

Progressive Dispensationalism is a recent refinement of the older Traditional (or Classic) Dispensationalism that arose in the 1980's and 90's. Though often misrepresented, Progressive Dispensationalism owns the following hallmarks, many of which are shared by Traditional Dispensationalists.

continued

https://www.theopedia.com/progressive-dispensationalism

 

[sooda]

If you wan to compare any other than Mormonism to Dispensationalism and their accuracy in the Scriptures, by all means go ahead. I will respond. As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is a further understanding of Scripture.

I do not see just the New Testament as a supernatural work from God, and one work from God. I see the both Old and New Testament as the One Complete written Word of God, supernaturally inspired by God. Therefore it all must and does fit together. Miraculous...but then that is the way it is when your dealing with God.

I don't read Paul without the benefit of the Gospels. Where do you get such an idea?

As I said, your knowledge does not comply with the Bible. Thus I reject your knowledge.

Your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith. I reject their claims they make concerning the Bible. Are they all knowing? Are they still learning? What is their motivation? Do they come to God believing He exists, and to the Bible as the Word of God? No, they don't. Thus they have nothing to offer.

As I said, you haven't produced any threat against Dispensationalism. You simply give your opinions about it. Whenever you want to get into the Scriptures and prove to me Dispensationalism is wrong, let me know.

Well, as I said, you see the Bible as a 'heap of writings'. Dispensationalists and Christians see it as the Word of God.

As I said, you don't understand the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God.

Yes, I know your beliefs are not based upon the Bible. But mine and Dispensatinalism are. That is the way it is with Christians. We believe the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour.

My perspective is limited to Scripture. Whenever you want to discuss it, let me know.

Good-Ole-Rebel

The best known intellectual centers of Dispensationalism include Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, and Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.

 

[sooda]

Whoever is alive --and saved-- will be caught up together with Him in the air. They won't go to heaven yet. They are caught up to greet Him in the air as He returns as they used to in --the ancient Israel-- go out to greet anyone returning from a long absence from home. Then they'll all come down to the earth together.And yes they will be transformed at that time. But I'm just saying I don't believe in two comings of Jesus. Just one return. The dead in Christ will rise first then everyone will be caught up to meet Him in the air. Then they return to earth.

Did you know that Hal Lindsey went to the Dallas Theological Seminary? Scofield and Dispensationalism.

 

[Windwalker]

As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is a further understanding of Scripture.

If it is a further understanding of scripture, then that means it is added to it. Without that "map", it doesn't state that on its own. It never says there are "dispensations" in the Bible. That's an overlay superimposed upon it that lets you see it. Sort of like a decoder ring lets you read the hidden codes on the pages of a text. This cannot be denied.

I do not see just the New Testament as a supernatural work from God, and one work from God. I see the both Old and New Testament as the One Complete written Word of God, supernaturally inspired by God. Therefore it all must and does fit together. Miraculous...but then that is the way it is when your dealing with God.

This too is an added idea to scripture. Nowhere does it state this explicitly in the Bible. You can quote verses which talk about the Word of God, but does that mean these modern doctrines of Biblical infallibility? No, it does not. Those are how you interpret those words, based upon this doctrinally tinted lenses you read it through.

Now, other Christians on the other hand, who do not see the Bible as flawless and without error, can still understand the Bible as the "Word of God", without that layer of supernaturalism superimposed upon it. The inspired Word, does not mean it must be therefore scientifically precise and accurate, as well as factual in all its ideas and view. A conveyor of spiritual truth, does not have to get an A+ in history or science in order to speak truth about God.

But to you, in your model of Biblical inerrancy, you cannot accept any errors at all. That leads to a fit of mental gymnastics and denialists in order to not look at the facts. And that to me, is a detriment to spiritual faith and growth. It is a category error. Let Spirit speak to spirit, and science speak to reason.

The Bible can easily be understood as the Word of God, without all this supernaturalism. It wouldn't matter one tick if Jesus thought the earth was flat. Why would that matter? Is spiritual truth dependent on scientific accuracy? That's nonsense.

I don't read Paul without the benefit of the Gospels. Where do you get such an idea?

I get that idea from the rules of basic research. It's fundamental to understanding historical texts. If a text was written before a later writing, then it needs to be read as is within that time period it was written, without later understandings tainting what you see on its pages. That's not what the current author would have necessarily been aware of, and it should not be assumed. To say, "Paul was aware of what John claims in his gospel", without any basis other than faith, is not valid scholarship. That would be theological in nature, not historical.

As I said, your knowledge does not comply with the Bible. Thus I reject your knowledge.

It does not agree with your understanding of scripture. Let's be clear about that. What I see in scripture, does not agree with what you see in scripture. Who gets to claim the other is wrong here? Why you? Because there is only one way to understand scripture, and you've been blessed enough to have happened to find it?

But what I really find interesting here is how twice now, you've used the word "comply". That's so, rigid a view in my mind. "Comply! Or Die!", it sounds like to me. But then, that might be how you see God, as an austerie, authortain figure ready to lob the heads off would be challengers to his specially selected orthodox warrior Christians. "Comply! On your knees, pagan scum!"

