Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > The Church Started with Paul?

Forum Quick Jump

155 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 12/3/2001 5:31 PM (GMT -6)

I made my last revisions to my previous post this morning. I responded only to what you had posted prior to my last post.

Now to finish responding to your post.

you said

quote:
In the most specific manner, yes, Romans 11:25 has definite differences with 1 Cor 15. But can we see the underlying unity too?

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

The part you have underlined is not the mystery that Paul is speaking of. The mystery that Paul refers to in Rom 11:25 is "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in." That is the mystery. That God has promised to "take away their [Israel's] sins" is prophecy (Paul is referencing the porphecy given in Is 59:20-21 in Rom 11:27) which is the opposite of mystery.

you said

quote:
The Incarnation is the core of the gospel.

I agree

quote:
That is why some of us non-Dispensational folk feel a twinge to wonder whether Dispensationalist have more than one Gospel--one for each D.--if the differences are accented too much. (Just telling all about how it appeared to me when Bob, Abbie and 1way came on the board.)

Of course there is more than one gospel preached in the Bible! Practically everyone who studies Scripture acknowledges this in my experience. Christ and His disciples preached a gospel that did not have the cross in it (Mark 9:31-32; Luke 18:31-33). The difference between the gospel that Paul preached and the gospels preached before Paul was given his gospel (or as he says "MY gospel") is the mystery (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 3:2-11; Col 1:26). Anyone who today preaches a gospel other than the one given to Paul is anathema (Gal 1:8-9). It's "the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery" (Rom 16:25) that we are to preach today.

quote:
1 Cor 15:51 says:

"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--"

Same thing [as the mystery in Rom 11:25].

No it's not. If the mystery in Rom 11:25 were refering to the Old Testament passage quoted in Rom 11:27 there would be the connection you claim there is, but that is not what the mystery of Rom 11:25 is.

What the mysteries given in Rom 11:25 and Eph 3:6 share is that Israel does not at the present time have the exalted status that it once had when God was working with and through Israel as the nation that would evangelize the world. Jew and Gentile are now on common ground (Rom 11:30-32) where there is no difference (Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28).

you said

quote:
And Eph 3:6 says:

This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

That fits with the literalism of the Dispensational reading of a chopped up New Testament. It furnishes fuel for that engine. your reading makes it seem like this was an entirely new revelation.

Nice choice of words there. "That fits with the literalism of the Dispensational reading of a chopped up New Testament."

quote:
your reading makes it seem like this was an entirely new revelation.

Yes, I get that from that passage, but an even stronger passage follows Eph 3:4-6.

quote:
Ephesians 3:8-11 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that NOW the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly [places,] 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,

The mystery clearly is "an entirely new revelation." It was "hidden in God" until it was revealed to Paul. If you disagree I will need an alternate interpretaion of Eph 3:8-11 and the similar passages (Rom 16:25; Eph 1:9; Col 1:26).

you said

quote:
But you, YOU, Chance, also say correctly that the Decalog and Israel are not the initial plan.

Correct. "The law entered that the offense might abound" (Rom 5:20). The giving of the law to Israel was not a part of God's original plan. It is interesting that the law and the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil are closely related in Scripture (Gen 2:17; Deut 1:39; Rom 5:20; 7:8-11; 2 Cor 3:6-9). As a friend of mine is fond of saying, "the law is the legacy of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil".

quote:
I might say it as that they were, and are, and never were central to the whole thing.

I disagree because I believe that the law would not have "entered in" had Adam not sinned in the garden and that Israel never would have existed had Adam obeyed God.

quote:
Christ, the one faith, the one baptism IS [central].

Read: "This mystery is . . . heirs together . . . members together of one body . . . in Christ Jesus. The focus is on Christ. The overcoming of barriers fits within that. No I'm not suggesting that that is secondary. Not removed. it is integral.

Yes, that which concerns the Body, what God intended before He created the world, is most certainly central.

quote:
Did I cover it all????

I believe so. Now if you can give me your take on the parable in Luke 13:6-9 and answer some of the other questions I had in my e-mail on the fourth page.

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

Edited by - chance on 12/04/2001 02:30:13 AM

Edited by - chance on 12/04/2001 05:05:26 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/4/2001 1:35 AM (GMT -6)

Chance, when you write "entirely new revelation" you and I read that differently. You seem to make it a noun, and I see it as a verb. (Yes, it IS a noun now, but revelation is a polysyllabic version of reveal--give it a new generations and it will add more syllables! That is what we do to words. Most begin as verbs.)

I like the word "manifold" in this: "that NOW the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church..."

The wisdom of God did not change! You actually treat it as if it did. Its being made known did change, in significant ways. But the Wisdom of God did not. And therefore Dispensationalism is of NO interest to me.

BTW -- I guess I just THOUGHT that I had responded to Luke 13:6-9 before. 'Guess I only did some research on it. Sorry.

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.

