 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Revelation: Poetic or Prophetic? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/1/2004 7:45 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Scott - God said that this "dispensation" was hid in Him not otherwise revealed exceptin through Paul, you act like that is not really true, so what can I say. I believe that some NT ethics that you probably take for granted are universal, are not universal but have specific applications to specific dispensational considerations. So I guess I should presume that you still do not have direct answers to my counterpoints, I honestly cared to understand your response to them, so I'm sorry to see you remain unresponsive. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/2/2004 12:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
Scott - God said that this "dispensation" was hid in Him not otherwise revealed exceptin through Paul, you act like that is not really true, so what can I say. I believe that some NT ethics that you probably take for granted are universal, are not universal but have specific applications to specific dispensational considerations. So I guess I should presume that you still do not have direct answers to my counterpoints, I honestly cared to understand your response to them, so I'm sorry to see you remain unresponsive.
Dispensation/Government/Administration...
1Way, you should post here THE verse from which you (and all "Acts-Niners") have proof-texted this. Can you post it here.
Problem for communication is that that word can and is read perfectly fine by the rest of us, without such dramatic results.
Can you post that verse here, 1Way? | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/2/2004 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | POW - Again, I am sorry for making the typo with your handle, I just caught another occurrence in this thread, but I never got any response from you so please except my apology, I meant no offense.
This issue of dispensations is not just a word or a simple doctrine because of what the concept means. It means how God rules over His household. In other words, if you are part of God's household of faith, you are a saved believer, you are obgligated to obey the specific set of rules and teachings that are designed wisely for you by God. So this is comprehensive in terms of application and implications to our system of belief. You can start out by reading and trusting God's word wherever He specifically uses the concept, although, and this is somewhat important, God need not specifically call upon that concept in order to evoke the same authority. Just as anyone can repent and trust in God, without ever using the specific word repent. So, in the truest sense, dispensationalism is the same as saying that God is the ultimate authority, we had better rightly understand His teachings that are specifically given to us for obedience and faith. What He says is the final authority, so dispensationalism is at it's heart, a humble desire to obey God's expressed will for our lives.
Secondly, this is not about a passage that all Acts 9ers use. All bible believing Christians should accept God's house rules. Also, although it is true that most dispensationalists point to these passages that I am about to reference, they are certainly not all Acts 9 either. I am not presenting a manmade theological system, I am exposing to you God's word, and I stand on that authority and will not be persuaded by anything less than scripture. So please stop interjecting a human devised focus especially as it pertains to what I am saying because that is the last thing I am usually saying and I find it fully repugnant to try to be engaging in life giving discussions about God, only to hear folks constantly refer to manmade traditions and ideas. Occasionally is fine, and sometimes it's perfectly fine to dwell on such matters, but that should NEVER be our consistent focus, especially in terms of our faith in God. God, and conformity to His word, should be our focus for our faith.
I reference my first post in this thread. I am not familiar with how this forum operates in terms of the best ways to reference a post, there are various ways in various forums and this forum is relatively vague or difficult for me to understand in that regard. On my browser, which may or may not be different due to your forum and browser settings, my post in on page one about half way down, dated 05/27. But, due to the response I've been getting, it was an inadequate presentation, so I would be happy to elaborate on whatever struggles people are having in understanding what I am trying to say. I am basically trusting God and doing little more than reading God's word and (presumably righteously) accepting it.
The first three references are crucial but I'd say that Eph 3 is the sort of haulmark passage. The next three show the relevance and implications involved with these teachings, and 7, 8 just briefly cover two of the three main teachings for the rapture, which is a secondary, not primary issue compared to new unique revelation, and 9 and 10 help to show what the tribulation is all about in terms of national or religious identity.
I hope this helps, but I also wish to respect the focus on this thread and ask you to join me over in my Pretrib Rapture and Mystery thread, because this is exactly what I am dealing with over there. So, I didn't mean to hide from the debate, just shifted it over there. Thanks for the follow up interest. I'll post this over there too and wait for your response over there, if you will.