I don't see God like this, nor do I see scripture in this light. The God I see has Grace as the main ingredient to faith, not "compliance". Is Love dependent upon compliance with scripture to you? You believe if you get it wrong, God will damn you to hell?

Your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith. I reject their claims they make concerning the Bible.

Based upon what? "I just believe" is not good enough when you are trying to reconstruct history and get a better understanding of the scriptural materials being used. You have to look at the data and use your rational mind. It's not a matter of "faith" when it comes to actual scholarship. I'm not talking about faith in God. I'm talking about research.

Are they all knowing? Are they still learning? What is their motivation? Do they come to God believing He exists, and to the Bible as the Word of God? No, they don't. Thus they have nothing to offer.

What do you mean, "No, they don't"? Says who? You in your judgement of your fellow Christians? I offered that link where Crossan talked about his faith. Did you bother to listen to it? Or did you just choose to dismiss and condemn his faith because it disagrees with you?

This is a very, very poor example of your faith on display here. Shame on you. They know what they are talking about. You have no excuses for this rejection of their faith.

As I said, you haven't produced any threat against Dispensationalism. You simply give your opinions about it.

I have given my highly informed opinions about it. You have given your uninformed opinions. My opinions have a far greater weight to them that yours do in this context. And you deal with that by trying to say those like me can't possibly be right, because we all hate God or some such filth out or your mind. You speak lies. You know nothing of their faith, or mine. Shame on you again. (Romans 14. Have you read it?)

Whenever you want to get into the Scriptures and prove to me Dispensationalism is wrong, let me know.

I've already been talking about understanding it in scripture. But you're not dialoguing with me about that. You want it to be about quibbling over interpretations of scripture, to play in your little briar patch when you've learned all the answers to arguments, like a trained apologist. All of that is nonsense. My argument is that all of such superimposed doctrines are the same the sort of thing. Can you disprove that statement? Care to debate that?

Well, as I said, you see the Bible as a 'heap of writings'. Dispensationalists and Christians see it as the Word of God.

You see that "heap" as the Word of God, to be more accurate. Do you understand how the Bible was compiled? It began as a large collection of different texts, that priests decided in the editing room floor which to stitch together to fit an overall theme that they superimposed upon that heap. These are just realities. There is historical evidence that clearly shows this.

But you will deny that, because you think others who don't believe like you, are haters of God.

As I said, you don't understand the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God.

I understand the Bible. I have a degree in theology, as well as many years of personal research into it. I'm fairly confident your understanding of it does not begin to compare.

It's pretty obvious from this thread and the types of deflections you are using that that is the truth of it. You don't deal with the points raised, but instead resort to insults and offenses, and simply repeating back the same beliefs over and over, not comprehending what is being explained. That's not showing your knowledge of the Bible. It's showing your lack of knowledge. And you know this.

Yes, I know your beliefs are not based upon the Bible. But mine and Dispensatinalism are. That is the way it is with Christians. We believe the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour.

I can say I believe those things too, but you won't accept that because I don't think your theology is good. That's how this works with you. You are not a Christian in your eyes, if they don't believe as you do. Because, you've found the truth, and everyone else in wrong now. This is a sign of a tremendously weak faith. If you knew scripture, you'd know that is true (Romans 14 - read it)

My perspective is limited to Scripture. Whenever you want to discuss it, let me know.

Good-Ole-Rebel

No, your perspective is limited to your worldviews. What you see in scripture, is limited by that.

 

[sooda]

@Good-Ole-Rebel

The Dispensationalist didn't try to convert the pagan... They concentrated on converting Protestants.

Excerpt:

Besides the burgeoning new Reformational movements,1 there is also a real popularization of traditional Dispensational theology. Even in our Reformed circles this influence is being felt through the Back To The Bible Broadcast and its magazine Good News Broadcaster, Hal Lindsey's phenomenal bestsellers, The Late Great Planet Earth, and its sequel Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth. In these popular studies Lindsey presents a popularization of traditional Dispensational theology. Lindsey, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, now lives in fashionable Pacific Palisades, California and "has recently moved his office to the equally prestigious Century City district of Los Angeles,"2 as the result of the success of his books.

Scores of Bible institutes, especially in Canada, stress dispensational theology. The best known intellectual centers of dispensationalism include Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois and Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas. The latter seminary seeks to maintain high academic standards and a respectability through its scholarly journal Bibliotheca Sacra.

Snip

The commonly taught dividing points of the dispensations are the Fall, the flood, the call of Abraham, the giving of the Law at Sinai, the Cross, the rapture of the Church, and the return of Christ."3 Most dispensationalists hold to seven dispensations. Not all agree on the number of dispensations. Some have only four. Others have as many as eight, but most hold to seven.4

The watchword of the dispensationalists is Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. They consider themselves to be the only true champions of orthodoxy. Departure from dispensationalism will result in the loss of the evangelical faith.5

Why is this influence of dispensational theology so great? In view of the fact that we are living in dramatic, apocalyptic, pessimistic and uncertain times, dispensational theology becomes very attractive to those Christians who see no way out of a seemingly hopeless situation apart from God's direct intervention in history to take away (rapture) His true church out of this wicked and very perverse world.