PoW

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/04/2001 5:31:30 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/4/2001 12:25 PM (GMT -6)

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 12/4/2001 9:30 PM (GMT -6)

POW said

quote:
The wisdom of God did not change! You actually treat it as if it did.

I do not!

If I have in my previous posts I'm sure you can point out where I have done so. Show me where I have treated God's knowledge as if it could change in my posts or retract your assertion.

I agree with what Eph 3:8-10 says - that God's wisdom was manifested with the revelation of the mystery to Paul.

quote:
Eph 3:8-10 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that NOW the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly [places,]

you said

quote:
Its being made known did change, in significant ways. But the Wisdom of God did not. And therefore Dispensationalism is of NO interest to me.

Since I never said that God's wisdom changed your associating such a claim with dispensationalism is of no consequence. It must be said, however, that the importance and relevance of the mystery is not important only in dispensational theology. The first paper I heard at the ETS Conference a month ago was by a Lutheran Covenant theologian named Sigurd Grindheim who attends TEDS. The title of his paper was What the OT Prophets Did Not Know: The Mystery of the Church in Eph 3:2-13. I enjoyed hearing it

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

Edited by - chance on 12/05/2001 04:54:40 AM

Edited by - chance on 12/05/2001 05:05:45 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/5/2001 1:22 AM (GMT -6)

Chance: The first paper I heard at the ETS Conference a month ago was by a Lutheran Covenant theologian named Sigurd Grindheim who attends TEDS. The title of his paper was What the OT Prophets Did Not Know: The Mystery of the Church in Eph 3:2-13. I enjoyed hearing it.

Sounds great!

quote:
Ephesians 3:2-14
2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. 7 I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God's grace given me through the working of his power. 8 Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12
In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. 13 I ask you, therefore, not to be discouraged because of my sufferings for you, which are your glory.

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/5/2001 1:31 AM (GMT -6)

Luke 13: 6-9
6 Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, `For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?' 8 "`Sir,' the man replied, `leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'"

Chance, Jesus parable has two points that are one. Exhibited are both God's mercy and his judgment to those hearing it, the message was for them (to those hearing it, and to their countrymen). I suppose that the Vineyard is the Kingdom. The owner cultivates and is mercy in opportunity and help. yet there is judgment.

Chance, In Sunday School we are working through Timmer's book "The 4-Dimensional Jesus." Luke was written FOR GENTILES WHO WERE IN A GENTILE ENVIRONMENT. Gentiles would want to know why they should believe if not all Jews they knew in their town did. And they would want to know how it came that what had been clothed as just "Jewish" was for them too. This parable serves in Luke to answer those questions that those GENTILES might have.

Thanks for corresponding.

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/06/2001 06:01:34 AM

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 12/5/2001 10:22 PM (GMT -6)

POW said

quote:
Chance, Jesus parable has two points that are one. Exhibited are both God's mercy and his judgment to those hearing it, the message was for them.

By "them" do you mean those who are symbolized by the fig tree, Israel?

quote:
I suppose that the Vineyard is the Kingdom. The owner cultivates and is mercy in opportunity and help. yet there is judgment.

Do you have v. 9 in mind when you say this? What do you make of the two possible responses in v. 9?

What I am really interested in is what value you believe this parable has in understanding the story and the way it unfolds in the New Testament?

quote:
Chance, In Sunday School we are working through Timmer's book "The 4-Dimensional Jesus." Luke was written FOR GENTILES WHO WERE IN A GENTILE ENVIRONMENT.

What evidence does he provide to substantiate this belief? I'm not sure whether it would really matter or not whether Luke was written for Gentiles understanding. Christ's ministry (to Israel Matt 10:5; 15:24; Luke 1:68,77; 19:9) and what He taught (the law and the prophets Matt 5:17-19; 23:23; Luke 10:25-26) is still the same whether or not Luke was written in such a way that Gentiles could understand it easier.

quote:
Gentiles would want to know why they should believe if not all Jews they knew in their town did. And they would want to know how it came that what had been clothed as just "Jewish" was for them too. This parable serves in Luke to answer those questions that those GENTILES might have.

I can agree with that

. I do look at the parable in Luke 13:6-9 as illuminating for those who were Gentiles, but I also see it as being very illuminating for those who were Jews also (and I think Romans confirms this). I see the parable as saying practically the same thing as what God said in Jer 18. I also find a helpful timeline within the parable that helps me to understand why the events in Acts happened as they did. Do you see this also?

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

Edited by - chance on 12/06/2001 03:33:15 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/6/2001 1:40 AM (GMT -6)

Chance, I read this as a parable, and not an allegory.

To give you an answer I made two paragraphs: one about the Jews and one about the Gentiles, saying: "Jesus parable has two points that are one. Exhibited are both God's mercy and his judgment to those hearing it, the message was for them [i/](to those hearing it, and to their countrymen). I suppose that the Vineyard is the Kingdom. The owner cultivates and is mercy in opportunity and help. yet there is judgment."