Thanks. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/2/2004 6:40 AM (GMT -6) | | POW - Here is a quote from my post to you.
POW (Ugh, sorry for the previous typo of your handle) - It's been about 2.5 years or so, nice to see you again. Do you remember? | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/2/2004 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Hi Scott,
As far as I know, every one of the positions on the millenium and on the timing of the rapture posit a time of trouble (tribulation) immediately preceding Christ's return, and that at His return the scenario depicted in 1 Thess. 4:16-18 and 1 Cor. 15:51-54 will indeed occur.
That's right, I agree. All futurist scenarios - pre-, post-, and a-millenial (well amillenialism isn't futurist, strictly speaking) - end with Christ appearing and finally vanquishing evil at the climax of a time of great trouble, followed by the eschaton (gathering of all, judgement, and the end). But my point was that most rapture views - pre-, mid-, and some post-tribulational - generally posit millenialism, and so they specifically posit a prefatory return of Christ to gather just those who are saved-at-that-time while leaving behind everyone else to face the remainder of history which isn't over until Christ's later, second return and final victory. Paul's view in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 militates against any such "two returns of Christ", ie rapture, models, because he presents the (single) parousia after the tribulation (thus post-trib) and at the time of the end (thus amillenial). I brought this up to you simply because you'd written that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 was loose enough to allow pre- and mid-trib views, and would fit any eschatological theory (including ones injecting a millenium in there somewhere), and I think the above probably shows that not to be the case.
(In point of fact, I don't believe there is any one eschatological theory that exactly and naturally harmonizes all the scriptural texts. This is one reason I am not a literalist or inerrantist, but that's another topic.)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/2/2004 12:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
I brought this up to you simply because you'd written that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 was loose enough to allow pre- and mid-trib views, and would fit any eschatological theory (including ones injecting a millenium in there somewhere), and I think the above probably shows that not to be the case.
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your post. I'm sorry if you got the impression that I believed 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 was loose enough to allow pre- and mid-trib views, and would fit any eschatological theory. Actually, I don't believe I ever said that, but I don't really have time right now to look back over this thread to see if I did. If I did say that, I was mistaken and did not mean to refer to 2 Thess. 2:1-8.
What I think I said was that 1 Thess. 4 can fit with any eschatological theory. It simply details the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead in Christ to be with Christ forever, and the catching away of the living saints to meet them in the air. This, to my understanding, can fit with any eschatological view.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/3/2004 12:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Dispensation/Government/Administration...
1Way, you should post here THE verse from which you (and all "Acts-Niners") have proof-texted this. Can you post it here.
. . .
Can you post that verse here, 1Way?
1Way? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/3/2004 12:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
POW - Here is a quote from my post to you.
POW (Ugh, sorry for the previous typo of your handle) - It's been about 2.5 years or so, nice to see you again. Do you remember?
I remember you.
BTW, don't worry about my handle.
I've noticed, though, 1Way, that you like to criticise other people if they do something other than quote scripture. But you don't do a lot of scripture quoting yourself. I think you need to be fair. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/3/2004 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | POW - I (thought I) answered you about the dispensation bit, about two posts ago, the long one. I'm still waiting for your response to that post. I don't get your emphasis on the "one verse" bit. Maybe you should explain the particular angle you have in mind, I am not God and so my in-sight can only go so far.  BTW, this "may" well be an eye opener  into the narrowness (or inaccuracy) of your understanding since it does not fit the truth in reality, the way I see it so far. It is possible.
As to quoting scripture, you misunderstand. It's not about "quoting" scripture, the devil could probably do that better than John MacArther or myself , I say to honor it higher than man's thinking. You can "paraphrase" a scripture teaching, you can "reference" a scripture teaching, you can "reference bible doctrine", you can draw "inference" or "implication" or "application" or "interpretation" etc. etc. etc., from a bible teaching, all without quoting scripture, and yet you are fundamentally dealing with scripture.