Dispensationalism is a comparatively recent development. Its distinctive views cannot be understood unless we consider John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren.

John Nelson Darby (1800-1892)

John Nelson Darby was born in London, though he grew up and spent much of his life in Ireland. He was of a noble English family and was independently wealthy. His godfather was Admiral Lord Nelson. Darby first studied the classics and later switched to law and practiced for a short time in Ireland. After his conversion he felt led to go into the ministry. He gave up his law practice and was ordained in 1825.

Dispensationalism -- Darby and Scofield - Johan D.Tangelder

 

[Windwalker]

Why is this influence of dispensational theology so great? In view of the fact that we are living in dramatic, apocalyptic, pessimistic and uncertain times, dispensational theology becomes very attractive to those Christians who see no way out of a seemingly hopeless situation apart from God's direct intervention in history to take away (rapture) His true church out of this wicked and very perverse world.

I think this is a key point. It is indicative of those who have not realized the Presence of God in this world. God is always in the future. God is outside of themselves. The world is hopeless, translates into they feel helpless.

I think what it is, this Rapture Ready business, is a distraction from facing the condition of their lives. They are not happy people. They are unhappy people. Forget the smiles and handshakes and Christian cheer-leading for being on the winning team, to want to depart this world for the next shows a clear unhappiness with their lives in this lifetime. If nothing else, it certainly tells God you're ready to be done with the gift of this life he gave you. It's a type of passive suicide, where you don't want this life you have anymore, but don't want to directly end your own life yourself. So you just quit trying to find happiness in this life, and escape to a dream of life beyond this life where you might be happy.

My father said to me once when I was a kid, "If you can't find happiness in this life, you'll have to try to find it in the next." I've thought about that over the years, and it really does ring true. Everything we need to find happiness is already here. Everything is already here. God is here. And if we can't find it here, where it is fully accessible now, then what makes us think we can do any better in the next life? That just keeps imagining that it will just fix itself, or be fixed for you by God, without any participation of your own part.

That's the whole problem right there. That's what makes it escapism. It's escaping your participation in this liberation from your own unhappiness. Yes, it's God, but not without you availing yourself of that. I don't think these sorts of Christians understand this. And so these prophetic maps of dispensations, and plans, and all this future otherworldly stuff, all that is a distraction from facing their own despair, and letting it go. And finding God right here, on this earth, everywhere.

 

[sooda]

I think this is a key point. It is indicative of those who have not realized the Presence of God in this world. God is always in the future. God is outside of themselves. The world is hopeless, translates into they feel helpless.

I think what it is, this Rapture Ready business, is a distraction from facing the condition of their lives. They are not happy people. They are unhappy people. Forget the smiles and handshakes and Christian cheer-leading for being on the winning team, to want to depart this world for the next shows a clear unhappiness with their lives in this lifetime. If nothing else, it certainly tells God you're ready to be done with the gift of this life he gave you. It's a type of passive suicide, where you don't want this life you have anymore, but don't want to directly end your own life yourself. So you just quit trying to find happiness in this life, and escape to a dream of life beyond this life where you might be happy.

My father said to me once when I was a kid, "If you can't find happiness in this life, you'll have to try to find it in the next." I've thought about that over the years, and it really does ring true. Everything we need to find happiness is already here. Everything is already here. God is here. And if we can't find it here, where it is fully accessible now, then what makes us think we can do any better in the next life? That just keeps imagining that it will just fix itself, or be fixed for you by God, without any participation of your own part.

That's the whole problem right there. That's what makes it escapism. It's escaping your participation in this liberation from your own unhappiness. Yes, it's God, but not without you availing yourself of that. I don't think these sorts of Christians understand this. And so these prophetic maps of dispensations, and plans, and all this future otherworldly stuff, all that is a distraction from facing their own despair, and letting it go. And finding God right here, on this earth, everywhere.

I agree with you..

Darby made some six trips to the US because his work didn't impress the Europeans.. Reception was lukewarm.

In the US they were on fire for this screwy doctrine which Darby began to modify to justify Southern Slavery.

There is so much wrong with Dispensationalism.. It is false and dangerous.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

If it is a further understanding of scripture, then that means it is added to it. Without that "map", it doesn't state that on its own. It never says there are "dispensations" in the Bible. That's an overlay superimposed upon it that lets you see it. Sort of like a decoder ring lets you read the hidden codes on the pages of a text. This cannot be denied.


This too is an added idea to scripture. Nowhere does it state this explicitly in the Bible. You can quote verses which talk about the Word of God, but does that mean these modern doctrines of Biblical infallibility? No, it does not. Those are how you interpret those words, based upon this doctrinally tinted lenses you read it through.

Now, other Christians on the other hand, who do not see the Bible as flawless and without error, can still understand the Bible as the "Word of God", without that layer of supernaturalism superimposed upon it. The inspired Word, does not mean it must be therefore scientifically precise and accurate, as well as factual in all its ideas and view. A conveyor of spiritual truth, does not have to get an A+ in history or science in order to speak truth about God.