I don't force the meaning you described in verse 9. The reference to Israel are obvious. But as you said, YOU use a time LINE, and I've mentioned the differences in the model that we are using, you and I. Sorry you don't see importance of the stting for Luke. He also has the mentions Nahum (Luke 4:27), which for us here serves double-duty--the overarching message of Luke, AND the ongoing message of the Bible as it emerges (contra to starting over, and over, and over). I think that your timeline is a distraction, or even a distortion.

But you STILL haven't made clear TO ME what your system is.

Jer. 18 says: "11 Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, `This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.'"

That's good. But I think you are throwing meaning onto this that is inconsistent with the whole of the OT. The Law was not the core, to a greater degree Israel was, as it participates in the Incarnation. I cna illumine the above by refereing to the pharase "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord." It was not the literal law, but what was on their hearts, AND their ministry of offering back to God eucharistically that was Israel; not their lineage. Nahum joins this--and ends up in Luke.

GOTTA RUN.

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 12/6/2001 2:57 AM (GMT -6)

POW said

quote:
I don't force the meaning you described in verse 9.

OK. What do you believ verse 9 is telling us?

quote:
Luke 13:9 'And if it bears fruit, [well.] But if not, after that you can cut it down.'

What significance does the fig tree bearing fruit or not bearing fruit have in your reading of the New Testament story?

quote:
The reference to Israel are obvious.

Amen! The fig tree is obviously Israel. Even though, Augustine didn't interpret it that way. He seems to have really blown it when it came to interpreting this parable.

quote:
But as you said, YOU use a time LINE, and I've mentioned the differences in the model that we are using, you and I.

Yes, I use a timeline because it is useful to me in telling the story. Years are viewed on a line so that we can understand when AND why specific events occured and make sense out of history and its development. Do you regard timelines as completely unhelpful or do you have a place for them in your telling of the story?

quote:
Sorry you don't see importance of the stting for Luke. He also has the mentions Nahum (Luke 4:27), which for us here serves double-duty--the overarching message of Luke, AND the ongoing message of the Bible as it emerges (contra to starting over, and over, and over). I think that your timeline is a distraction, or even a distortion.

Whoa! Those are some strong words (where do they come from?). "Distraction"? "Distortion"? If it makes the telling of the story more intelligible for me and others then I can hardly see such a useful timeline as a distraction or a distortion.

Not sure what you are talking about when you say that I have God's message "starting over, and over, and over". I do not see God's message as being so "overarching" that it makes any new revelation impossible (i.e. the revelation of the mystery or any revelation subsequent to that).

Are you saying that Luke 4:27 is evidence that Luke was written for a Gen5tile audience?

quote:
Luke 4:27 "And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian."

If this passage is evidence that Luke's account of Christ's words and deeds was written for Gentiles then why wouldn't Christ's healing of the Canaanite woman's daughter in Matt 15:22-28 also be evidence for a Gentile audience? Or the healing of the centurion's servant in Matt 8:5-13? Are you trying to say by pointing out Luke 4:27 that God's relationship to Israel and the Gentile nations was the same then as it is now after the mystery has been revealed? Or are you saying something else?

quote:
But you STILL haven't made clear TO ME what your system is.

I'll do that soon (tonight hopefully). I'll give you my take on Luke 13:6-9 and its usefulness for understanding the events of the New Testament.

quote:
Jer. 18 says: "11 Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, `This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.'"

That's good. But I think you are throwing meaning onto this that is inconsistent with the whole of the OT. The Law was not the core, to a greater degree Israel was, as it participates in the Incarnation. I cna illumine the above by refereing to the pharase "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord." It was not the literal law, but what was on their hearts, AND their ministry of offering back to God eucharistically that was Israel; not their lineage. Nahum joins this--and ends up in Luke.

I actually had Jer 18:7-10 more in mind (specifically 9-10). Compare the following with Luke 13:6-9 (especially v.9).

quote:
Jeremiah 18:7-10 "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy [it,] 8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 "And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it,] 10 "if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

I see the threat that God makes in Jer 18:9-10 restated again in Luke 13:9b and acted upon after the fourth year had come to an end (Luke 13:8). Does that make things a bit clearer?

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/6/2001 1:29 PM (GMT -6)

chance, I'm trying to decide what to do with our conversation here. I've responded to questions only to find that you don't approach it in a way that is very similar to me. My sincerest responses have been non-connecting. I do not have the freedom of time or energy to go through lots of posts to find a best-place-to-begin. What do we do?

I'm going to start at the end of your last post and work backwards. Lets see what is possible and what isn't. OK?