I realize that other men do that too, and you can quote or reference or paraphrase them too. But, there is a difference between a bible concept or teaching, and a manmade one. That is my contrast that I draw. I am fair, you seem to have an apparently insatiable appetite for man, and I for God, and that troubles me for your sake. Consider the bible, and all the spiritual food you could be feasting on, yet almost without exception, that is the last thing you concern yourself with as you discuss and express your spiritual beliefs. But, that is based only upon my recollection of you from years ago, which was relatively moderate exposure, and in these present days, which has been very slight contact, so I sincerely hope I am wrong about your habit of honoring what seems right in man's eyes instead of God's eyes, and I apologize if I have misjudged you.
Again, please join me over in the mystery thread, the pretrib stuff may not even get to happen since "the mystery revelation that was kept hidden in God" is the foundational point of contention so far, and folks are not being well receptive so far. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/3/2004 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Thanks for your post. I'm sorry if you got the impression that I believed 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 was loose enough to allow pre- and mid-trib views, and would fit any eschatological theory. Actually, I don't believe I ever said that, but I don't really have time right now to look back over this thread to see if I did. If I did say that, I was mistaken and did not mean to refer to 2 Thess. 2:1-8.
What I think I said was that 1 Thess. 4 can fit with any eschatological theory. It simply details the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead in Christ to be with Christ forever, and the catching away of the living saints to meet them in the air. This, to my understanding, can fit with any eschatological view.
I agree: 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 can fit with just about any eschatological theory, but 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 does not and thus, overall, narrows the theories that accord with Paul's view. FYI, you must have mis-spoken earlier then when you wrote in part (see your posting above dated "06/01/2004 : 7:00:13 PM"):
quote:
In none of the passages where Paul refers to "the mystery" does he refer to what is known of as "the rapture." The only passage that even comes close to depicting a mysterious end-times scenario is:
2 Thess. 2:6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.
No time-frame with regard to the pre-, post-, mid, or ANY theory of the precise timing of the catching away of the saints (which all truly orthodox Christians believe will happen, whatever their eschatology) is referred to in the 2 Thess. passage above. Just like 1 Thess. 4, this passage fits ANY eschatological theory.
No matter, though, and thanks for the clarification. I certainly don't bring this up to "set you straight", John, or "make you eat your words" or whatever - hope you understand :-). Rather I just wanted you and everyone to know that I indeed have been closely reading and comprehending everything said here. I am sensitive to this, since some (1way) have at times seemed to feel I was not reading, or was mis-reading or mis-representing, some things.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/4/2004 9:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Hi Scott,
I see that I must have been too sleepy last night when I posted that. I retract it. On further reflection, it does seem to me that the 2 Thess. passage can in fact fit with any eschatological theory. I am unclear as to why you think it cannot.
Because 1 Thessalonians 4 places the gathering of the saved at the time of Christ's return, and 2 Thessalonians 2 places that event (Christ's return) after the time of tribulation, and 1 Corinthians 15 places that same event (Christ's return) at the eschaton. Since these 3 letters were all authored by the same person, Paul (at least in the traditional view - many modern scholars think 2 Thessalonians was probably written by a Pauline disciple) - and since these 3 passages in particular all revolve around the singular subject of the parousia, it therefore is reasonable to connect the 3 passages to one another and conclude that Paul's view is that there will come a time of tribulation, followed by Christ's return and the gathering of the saved, followed by The End.
This view of Paul, then, cannot be well-harmonized with any theory of pre-trib or mid-trib rapture - unless we make creative assumptions, such as 2 strikingly-similar returns of Christ (so that it can be argued that Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 and 1 Corinthians 15 speaks only of the second and final return, while in 1 Thessalonians 4 he speaks of the first).
It also is tricky to harmonize Paul with John's literal millenium, especially the pre-millenial view, since in Paul's view the parousia seems to be followed immediately by the defeat of evil and death, with that being followed by God "all in all" - The End. While 1 Corinthians 15:25 might hint at an intervening period of millenial rule, it is equally true that 1 Corinthians 15:54 says that death will be defeated at the time of resurrection (which happens at the return of Christ in Paul's view, remember); and 1 Corinthians 15:26,28 say that when death (the "last enemy") is defeated, its Game Over - God "all in all". Ie, The End happens at or shortly after the return of Christ, with there being no time for a literal millenium in between.