But to you, in your model of Biblical inerrancy, you cannot accept any errors at all. That leads to a fit of mental gymnastics and denialists in order to not look at the facts. And that to me, is a detriment to spiritual faith and growth. It is a category error. Let Spirit speak to spirit, and science speak to reason.

The Bible can easily be understood as the Word of God, without all this supernaturalism. It wouldn't matter one tick if Jesus thought the earth was flat. Why would that matter? Is spiritual truth dependent on scientific accuracy? That's nonsense.


I get that idea from the rules of basic research. It's fundamental to understanding historical texts. If a text was written before a later writing, then it needs to be read as is within that time period it was written, without later understandings tainting what you see on its pages. That's not what the current author would have necessarily been aware of, and it should not be assumed. To say, "Paul was aware of what John claims in his gospel", without any basis other than faith, is not valid scholarship. That would be theological in nature, not historical.


It does not agree with your understanding of scripture. Let's be clear about that. What I see in scripture, does not agree with what you see in scripture. Who gets to claim the other is wrong here? Why you? Because there is only one way to understand scripture, and you've been blessed enough to have happened to find it?

But what I really find interesting here is how twice now, you've used the word "comply". That's so, rigid a view in my mind. "Comply! Or Die!", it sounds like to me. But then, that might be how you see God, as an austerie, authortain figure ready to lob the heads off would be challengers to his specially selected orthodox warrior Christians. "Comply! On your knees, pagan scum!"

I don't see God like this, nor do I see scripture in this light. The God I see has Grace as the main ingredient to faith, not "compliance". Is Love dependent upon compliance with scripture to you? You believe if you get it wrong, God will damn you to hell?


Based upon what? "I just believe" is not good enough when you are trying to reconstruct history and get a better understanding of the scriptural materials being used. You have to look at the data and use your rational mind. It's not a matter of "faith" when it comes to actual scholarship. I'm not talking about faith in God. I'm talking about research.


What do you mean, "No, they don't"? Says who? You in your judgement of your fellow Christians? I offered that link where Crossan talked about his faith. Did you bother to listen to it? Or did you just choose to dismiss and condemn his faith because it disagrees with you?

This is a very, very poor example of your faith on display here. Shame on you. They know what they are talking about. You have no excuses for this rejection of their faith.


I have given my highly informed opinions about it. You have given your uninformed opinions. My opinions have a far greater weight to them that yours do in this context. And you deal with that by trying to say those like me can't possibly be right, because we all hate God or some such filth out or your mind. You speak lies. You know nothing of their faith, or mine. Shame on you again. (Romans 14. Have you read it?)


I've already been talking about understanding it in scripture. But you're not dialoguing with me about that. You want it to be about quibbling over interpretations of scripture, to play in your little briar patch when you've learned all the answers to arguments, like a trained apologist. All of that is nonsense. My argument is that all of such superimposed doctrines are the same the sort of thing. Can you disprove that statement? Care to debate that?


You see that "heap" as the Word of God, to be more accurate. Do you understand how the Bible was compiled? It began as a large collection of different texts, that priests decided in the editing room floor which to stitch together to fit an overall theme that they superimposed upon that heap. These are just realities. There is historical evidence that clearly shows this.

But you will deny that, because you think others who don't believe like you, are haters of God.


I understand the Bible. I have a degree in theology, as well as many years of personal research into it. I'm fairly confident your understanding of it does not begin to compare.

It's pretty obvious from this thread and the types of deflections you are using that that is the truth of it. You don't deal with the points raised, but instead resort to insults and offenses, and simply repeating back the same beliefs over and over, not comprehending what is being explained. That's not showing your knowledge of the Bible. It's showing your lack of knowledge. And you know this.


I can say I believe those things too, but you won't accept that because I don't think your theology is good. That's how this works with you. You are not a Christian in your eyes, if they don't believe as you do. Because, you've found the truth, and everyone else in wrong now. This is a sign of a tremendously weak faith. If you knew scripture, you'd know that is true (Romans 14 - read it)


No, your perspective is limited to your worldviews. What you see in scripture, is limited by that.

As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is further understanding of Scripture.

If the Bible is not 'supuernatural' how can it be the Word of God.

The Author of the Bible is God. So, He was quite aware what He had written in Paul's epistles and in the Gospels. As well as the Old Testament.

As I said, your knowledge does not comply with the Bible, thus I reject your knowledge. Would you like another word. Your knowledge is contrary to the Bible. Or how's this, your knowledge and the Bible are at odds.

As I said, your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith. I reject their knowledge as I do your when it runs contrary to the Bible. Yes, faith is all important. I believe.

As I said, they have nothing to offer. If they don't come to the Bible believing it is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour, they have nothing to offer.

Again you haven't produced any threat against Dispensationalism. You haven't disproved it in the Scriptures. You haven't even attempted to. When your ready, let me know.

See, again, the Bible is just a 'heap' to you. To me and Dispensationalist's it is the Word of God. As it claims to be.

You have a degree in Theology? What for? Was it a BS. degree.

You just told me the Bible was a heap when I told you it was the Word of God. Now you want to change your tune?

No, my perspective is limited to Scripture.