Chance, you wrote this way: I see the threat that God makes in Jer 18:9-10 restated again in Luke 13:9b and acted upon after the fourth year had come to an end (Luke 13:8). Does that make things a bit clearer?
PoW: I find that patronizing. A boxing in, too, as if to insist that there is only one correct answer and that you have it. This is what I first encountered in Bob and 1way...and remember from the Late Great Planet Earth days of the 70s. It doesn't fit so well outside Dispensationalism, I think it belongs more in a algebra or geometry class.
PoW: One problem is that it leaves no width to the OT message or to the NT. Plainly, as far as that one tree goes it is a narrow statement. But haven't you caught that I sincerely consider God to use the literal (as in the limits of the nation of Israel, for a good example) as in some ways illustrative of something behind it all. If not, if you can't pick that up from me, or find it difficult to follow, then our discussion will continue to be hampered.
PoW: In this vein I had said: "It was not the literal law, but what was on their hearts, AND their ministry of offering back to God eucharistically that was Israel; not their lineage. Nahum joins this--and ends up in Luke."

chance: I'll give you my take on Luke 13:6-9 and its usefulness for understanding the events of the New Testament.
PoW: I would see you posit your position than try and ask questions designed to supposedly steer me.

chance: "If this passage is evidence that Luke's account of Christ's words and deeds was written for Gentiles then why wouldn't Christ's healing of the Canaanite woman's daughter in Matt 15:22-28 also be evidence for a Gentile audience?"
PoW: COME ON! This was a scholarly book by a seasoned professional, with sources in the insets that would make you take notice. Don't be that way. I find good reason to accept the set of framings that the book gave for Mt, Mk and Lk. (In the mean time I certainly don't feel motivated to go find the book and type stuff so that you can turn up your nose at it.)
springs: "Are you trying to say by pointing out Luke 4:27 that God's relationship to Israel and the Gentile nations was the same then as it is now after the mystery has been revealed? Or are you saying something else?"
PoW: I'm not trying to think within the RUBRICs that you are. maybe to you this is a "plus-2" or a "negative-2"; but to me it might be a "pear."
PoW: As I wrote a few posts ago, I see this as a PARABLE, and not an ALLEGORY. and I pretty much subscribe to the version that says a parable has one major point--not several. I'll modify that to accept the spiritual lessons many have found in them. But that doesn't follow literalistic paths. That leaves us two different places. And I'm VERY comfortable where I am. And when I told you my answer you maybe felt like I hadn't even begun answering the question. Is that right?

chance: Are you saying that Luke 4:27 is evidence that Luke was written for a Gentile audience?
PoW: No, I'm not dumb, and neither is Timmer, or the scholars he quotes. Luke 4:27 is just a good illustration of what is overwhelmingly proved by scholarship. Actually I found THAT verse in another book one of Christmas devotionals that I'm reading. It jumped out at me, and then also seemed worth sharing with you. THEN I realized what book it was in (luke), and that seemed like something concrete to share with you, for your consideration.

Springs, as to "Distraction/Distortion" issues we will both have to be our own judges. Do you really understand what I'm saying there. It didn't sound like it. I got THAT not from anything that YOU said; but it was crystal clear in what Bob presented. (in 1way it is even more brash!) The outline and its definitions affect how the verses are considered and digested. YOU are smarter than that. Like I say, YOU decide for yourself how much that is true, for you. But I suspect that it is more than the "telling of the story more intelligible for me and others" in that it makes you expect to find one thing or another. An example of this kind of mental dynamic, taken from the next room where my son is reciting the Luke X-mas story, of the angels, is the "good will towards men" (KJV/RSV) versus "to men on whom his favor rests" (NIV--the more Calvinist).
PoW: "WE ALL DO IT!!!"

chance: OK. What do you believe verse 9 is telling us?
PoW: I always hated leading Sunday School questions.

chance: I also find a helpful timeline within the parable that helps me to understand why the events in Acts happened as they did. Do you see this also?
PoW: I really don't think that is what the parable is trying to do. It feels like you are forcing it!

I'm repeating myself, aren't I? I'm just not comfortable with your hermeneutic. (I'm running out of steam before Christmas vacation too!)

Thanks for the correspondence.

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/7/2001 2:25 AM (GMT -6)

chance..... Thanks for trying.

If you think you can salvage anything here, please be my guest.

(But no rhetorical questions, like, "do you think xix means yvy?")

Maybe you can tell me what YOU see in the Ephesians verse, AND what that means to you?

Open door, but I'm exhausted by getting ready for a school Christmas program.

(I still absolutely can't fathom why you don't embrace baptism, as it undergirds what you SEEM to hold most dear in your view. Ignorance of what baptism historically has meand, verses the cobbled-together version that "comes down" to American Protestants?)