That is why it seems to me that Paul's view, reflected in these 3 passages, does not fit with just any old eschatological theory.
Hope this helps,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2004 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
POW - I (thought I) answered you about the dispensation bit, about two posts ago, the long one. I'm still waiting for your response to that post. I don't get your emphasis on the "one verse" bit.
I can't say whether you are refering to something on this thread, or the "other."
If you mean my posting a single verse and then commenting on it, then I can only say that doing so is alright by me.
quote:
Originally posted by 1way
...I sincerely hope I am wrong about your habit of honoring what seems right in man's eyes instead of God's eyes, and I apologize if I have misjudged you.
Yes. You had better not quickly judge people. And for me, let me repeat. Do'nt do that.
quote:
Originally posted by 1way
Again, please join me over in the mystery thread, the pretrib stuff may not even get to happen since "the mystery revelation that was kept hidden in God" is the foundational point of contention so far, and folks are not being well receptive so far.
'll post over there. I think I did, before flying to Seatle. The hotel only gives short internet time. So I'll jump on over there right away.
Poof!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/6/2004 8:40 PM (GMT -6) | | POW - I posted three posts dated 6-2, two of which were to you, one of which was two posts ago from when I said for you to examine my post to you which was two posts ago. To which you said, your not sure which thread to find it.
Answer -- This thread!
If you would have simply read it, you should have known. I was speaking about your question on dispensationalism. Here is the discussion you seem to have forgotten about. You posted this. quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Dispensation/Government/Administration...
1Way, you should post here THE verse from which you (and all "Acts-Niners") have proof-texted this. Can you post it here.
. . .
Can you post that verse here, 1Way?
1Way?
To which I posted four hours later quote:
POW - I (thought I) answered you about the dispensation bit, about two posts ago, the long one. I'm still waiting for your response to that post. I don't get your emphasis on the "one verse" bit. Maybe you should explain the particular angle you have in mind, I am not God and so my in-sight can only go so far. BTW, this "may" well be an eye opener into the narrowness (or inaccuracy) of your understanding since it does not fit the truth in reality, the way I see it so far. It is possible.
As to quoting scripture, you misunderstand. It's not about "quoting" scripture, the devil could probably do that better than John MacArther or myself, I say to honor it higher than man's thinking. You can "paraphrase" a scripture teaching, you can "reference" a scripture teaching, you can "reference bible doctrine", you can draw "inference" or "implication" or "application" or "interpretation" etc. etc. etc., from a bible teaching, all without quoting scripture, and yet you are fundamentally dealing with scripture.
I realize that other men do that too, and you can quote or reference or paraphrase them too. But, there is a difference between a bible concept or teaching, and a manmade one. That is my contrast that I draw. I am fair, you seem to have an apparently insatiable appetite for man, and I for God, and that troubles me for your sake. Consider the bible, and all the spiritual food you could be feasting on, yet almost without exception, that is the last thing you concern yourself with as you discuss and express your spiritual beliefs. But, that is based only upon my recollection of you from years ago, which was relatively moderate exposure, and in these present days, which has been very slight contact, so I sincerely hope I am wrong about your habit of honoring what seems right in man's eyes instead of God's eyes, and I apologize if I have misjudged you.
Again, please join me over in the mystery thread, the pretrib stuff may not even get to happen since "the mystery revelation that was kept hidden in God" is the foundational point of contention so far, and folks are not being well receptive so far.
This was the post I referred you to. quote:
POW - Again, I am sorry for making the typo with your handle, I just caught another occurrence in this thread, but I never got any response from you so please except my apology, I meant no offense.