And, still waiting for you to explain what a dispensation is and how dispensations relate to covenants.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sooda]

As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is further understanding of Scripture.

If the Bible is not 'supuernatural' how can it be the Word of God.

The Author of the Bible is God. So, He was quite aware what He had written in Paul's epistles and in the Gospels. As well as the Old Testament.

As I said, your knowledge does not comply with the Bible, thus I reject your knowledge. Would you like another word. Your knowledge is contrary to the Bible. Or how's this, your knowledge and the Bible are at odds.

As I said, your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith. I reject their knowledge as I do your when it runs contrary to the Bible. Yes, faith is all important. I believe.

As I said, they have nothing to offer. If they don't come to the Bible believing it is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour, they have nothing to offer.

Again you haven't produced any threat against Dispensationalism. You haven't disproved it in the Scriptures. You haven't even attempted to. When your ready, let me know.

See, again, the Bible is just a 'heap' to you. To me and Dispensationalist's it is the Word of God. As it claims to be.

You have a degree in Theology? What for? Was it a BS. degree.

You just told me the Bible was a heap when I told you it was the Word of God. Now you want to change your tune?

No, my perspective is limited to Scripture.

And, still waiting for you to explain what a dispensation is and how dispensations relate to covenants.

Good-Ole-Rebel

How do you speak for God? The OT had some 40 different authors.

John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren . He is considered to be the father of modern Dispensationalism and Futurism.

 

[Windwalker]

As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is further understanding of Scripture.

Your repeating this as a mantra does not make it true. You have to explain in specifics why what I said isn't valid.

If the Bible is not 'supuernatural' how can it be the Word of God.

I do not believe anything spiritual is supernatural. It is part of this reality we live within.

What inspiration means to me, is when we tap into that spiritual nature of God's being, and that is expressed through us to the world. That's inspiration. And so when someone speaks that spirit, through their thoughts and actions, that is the truth of God. It's authentic and genuine, as opposed to ideas projected out of one's ego. It therefore speaks Truth to others, and those attuned to God, hear it. Those who aren't, don't.

Simply calling something inspired, because you want to understand that as "authoritative", misses the point. They are projecting their own egos and wanted to be affirmed by some absolute authority. Such things are nonsense to God. Truth is Truth. It doesn't need little biblical apologists arguing for God. They get in the way.

The Author of the Bible is God.

That's not true. We have the names of those who wrote it. If you want to say God inspired the actual authors, then sure. I don't have a problem with that language, based on what I said above about inspiration.

So, He was quite aware what He had written in Paul's epistles and in the Gospels. As well as the Old Testament.

This is all terribly naive. How many years have you been a Christian?

As I said, your knowledge does not comply with the Bible, thus I reject your knowledge.

This is purely bogus excuse for your lack of interest in knowing anything others think besides yourself. You know that.

Would you like another word. Your knowledge is contrary to the Bible. Or how's this, your knowledge and the Bible are at odds.

No they are not contrary, or at odds with what the Bible says. I see everything within scripture fitting within the framework I use to view it with. It's the same thing you do, only a larger framework than the one you currently use.

As I said, your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith. I reject their knowledge as I do your when it runs contrary to the Bible. Yes, faith is all important. I believe.

Do you understand what faith means? I somewhat doubt this based on the way you speak of it. I think you mean to say your beliefs, which you keep tightly under lock and key and impervious to challenge. That must be rather strenuous for you. I don't have that strain any more. No need to. That's what faith does. It allows your beliefs to be improved upon, rather than stuck into a box.

As I said, they have nothing to offer. If they don't come to the Bible believing it is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour, they have nothing to offer.

You're just repeating this trying to make it true. But it wont. You haven't looked. You aren't interested in extending any grace or generousity. You simply want them to be wrong, not for any real reason other than your insisteing you know what the Bible means, and anyone who says differently is wrong.

You realize how terrible weak this appears?

You have a degree in Theology? What for? Was it a BS. degree.

No, it's was a Bachelors of Theology, as I said. Not a Bachelors of Science. What for was I was planning to go into the ministry. I changed my mind about that after graduation, realizing how flawed fundamentalist thinking was. So, yes, I know what your beliefs are. You cannot say I don't know the Bible, or that I don't know what you think it says. I know it too well.

You just told me the Bible was a heap when I told you it was the Word of God. Now you want to change your
tune?

I'm not changing my tune. You are mishearing words. I never suggest "heap" means a worthless pile of garbage, which you seem to think. The multitude of times I used that term, I qualified it as "raw material". That's what a heap is. It's not yet formed and shaped into theological perspectives. Those come later, from the raw material.

Understand now?

No, my perspective is limited to Scripture.

I haven't used this image in many years, but I think this is what you mean for us to understand is something akin to this:

And, still waiting for you to explain what a dispensation is and how dispensations relate to covenants.

Covenants are mentioned in the Bible. Dispensations are not. In other words, covenants are biblical.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Your repeating this as a mantra does not make it true. You have to explain in specifics why what I said isn't valid.


I do not believe anything spiritual is supernatural. It is part of this reality we live within.