PoW

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/7/2001 5:11 PM (GMT -6)

CHANCE, THIS IS FOM BOB HILL'S SITE. THE METHOD IS "LEADING."

quote:

=======================================
......Welcome to DSOT Online. Please begin by answering the first question in Theology 101OL. That question is: 1. What is the derivation and meaning of the word dispensation, oikonomia?
......DSOT professors will respond to your answer in a "roll playing" format. Your job is to prove your position.
......We'll let you know when we think you've adequately proven your position.
......Please don't go on to another question until we give you the nod.
......Thanks, Bob Hill
=====================================================

Dispensational Theology 101OL
* Text Book: A Dispensational Theology, By Charles F. Baker.
* All correspondence for this class will take place on the Derby School of Theology Online Forum (DSOT Online Forum). . .Follow the steps below to get started:
* Getting Started – Directions for posting your answers on the forum

* Questions

1. What is the derivation and meaning of the word dispensation, oikonomia?

2. Work out a system of dispensations from the following scripture. If you need to use additional scripture, be sure to add it. Gen 1:28-2:17; 3:16-24; 9:1-17; 12:1-3; 13:15; 15:1-18; Gal 3:17; Gen 17:7-21; 22:12; Act 7:8; Jam 2:21-24; Deu 5,6,7:9-13; 8:19,20; 16:20; 17:2-7; 29:9-20; Ex 14:13; 15:2; 23:7; Num 15; Heb 8:13; 10:9; 2 Sa 7:1-17; 1 Ki 9:1-9; Eze 18:20-32; Psa 24:1-6; 89:1-37; 132:10-12; Jer 18:6-10; Mat 4:17; 5:44,45; 6:14,15; 7:21; 13:21,22; 18:35; 19:17; Mk 1:1,14,15; 16:15,16; Lk 1:32-77; 3:3,11-14; 16:16; John 3:5; 15:1-10; Rom 15:8; Act 1:6; 2; 3:19-25; 10:28; 21:20-24; He 6:1-10; 10:26-29,36,38,39; Jam 1:21-2:26; 5:16,19,20; 1 Pet 1:5-7; 2:9; 3:18-21; 2 Pet 1:4-11; 2:20-22; 1 Jo 1:9-2:6,9-11; 2 Jo 8,9; 3 Jo 11; Rev 2:5-7; 10,11,16,17; 3:3-5,10-12; Mat 24:13,14; 1 Jo 2:20,21,27; Jer 31:31-34; He 8:10,11; Dan 7:27; Rev 20:2-6.

3. Where are the most dramatic changes between dispensations?From your perspective, what is the most important dispensation in the Old Testament? From your perspective, what is the most important dispensation in the New Testament? What is the dispensation of the fullness of times (Eph 1:10)?

4. What is the main difference between covenant theology and dispensational theology? What is an ultradispensationalist?

5. From the chart handouts, do you see any problems with Baker’s, Stam’s, Jordan’s, Larkin’s, Welch’s, or Scofield’s views of the dispensations?

6. What does the word mystery, mustarion, mean? What is a biblical mystery? What is the nature, significance of a New Testament mystery?

7. What is the mystery that was revealed to Paul concerning the body of Christ in Eph 3?

8. Does a dispensation always end when a new one starts?

9. Give some good reasons why the present dispensation did not start in Acts 2, 9, 13or 28.

10. Where did it start?

11. Did God have different ways of saving people in different dispensations?

12. If there were different ways of saving people, give a few examples.

13. Did God have a different means, basis, of saving people in different dispensations?

14. How could animal sacrifices save a man under the law?

15. How would you describe salvation in the Old Testament? Describe the nature, means, method, assurance, and security of OT salvation.

16. What defense could an Acts 2, a Mid-Acts, or an Acts 28 dispensationalist give for or against the following doctrinal positions?

A. The gift of healing by the laying on of hands. Mk 16:15-20; Acts 14:1-3,9; Rom 15:18-19; Heb 2:1-4; 2 Co 12:12; Acts 28 Phi 2:25-27; 2 Tim 4:20.
B. Observance of the holy days and Sabbaths. Ex 31: 12-17; Lev 23:1-44; Psa 81:3,4; Mk 16:9; Acts 20:7; Rom 4:11-16; Rom 6: 14-16; Rom 7:1-6; Rom 8:1-4; Rom 14:3-6; 1 Co 16:1,2; Gal 4:8-11; Col 2:13-17.
C. Tongues speaking. 1 Co 13:8-12; Col 1:24-28; Col 2:9-10.
D. Water baptism. Baptismal regeneration. Mk 16:15-16 15; Lk 7:30; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 10:48; 22:16; Rom 6:3,4,17,18; Gal 3:27-28; Col 2:12; Tit 3:5; Heb 10:22; 1 Pe 3:21.
E. Security of the believer. Rom 8:29,30; Eph 1:4-7,11-14; 4:30; Phi 1:6; 2 Ti 2:10-13; Heb 6:4-10; 10:26-29,35-39; Jam 2:8-24; 5:20; 2 Pe 2:20-22; 1 Jo 2:3,4; 5:16,17; Rev 2:11; 3:5.

IF YOU START WITH THE PRESUPPOSITION THAT DIFFERENCES ARE ALL GOING TO BE "DISPENSATIONS" THEN WHAT YOU FIND WILL TEND TO REENFORCE THAT, WHETHER OR NOT EACH IS AS SIGNIFICANT AS THE LAST.