This issue of dispensations is not just a word or a simple doctrine because of what the concept means. It means how God rules over His household. In other words, if you are part of God's household of faith, you are a saved believer, you are obgligated to obey the specific set of rules and teachings that are designed wisely for you by God. So this is comprehensive in terms of application and implications to our system of belief. You can start out by reading and trusting God's word wherever He specifically uses the concept, although, and this is somewhat important, God need not specifically call upon that concept in order to evoke the same authority. Just as anyone can repent and trust in God, without ever using the specific word repent. So, in the truest sense, dispensationalism is the same as saying that God is the ultimate authority, we had better rightly understand His teachings that are specifically given to us for obedience and faith. What He says is the final authority, so dispensationalism is at it's heart, a humble desire to obey God's expressed will for our lives.
Secondly, this is not about a passage that all Acts 9ers use. All bible believing Christians should accept God's house rules. Also, although it is true that most dispensationalists point to these passages that I am about to reference, they are certainly not all Acts 9 either. I am not presenting a manmade theological system, I am exposing to you God's word, and I stand on that authority and will not be persuaded by anything less than scripture. So please stop interjecting a human devised focus especially as it pertains to what I am saying because that is the last thing I am usually saying and I find it fully repugnant to try to be engaging in life giving discussions about God, only to hear folks constantly refer to manmade traditions and ideas. Occasionally is fine, and sometimes it's perfectly fine to dwell on such matters, but that should NEVER be our consistent focus, especially in terms of our faith in God. God, and conformity to His word, should be our focus for our faith.
I reference my first post in this thread. I am not familiar with how this forum operates in terms of the best ways to reference a post, there are various ways in various forums and this forum is relatively vague or difficult for me to understand in that regard. On my browser, which may or may not be different due to your forum and browser settings, my post in on page one about half way down, dated 05/27. But, due to the response I've been getting, it was an inadequate presentation, so I would be happy to elaborate on whatever struggles people are having in understanding what I am trying to say. I am basically trusting God and doing little more than reading God's word and (presumably righteously) accepting it.
The first three references are crucial but I'd say that Eph 3 is the sort of haulmark passage. The next three show the relevance and implications involved with these teachings, and 7, 8 just briefly cover two of the three main teachings for the rapture, which is a secondary, not primary issue compared to new unique revelation, and 9 and 10 help to show what the tribulation is all about in terms of national or religious identity.
I hope this helps, but I also wish to respect the focus on this thread and ask you to join me over in my Pretrib Rapture and Mystery thread, because this is exactly what I am dealing with over there. So, I didn't mean to hide from the debate, just shifted it over there. Thanks for the follow up interest. I'll post this over there too and wait for your response over there, if you will.
Thanks.
So, there you have it. You asked about the one verse about dispensationalism, I answered with my understanding to the best of my ability, but remain wondering what you meant by some single verse. Please indicate what angle you are thinking of so that I might better understand what you have in mind. Secondly, please simply answer my post. (which is the last quote here on this post, in THIS thread)
I do not think that I judge too quickly, I even said, this is just what I have seen from you "so far", and you know that God's word teaches us to honor God above man's tradition. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/8/2004 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
...that is based only upon my recollection of you from years ago, which was relatively moderate exposure, and in these present days, which has been very slight contact, so I sincerely hope I am wrong about your habit of honoring what seems right in man's eyes instead of God's eyes, and I apologize if I have misjudged you.
Apology acepted.
Please don't do it again. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/8/2004 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | | 1Way, you gave a very long answer to what might be just a verse citation. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/8/2004 9:48 AM (GMT -6) | | POW, you have a very short answer that might have something by way of discussion in it...
I will continue to observe what I have seen in you if you continue in them, and you need to stop wrongly judging me, sometimes I mostly just make open observations and ask you to stop being so focused on the things of man compared to God.
Also, often, after I read your post, I do not get the sense that you are in discussion, you are inventing your own discussion. It is rude to be so unresponsive, especially when the disucssion calls for direct and specific answers.
Please respond clearly to the follow summary from my last post of discussion with you.
Quote
So, there you have it. You asked about the one verse about dispensationalism, I answered with my understanding to the best of my ability, but remain wondering what you meant by some single verse. Please indicate what angle you are thinking of so that I might better understand what you have in mind. Secondly, please simply answer my post. (which is the last quote here on this post, in THIS thread)
I do not think that I judge too quickly, I even said, this is just what I have seen from you "so far", and you know that God's word teaches us to honor God above man's tradition.