What inspiration means to me, is when we tap into that spiritual nature of God's being, and that is expressed through us to the world. That's inspiration. And so when someone speaks that spirit, through their thoughts and actions, that is the truth of God. It's authentic and genuine, as opposed to ideas projected out of one's ego. It therefore speaks Truth to others, and those attuned to God, hear it. Those who aren't, don't.

Simply calling something inspired, because you want to understand that as "authoritative", misses the point. They are projecting their own egos and wanted to be affirmed by some absolute authority. Such things are nonsense to God. Truth is Truth. It doesn't need little biblical apologists arguing for God. They get in the way.


That's not true. We have the names of those who wrote it. If you want to say God inspired the actual authors, then sure. I don't have a problem with that language, based on what I said above about inspiration.


This is all terribly naive. How many years have you been a Christian?


This is purely bogus excuse for your lack of interest in knowing anything others think besides yourself. You know that.


No they are not contrary, or at odds with what the Bible says. I see everything within scripture fitting within the framework I use to view it with. It's the same thing you do, only a larger framework than the one you currently use.


Do you understand what faith means? I somewhat doubt this based on the way you speak of it. I think you mean to say your beliefs, which you keep tightly under lock and key and impervious to challenge. That must be rather strenuous for you. I don't have that strain any more. No need to. That's what faith does. It allows your beliefs to be improved upon, rather than stuck into a box.


You're just repeating this trying to make it true. But it wont. You haven't looked. You aren't interested in extending any grace or generousity. You simply want them to be wrong, not for any real reason other than your insisteing you know what the Bible means, and anyone who says differently is wrong.

You realize how terrible weak this appears?


No, it's was a Bachelors of Theology, as I said. Not a Bachelors of Science. What for was I was planning to go into the ministry. I changed my mind about that after graduation, realizing how flawed fundamentalist thinking was. So, yes, I know what your beliefs are. You cannot say I don't know the Bible, or that I don't know what you think it says. I know it too well.


I'm not changing my tune. You are mishearing words. I never suggest "heap" means a worthless pile of garbage, which you seem to think. The multitude of times I used that term, I qualified it as "raw material". That's what a heap is. It's not yet formed and shaped into theological perspectives. Those come later, from the raw material.

Understand now?


I haven't used this image in many years, but I think this is what you mean for us to understand is something akin to this:

View attachment 36838


Covenants are mentioned in the Bible. Dispensations are not. In other words, covenants are biblical.

As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is a further understanding of Scripture. You're not addressing what I have said. You haven't showed anywhere where Dispensationalism adds to Scripture.

God is supernatural. The Bible as the Word of God is supernatural. Your definition of inspiration is not the Bible's. Scripture is 'God breathed'. Inspired by God. Not man. It is the very Word of God. (2 Tim. 3:16)

The Author of the Bible is God. (2 Tim. 3:16) (2 Peter 1:21) "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Not naive. Believing.

As I said, your knowledge doesn't comply with the Bible, so I reject your knowledge.

Yes, your knowledge of the Bible is contrary to the Bible. Thus I reject it. The framework you use is not the Bible as the Word of God. The framework I use is the Bible as the Word of God.

As I said, your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith. Yes, I understand what my faith is. It is not strenuous at all. Why would it be? If your faith was a strain to you, you never had it. You were just a pretender. Your lack of stress now is due to your quit trying to pretend. Which is fine, you are welcome to your faith or lack thereof.

As I said, if your scholarship and science doesn't come recognizing the Bible as the Word of God and Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Saviour, they have nothing to offer. Grace doesn't allow for the rejection of Christ and the Bible.

Oh. Well, I can't tell you how lucky so many are that you decided to not go into the ministry. Why should you go. You don't have faith and don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and and only Saviour? As to your knowing the Bible because you have a degree, sorry. I'm not impressed. Degrees quit impressing me long ago. You have showed in our brief discussion that you don't believe the Bible.

The Bible is the Word of God. Not a 'heap'. Again, you reveal your attitude of unbelief toward the Bible, and God Who wrote it. But, keep that degree handy. Perhaps others will be impressed.

(Eph. 3:2) "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:" So, again, how do covenants and dispensations relate?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Windwalker]

As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is a further understanding of Scripture.

It is an interpretation of scripture. Some dispensationalists interpret 5 dispensations, some 6, some 7, etc. In other words it's not what scripture teaches, it's what people interpret in different ways when reading the Bible. I interpret that all of that is artificially superimposed upon scripture.

Now, lest you merely repeat yourself again, can you prove what I said above just now is wrong? How do you explain all the different interpretations? Which one is what the bible really teaches? The one you happen to believe in?

You're not addressing what I have said. You haven't showed anywhere where Dispensationalism adds to Scripture.

I have multiple times. You just seem to ignore it and simply repeat yourself. One more time: It adds a filter through which you interpret scripture to see what others tell you to see. Maybe the problem is you don't understand how these filters work? If you don't understand this, then ask.

God is supernatural.

According to.....?

The Bible as the Word of God is supernatural.

According to....?