BOB, ON HIS SITE, DISCUSSED ROMANS 8 WITH A PAUL D., AND MADE REMARKS ABOUT HOW NON-CALVINST TEXTS ARE FRAMED BY CALVINIST TRANSLATERS TO APPEAR CALVINIST. THAT IS A FAIR COMMENT. BUT THE METHOD OF HIS THEO 101 CLASS IS AS "LEADING."

AM I FAIR. DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. I WON'T BE INTERESTED TO DISCUSS IT. BUT I THOUGHT THIS POST NECESSARY TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT I'D SAID ABOVE--TO NOT LEAVE YOU WONDERING...

- PoW

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/07/2001 10:26:39 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/7/2001 5:37 PM (GMT -6)

Chance, HERE seems to be a live discussion on Bob's site that is about what THIS thread was supposed to be about. I THOUROUGHLY DISAGREE WITH AND SEE NO NEED FOR what it contains. But it is more "there" than ever was here.

quote:

Questions & Answers
I John (Page 1)

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:
Author Topic: I John
stainless
Member
Posts: 52
From:Portage, PA USA
Registered: Sep 2000
posted 10-02-2000 09:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing that I have a hard time understanding about the Mid-Acts posistion is how they deal with the (supposed) late authorship of books like I John. If it was written in the last quarter of the 1st century, and yet contains a circumcision message, isn't that evidence against the mid-acts posistion? When did this gospel of the circumcision stop being preached, and thus the Jewish people came under the same covenant as us? Or am I misunderstanding completely?
stainless

IP: Logged

Paul DeYonghe
Member
Posts: 85
From:Tulsa, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
posted 10-02-2000 09:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stainless,
Hi! Nice to see you.

And yes, you are misunderstanding a little. The mid-Acts/Twelve Out position holds that the original Twelve Apostles maintained their ministry to Israel. The circumcision message of 1 John is primarily for those "kingdom" believers still alive at the time of John's writing, as well as for those who will be alive through the Tribulation and into the Millenial Kingdom. And of course, all Scripture is profitable for us, too.

The circumcision gospel ceased to be actively evangelized after Paul's meeting with Peter, James, and John, chronicled in Galatians. Jews saved prior to Israel's "cutting-off" and Paul's call remained in the Kingdom; those saved after were in the Body. (Although I'm sure there were a few in the latter early on who felt more a part of the former.)

By the by, how're you liking The Plot?

[This message has been edited by Paul DeYonghe (edited 10-02-2000).]

IP: Logged

stainless
Member
Posts: 52
From:Portage, PA USA
Registered: Sep 2000
posted 10-02-2000 10:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul:
Lol, if you attempted to further confuse me you did a terrific job!

>>>The mid-Acts/Twelve Out position holds that the original Twelve Apostles maintained their ministry to Israel.<<<

I understand that part, what I don't understand is why there was so little mention of this other Gospel? If these Jew's descendants were going to be under a different convenant I would think that John, Peter, etc. would give some time to explaining that they at least supported this gospel. There's some stuff in acts about their acceptance, and in Paul's epistles, but why didn't they speak about this grace much? Even if thier target audience wasn't under that gospel, surely they would have wanted to spread the message to their readers children, right?

>>>By the by, how're you liking The Plot?<<<

As usual, Mr. Enyart is very charismatic with his words and mannerisms. I'm enjoying it a great deal, but when I finish reading it I'm going to read some opposing material, so we'll see where I come out

stainless

IP: Logged

Paul DeYonghe
Member
Posts: 85
From:Tulsa, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
posted 10-03-2000 11:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stainless,
Sorry to confuse. Maybe I should defer to Bob Hill; I seem to be partaking of the confusion now.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that part, what I don't understand is why there was so little mention of this other Gospel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? The Four Evangelists, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude, and the Apocalypse isn't enough? I'm not sure I take your meaning.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
? If these Jew's descendants were going to be under a different convenant I would think that John, Peter, etc. would give some time to explaining that they at least supported this gospel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I have a couple of theories. For one, it doesn't seem that marriage was a popular custom among the kingdom believers (from what I can tell). They lived day to day expecting the imminent return to the kingdom program (which would start the Tribulation back up), and they probably took Christ's words about bearing children to heart (see Matthew 24:19).
My other theory is that this was such common knowledge that it didn't need to be written about.
Both theories are kind of weak, so I hope the experts chime in!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, Mr. Enyart is very charismatic with his words and mannerisms. I'm enjoying it a great deal, but when I finish reading it I'm going to read some opposing material, so we'll see where I come out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be interested in just what opposing material there is.
James Hilston has written a critique of The Plot. Hilston is also an mid-Acts dispensationalist, and his critique has some very good points, and also some that are off the mark. I don't think he's entirely fair to the "sentence within" technique, for example, and he's apparently a determinist. I thought you might like to read it when you're finished.
Let me know if you need a copy of Hill's The Big Difference.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Paul DeYonghe (edited 10-03-2000).]