End Quote
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/15/2004 8:56 PM (GMT -6) | | No time. (Back from trip from Midwest to N.W. to S.W. and back.)
What was that one verse? | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/16/2004 7:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | POW - You asked me about the one verse about dispensationalism, I answered with my understanding to the best of my ability, but I remain wondering what you meant by some single verse. Please indicate what angle (line of reasoning) you are thinking of so that I might better understand what you have in mind. If you have the time, please simply answer my post, I reposted it in the next post. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/16/2004 7:06 PM (GMT -6) | | POW - I posted three posts dated 6-2, two of which were to you, one of which was two posts ago from when I said for you to examine my post to you which was two posts ago. To which you said, your not sure which thread to find it.
Answer -- This thread
If you would have simply read it, you should have known. I was speaking about your question on dispensationalism. Here is the discussion you seem to have forgotten about. You posted this. quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Dispensation/Government/Administration...
1Way, you should post here THE verse from which you (and all "Acts-Niners") have proof-texted this. Can you post it here.
. . .
Can you post that verse here, 1Way?
1Way?
To which I posted four hours later quote:
POW - I (thought I) answered you about the dispensation bit, about two posts ago, the long one. I'm still waiting for your response to that post. I don't get your emphasis on the "one verse" bit. Maybe you should explain the particular angle you have in mind, I am not God and so my in-sight can only go so far. BTW, this "may" well be an eye opener into the narrowness (or inaccuracy) of your understanding since it does not fit the truth in reality, the way I see it so far. It is possible.
As to quoting scripture, you misunderstand. It's not about "quoting" scripture, the devil could probably do that better than John MacArther or myself, I say to honor it higher than man's thinking. You can "paraphrase" a scripture teaching, you can "reference" a scripture teaching, you can "reference bible doctrine", you can draw "inference" or "implication" or "application" or "interpretation" etc. etc. etc., from a bible teaching, all without quoting scripture, and yet you are fundamentally dealing with scripture.
I realize that other men do that too, and you can quote or reference or paraphrase them too. But, there is a difference between a bible concept or teaching, and a manmade one. That is my contrast that I draw. I am fair, you seem to have an apparently insatiable appetite for man, and I for God, and that troubles me for your sake. Consider the bible, and all the spiritual food you could be feasting on, yet almost without exception, that is the last thing you concern yourself with as you discuss and express your spiritual beliefs. But, that is based only upon my recollection of you from years ago, which was relatively moderate exposure, and in these present days, which has been very slight contact, so I sincerely hope I am wrong about your habit of honoring what seems right in man's eyes instead of God's eyes, and I apologize if I have misjudged you.
Again, please join me over in the mystery thread, the pretrib stuff may not even get to happen since "the mystery revelation that was kept hidden in God" is the foundational point of contention so far, and folks are not being well receptive so far.
This was the post I referred you to. quote:
POW - Again, I am sorry for making the typo with your handle, I just caught another occurrence in this thread, but I never got any response from you so please except my apology, I meant no offense.
This issue of dispensations is not just a word or a simple doctrine because of what the concept means. It means how God rules over His household. In other words, if you are part of God's household of faith, you are a saved believer, you are obgligated to obey the specific set of rules and teachings that are designed wisely for you by God. So this is comprehensive in terms of application and implications to our system of belief. You can start out by reading and trusting God's word wherever He specifically uses the concept, although, and this is somewhat important, God need not specifically call upon that concept in order to evoke the same authority. Just as anyone can repent and trust in God, without ever using the specific word repent. So, in the truest sense, dispensationalism is the same as saying that God is the ultimate authority, we had better rightly understand His teachings that are specifically given to us for obedience and faith. What He says is the final authority, so dispensationalism is at it's heart, a humble desire to obey God's expressed will for our lives.