Your definition of inspiration is not the Bible's. Scripture is 'God breathed'. Inspired by God. Not man. It is the very Word of God. (2 Tim. 3:16)

I never said inspiration was not from God. In fact, I explicitly contrasted it with the projection of the human ego. Cleary, if you read what I wrote, I never said the inspiration came from man. Why are you misrepresenting my words?

What I said is how I understand inspiration from what the Bible teaches. Men were "moved", says the scripture. I agree with that. So are any who are moved and create wonderful, inspiring works of art, poetry, scripture, and song. I think you mistake inspiration, with supernatural magic.

The Author of the Bible is God. (2 Tim. 3:16) (2 Peter 1:21) "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

No, the men wrote it. They were "moved", as I said. Inspiration is different from dictation, which is what you want us to believe. I reject that belief.

Not naive. Believing.

Believing in a naive way.

As I said, your knowledge doesn't comply with the Bible, so I reject your knowledge.

Yes it does. You lie. My knowledge does not comply with your thinking. That is truth.

Yes, your knowledge of the Bible is contrary to the Bible. Thus I reject it. The framework you use is not the Bible as the Word of God. The framework I use is the Bible as the Word of God.

It's clear to me you do not understand much, in any of what I am saying. The style in which you repeat back the words I use, shows you have no grasp of the concepts. This is now just an exercise in you just repeating yourself without serious consideration on your part.

As I said, your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith.

Clearly it is. Why all the anti-intellectual denialism, if it wasn't? Your not dealing with any of the substance here as you summarily dismiss with the wave of your hand what others in the Christian world see regarding faith. You really should read Romans 14. Have you done that yet since I mentioned it going on 25 different times in this thread so far?

Yes, I understand what my faith is. It is not strenuous at all. Why would it be? If your faith was a strain to you, you never had it. You were just a pretender. Your lack of stress now is due to your quit trying to pretend. Which is fine, you are welcome to your faith or lack thereof.

You claim I have a lack of faith in God? Do you reject my faith in God? Why? On what basis have you made yourself the judge of another man's servant? Read Romans 14.

As I said, if your scholarship and science doesn't come recognizing the Bible as the Word of God and Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Saviour, they have nothing to offer. Grace doesn't allow for the rejection of Christ and the Bible.

Grace allows for disagreements amongst Christians. Romans 14.

I'm done at this point unless you can show some basic understandings of anything being said to you. And your rejection of other Christians views is appalling. It's sinful, and it betrays a lack of Grace in your faith. Romans 14

 

[sooda]

As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is further understanding of Scripture.

If the Bible is not 'supuernatural' how can it be the Word of God.

The Author of the Bible is God. So, He was quite aware what He had written in Paul's epistles and in the Gospels. As well as the Old Testament.

As I said, your knowledge does not comply with the Bible, thus I reject your knowledge. Would you like another word. Your knowledge is contrary to the Bible. Or how's this, your knowledge and the Bible are at odds.

As I said, your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith. I reject their knowledge as I do your when it runs contrary to the Bible. Yes, faith is all important. I believe.

As I said, they have nothing to offer. If they don't come to the Bible believing it is the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour, they have nothing to offer.

Again you haven't produced any threat against Dispensationalism. You haven't disproved it in the Scriptures. You haven't even attempted to. When your ready, let me know.

See, again, the Bible is just a 'heap' to you. To me and Dispensationalist's it is the Word of God. As it claims to be.

You have a degree in Theology? What for? Was it a BS. degree.

You just told me the Bible was a heap when I told you it was the Word of God. Now you want to change your tune?

No, my perspective is limited to Scripture.

And, still waiting for you to explain what a dispensation is and how dispensations relate to covenants.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Scofield and Dispensationalism took off during the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression...It was preached and promoted in the tent revivals across America in a very dark time.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

It is an interpretation of scripture. Some dispensationalists interpret 5 dispensations, some 6, some 7, etc. In other words it's not what scripture teaches, it's what people interpret in different ways when reading the Bible. I interpret that all of that is artificially superimposed upon scripture.

Now, lest you merely repeat yourself again, can you prove what I said above just now is wrong? How do you explain all the different interpretations? Which one is what the bible really teaches? The one you happen to believe in?


I have multiple times. You just seem to ignore it and simply repeat yourself. One more time: It adds a filter through which you interpret scripture to see what others tell you to see. Maybe the problem is you don't understand how these filters work? If you don't understand this, then ask.


According to.....?


According to....?


I never said inspiration was not from God. In fact, I explicitly contrasted it with the projection of the human ego. Cleary, if you read what I wrote, I never said the inspiration came from man. Why are you misrepresenting my words?

What I said is how I understand inspiration from what the Bible teaches. Men were "moved", says the scripture. I agree with that. So are any who are moved and create wonderful, inspiring works of art, poetry, scripture, and song. I think you mistake inspiration, with supernatural magic.


No, the men wrote it. They were "moved", as I said. Inspiration is different from dictation, which is what you want us to believe. I reject that belief.


Believing in a naive way.


Yes it does. You lie. My knowledge does not comply with your thinking. That is truth.


It's clear to me you do not understand much, in any of what I am saying. The style in which you repeat back the words I use, shows you have no grasp of the concepts. This is now just an exercise in you just repeating yourself without serious consideration on your part.