IP: Logged

stainless
Member
Posts: 52
From:Portage, PA USA
Registered: Sep 2000
posted 10-03-2000 03:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul:
>>>What? The Four Evangelists, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude, and the Apocalypse isn't enough? I'm not sure I take your meaning.<<<

Now I'm the one confusing! What I meant to ask was why didn't the circumcision books/letters mention the gospel of grace that much? You touch on this later, I just wanted to clarify what I was asking.

>>>My other theory is that this was such common knowledge that it didn't need to be written about. Both theories are kind of weak, so I hope the experts chime in!<<<

That's the one I was thinking might be the given answer...still searching for evidence though...

>>>I'd be interested in just what opposing material there is.<<<

I'm going to look at some material that opposes Dispenationalism in general to start. I'm also going to ask a guy I know (who doesn't think much of dispensationalism) to explain why he has a problem with that particular interpretational system so much.

>>>James Hilston has written a critique of The Plot.<<<

Yes, I saw that over at Theologyonline and read some of it a couple days ago, mostly I just skimmed though. Figured I'd better read the book before I read the critique.

>>>I don't think he's entirely fair to the "sentence within" technique,<<<

I think that the technique has been helpful to an extent, Enyart has certainly used it to his advantage in helping the reader to see what he deems the main point (or at least the relevant point for the discussion).

But, I don't know that I would say that Hilston's comments were unfair. It does make one wonder what criteria Bob used concerning this method. Basically, I have two options: 1. To ignore the sentence within technique and just read the whole passage, or 2. To trust that Bob won't take the text out of context and will handle the passage in a fair manner.

Now, Bob explaining the method in detail up front wouldn't have guaranteed anything, but at least it would have given me some more confidence about Enyart's approach to the text and helped me to understand his reasoning.

I don't think that it's a big deal, but I do think that Hilston was right in at least a large part of his criticism of the technique.

>>>Let me know if you need a copy of Hill's The Big Difference.<<<

Thanks for the offer, but I haven't even gotten to Things that Differ yet

Btw, Your tapes should be arriving before the weekend, enjoy!

stainless

IP: Logged

WoGirl
Member
Posts: 89
From:Anaheim, Ca. USA
Registered: May 2000
posted 10-03-2000 11:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey there, Can't say anything about 'The Plot.' But, I understand what stainless is trying to say. Let me see if I may be able to explain it, or maybe say it in a a way that some one else may understand and be able to help.
~~~~~~~~~~
"why there was so little mention of this other Gospel?" (by John or 12 Apolstels)
~~~~~~~~~~
Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, to teach Grace.
The 12 were for Israel, to teach the Law.

Understanding that, you can see that The 'Mystery' was not revealed to the 12 as they did not have to teach on it. Paul was given a divine commision (Acts 9:15) The book of Ephesians 3 is the best to understand how it was given to Paul, and not the 12. For this reason, the 12 were unable to talk about it as God will not allow for His word to be twisted, so I believe he did not inspire them to touch on the topic that was not fully understood by them.
Can you imagine if they would have spoken about it? I think that would be more confusing. Us trying to figure out why a 'mystery' was revealed to Paul, yet some of the 12 talked about in their Epistles. What kind of mystery would that be? It wouldn't. Not to mention that it would not allow for the Dispensational view of the Bible to exist because if the 12 knew about the mystery than it would have hade to have been revealed to them before God decided to change His dealings with us. How could Hhe reveal a mystery to the 12 that was first revealed to Paul? He can't. So they have no knowledge or understanding as to what the "Mystery" was to even think about writing on it.
(this next topic is on another thread somewhere in the forum if you want to actually discuss it)
Also, to give another idea on the same lines. Why was Paul baptized by water? (Acts 9)Under this dispensation, water bapism is like saying that Christ died for nothing. Why would Paul ever want to get water baptised? From what I have come to understand, it was because the one who baptised him nothing of nothing else. That was what was done under the Prophetic program and the Law. With this in mind, couldn't this be the same thought as to why they didn't speak on the mystery? They knew of nothing other than the Law.

Hope I didn't confuse you more. Let me know if this helps.

------------------
God Bless,
W.o.G.i.r.l.
(Woman Of God In Real Life)

IP: Logged

stainless
Member
Posts: 52
From:Portage, PA USA
Registered: Sep 2000
posted 10-10-2000 08:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>Hope I didn't confuse you more. Let me know if this helps.<<<
I'm a bit confused yet, but you didn't add to the confusion. Thanks for the information

Paul:

Did you get the tapes?

stainless

IP: Logged

Paul DeYonghe
Member
Posts: 85
From:Tulsa, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
posted 10-10-2000 09:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stainless,
I got the tapes. I sure hope I get time to watch them soon!