Secondly, this is not about a passage that all Acts 9ers use. All bible believing Christians should accept God's house rules. Also, although it is true that most dispensationalists point to these passages that I am about to reference, they are certainly not all Acts 9 either. I am not presenting a manmade theological system, I am exposing to you God's word, and I stand on that authority and will not be persuaded by anything less than scripture. So please stop interjecting a human devised focus especially as it pertains to what I am saying because that is the last thing I am usually saying and I find it fully repugnant to try to be engaging in life giving discussions about God, only to hear folks constantly refer to manmade traditions and ideas. Occasionally is fine, and sometimes it's perfectly fine to dwell on such matters, but that should NEVER be our consistent focus, especially in terms of our faith in God. God, and conformity to His word, should be our focus for our faith.
I reference my first post in this thread. I am not familiar with how this forum operates in terms of the best ways to reference a post, there are various ways in various forums and this forum is relatively vague or difficult for me to understand in that regard. On my browser, which may or may not be different due to your forum and browser settings, my post in on page one about half way down, dated 05/27. But, due to the response I've been getting, it was an inadequate presentation, so I would be happy to elaborate on whatever struggles people are having in understanding what I am trying to say. I am basically trusting God and doing little more than reading God's word and (presumably righteously) accepting it.
The first three references are crucial but I'd say that Eph 3 is the sort of haulmark passage. The next three show the relevance and implications involved with these teachings, and 7, 8 just briefly cover two of the three main teachings for the rapture, which is a secondary, not primary issue compared to new unique revelation, and 9 and 10 help to show what the tribulation is all about in terms of national or religious identity.
I hope this helps, but I also wish to respect the focus on this thread and ask you to join me over in my Pretrib Rapture and Mystery thread, because this is exactly what I am dealing with over there. So, I didn't mean to hide from the debate, just shifted it over there. Thanks for the follow up interest. I'll post this over there too and wait for your response over there, if you will.
Thanks.
So, there you have it. You asked about the one verse about dispensationalism, I answered with my understanding to the best of my ability, but remain wondering what you meant by some single verse. Please indicate what angle you are thinking of so that I might better understand what you have in mind. Secondly, please simply answer my post. (which is the last quote here on this post, in THIS thread) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/17/2004 7:54 AM (GMT -6) | | 1. I guess you mean Ephesians....
2. Don't think that for a moment I'd be offended by varients in my handle. OK. "Potty-mouth" would obviously cause me offence. (Laika may do it once; but not because of inacuracy)
3. Lets try to avoid long recitations of inner dialog. Your last post might be an example -- or maybe not. I don't know.
Peace. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/17/2004 7:31 PM (GMT -6) | | POW - I agree keeping it short is better, but since I had taken the time for you, and you had not clearly responded, I figured you might be ok with me presenting it again.
Uh, no, you were asking me about the single verse, me, not you. And I in return was asking you about what sort of verse were you seeking...
LOL
Ephesians 3:1-9 is a very common passage, but depending upon what line of reasoning is being discussed, other verses are used as well. Consider...
Eph 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
Col 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,
Ro 16:25 ¶ Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
These are pretty classic I suppose... | | Back to Top | | |
|
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 6/18/2004 11:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PhilTheThrill
I'm just registering my vote as a preterist, specifically an Amillenial. I've studied this topic for years and years and I find the "LaHaye" interpretation just falls flat, in my eyes.
Phil, I like your bold stand as preterist, amillenialist, and non-Lahayite (my term). I am dad of a family of 6 who tend to pretrib Lahayist. They sometimes seem to think I may not even be saved cause I like books like End Times Fiction and Abanes also. I tell them I am more certain on what I find unscriptural with Lahayism than on what I do believe. I am swayed when I read Gary Demar and co. I have too studied for years and heard too many sermons on endtime stuff. It is quite interesting to me, more on how people respond to these things than the things themselves. Have you not read men who say the right endtime doctrine will save us and the wrong will cause us to "miss the rapure". Too do you see no writings of the ancients that point to rapture and 7yr tribulation and mark of beasts?
| | Back to Top | | |
| 73 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:59 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|