Clearly it is. Why all the anti-intellectual denialism, if it wasn't? Your not dealing with any of the substance here as you summarily dismiss with the wave of your hand what others in the Christian world see regarding faith. You really should read Romans 14. Have you done that yet since I mentioned it going on 25 different times in this thread so far?


You claim I have a lack of faith in God? Do you reject my faith in God? Why? On what basis have you made yourself the judge of another man's servant? Read Romans 14.


Grace allows for disagreements amongst Christians. Romans 14.

I'm done at this point unless you can show some basic understandings of anything being said to you. And your rejection of other Christians views is appalling. It's sinful, and it betrays a lack of Grace in your faith. Romans 14

Whether one differs on the amount of dispensations doesn't change the fact that Dispensationalsim is a further understanding of Scripture.

Your ignoring what I said. Dispensationalism is an understanding of Scripture. You have showed nothing in Scripture to disprove it. You haven't even showed you know what a dispensation is and how they relate to covenants. All you give is an opinion.

According to the Bible.

No, your definition of inspiration is not the Bible's definition. The Bibles definition makes God the Author of the Bible. Men were moved by God to write what God wanted them to write. Thus the Bible is the Word of God with God as the Author.

Believing or faith is not naive. It is just faith. Just because you don't, or can't, believe doesn't make it naive.

As I said, your knowledge doesn't comply with the Bible, so I reject your knowledge. What little you have displayed.

I understand exactly what your are saying which is why I have to repeat myself. You offer nothing for me to add to.

I am not against intellect. I am against intellect that is against the Bible and God. Your modern scholars and science is no threat to my faith. Yes, (Romans 14)....so?

Grace does not allow for rejection of the Bible as the Word of God or denial as to Who Jesus Christ is, the Son of God and only Saviour. Sorry.

Oh, your done now? Probably best. I see you ignored (Eph. 3:2) that showed you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the Bible and dispensations.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sooda]

Whether one differs on the amount of dispensations doesn't change the fact that Dispensationalsim is a further understanding of Scripture.

Your ignoring what I said. Dispensationalism is an understanding of Scripture. You have showed nothing in Scripture to disprove it. You haven't even showed you know what a dispensation is and how they relate to covenants. All you give is an opinion.

According to the Bible.

No, your definition of inspiration is not the Bible's definition. The Bibles definition makes God the Author of the Bible. Men were moved by God to write what God wanted them to write. Thus the Bible is the Word of God with God as the Author.

Believing or faith is not naive. It is just faith. Just because you don't, or can't, believe doesn't make it naive.

As I said, your knowledge doesn't comply with the Bible, so I reject your knowledge. What little you have displayed.

I understand exactly what your are saying which is why I have to repeat myself. You offer nothing for me to add to.

I am not against intellect. I am against intellect that is against the Bible and God. Your modern scholars and science is no threat to my faith. Yes, (Romans 14)....so?

Grace does not allow for rejection of the Bible as the Word of God or denial as to Who Jesus Christ is, the Son of God and only Saviour. Sorry.

Oh, your done now? Probably best. I see you ignored (Eph. 3:2) that showed you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the Bible and dispensations.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Darby and Scofield really had nothing to do with God.

 

[sooda]

As I said, Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is a further understanding of Scripture. You're not addressing what I have said. You haven't showed anywhere where Dispensationalism adds to Scripture.

God is supernatural. The Bible as the Word of God is supernatural. Your definition of inspiration is not the Bible's. Scripture is 'God breathed'. Inspired by God. Not man. It is the very Word of God. (2 Tim. 3:16)

The Author of the Bible is God. (2 Tim. 3:16) (2 Peter 1:21) "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Not naive. Believing.

As I said, your knowledge doesn't comply with the Bible, so I reject your knowledge.

Yes, your knowledge of the Bible is contrary to the Bible. Thus I reject it. The framework you use is not the Bible as the Word of God. The framework I use is the Bible as the Word of God.

As I said, your modern scholarship and science is no threat to my faith. Yes, I understand what my faith is. It is not strenuous at all. Why would it be? If your faith was a strain to you, you never had it. You were just a pretender. Your lack of stress now is due to your quit trying to pretend. Which is fine, you are welcome to your faith or lack thereof.

As I said, if your scholarship and science doesn't come recognizing the Bible as the Word of God and Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Saviour, they have nothing to offer. Grace doesn't allow for the rejection of Christ and the Bible.

Oh. Well, I can't tell you how lucky so many are that you decided to not go into the ministry. Why should you go. You don't have faith and don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and and only Saviour? As to your knowing the Bible because you have a degree, sorry. I'm not impressed. Degrees quit impressing me long ago. You have showed in our brief discussion that you don't believe the Bible.

The Bible is the Word of God. Not a 'heap'. Again, you reveal your attitude of unbelief toward the Bible, and God Who wrote it. But, keep that degree handy. Perhaps others will be impressed.

(Eph. 3:2) "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:" So, again, how do covenants and dispensations relate?

Good-Ole-Rebel

I don't know, rebel... Continuous revelation allows a wide birth for charlatans.