IP: Logged

Bob Hill
Administrator
Posts: 694
From:Dupont, Colorado, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
posted 11-13-2000 12:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we look for the reasons that the circumcision epistles-Hebrews, James, 1,2,Peter, 1,2,3,John, Jude, Revelation-were written after the body of Christ began, to me it is clear. These writings had to be written for these circumcision believers to know how to behave as they waited for the tribulation to start. Then, God gave them material to record that showed what was ahead for them. The book of Revelation was clearly for the future tribulation. All of the circumcision epistles have warnings about how they were to conduct themselves so they would not lose their goal, salvation.
The gospel of the circumcision had its basis in the covenant of circumcision. The apostles of the circumcision were acutely aware of its requirement. Gen 17:10-14 shows the beginning principle: “This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Of course, later, the law was added. The necessity for the water baptism of Num 19:9-21 was delineated: “Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin. 10 And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening. It shall be a statute forever to the children of Israel and to the stranger who dwells among them. 11 He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven days. 12 He shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean. 13 Whoever touches the body of anyone who has died, and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the Lord. That person shall be cut off from Israel. He shall be unclean, because the water of purification was not sprinkled on him; his uncleanness is still on him. 14 This is the law when a man dies in a tent: All who come into the tent and all who are in the tent shall be unclean seven days; 15 and every open vessel, which has no cover fastened on it, is unclean. 16 Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain by a sword or who has died, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. 17 And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin, and running water shall be put on them in a vessel. 18 A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, sprinkle it on the tent, on all the vessels, on the persons who were there, or on the one who touched a bone, the slain, the dead, or a grave. 19 The clean person shall sprinkle the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, wash his clothes, and bathe in water; and at evening he shall be clean. 20 But the man who is unclean and does not purify himself, that person shall be cut off from among the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the Lord. The water of purification has not been sprinkled on him; he is unclean. 21 It shall be a perpetual statute for them. He who sprinkles the water of purification shall wash his clothes; and he who touches the water of purification shall be unclean until evening.”

The circumcision apostles would not go against God’s covenant (Act 10:28). Their ministry before the body of Christ began seems to have been to their brothers (Isa 66:18-23; Mat 10:5-15; 28:18-20 with Act 10:28 in view). They certainly had the Davidic kingdom in mind (Act 1:6). The gospel of the kingdom for them seems to be the good news that the long promised Davidic kingdom would be established.

The time of their trouble was near. Their marching orders had been given: “Go therefore” (Mat 28:19); and, “This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come” (Mat 24:14). As a baptism similar to Numbers 19 was essential for salvation under the Baptist’s and Christ’s ministries (Lk 3:3; Jo 3:5; Mk 16:15,16), so also was it under the ministry of the twelve (Act 2:38).

Even after the body of Christ began with the salvation of Paul, we see that water baptism is still necessary it (present tense) saves the circumcision believers. 1 Pe 3:20,21 “who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Of course, we have no record of a circumcision apostle evangelizing after Cornelius was saved. The only activity we read about in the Bible concerning the circumcision apostles is their written ministry. This was extremely important because it was preparing the covenant people for their prophesied time of trouble. That’s why this epistle and the other circumcision epistles had to be written-for the future time of tribulation when the gospel of the circumcision would present the method of salvation.

Since we can make a strong case for the body of Christ starting within a year of Pentecost, what other time could these epistles have been written? When we contrast the message of salvation in those epistles, to the gospel in Paul’s epistles, we can see the dramatic change.

This is why I believe all of the circumcision epistles were written after the beginning of the body of Christ.

United in the body of Christ,
Bob Hill

[This message has been edited by Bob Hill (edited 11-13-2000).]

IP: Logged

Bob Hill
Administrator
Posts: 694
From:Dupont, Colorado, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
posted 01-06-2001 10:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless,
With the info from the thread on Mary, I would like to know if the material on this thread made any sense to you.

I would tend to say that a sentence within a sentence is dangerous even though I think Bob is an outstanding theologian. I need all the words. Every one may be significant.

Bob

IP: Logged

stainless
Member
Posts: 52
From:Portage, PA USA
Registered: Sep 2000
posted 01-06-2001 11:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Hill
>>>With the info from the thread on Mary, I would like to know if the material on this thread made any sense to you.<<<

Did it make sense? Well, I understood what you were saying and why you were saying it. I didn't necessarily agree with what you were saying, but I think it "made sense". I'm not sure exactly what link there is/was to the Mary thread either...

stainless

IP: Logged

Bob Hill
Administrator
Posts: 694
From:Dupont, Colorado, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
posted 09-19-2001 02:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you understand the material on the circumcision epistles-Hebrews, James, 1,2,Peter, 1,2,3,John, Jude and Revelation?
They are very consistent as a group of letters, but they are inconsistent with Paul's epistles because they were written to circumcision believers.

In Christ,
Bob

IP: Logged

Justin
New Member
Posts: 6
From:Altoona PA
Registered: Sep 2001
posted 09-19-2001 03:43 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you understand the material on the circumcision epistles-Hebrews, James, 1,2,Peter, 1,2,3,John, Jude and Revelation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand, basically, the general mid-acts position, yes. I'm sure I've missed some parts, but I've interacted with Ax9ers for nearly 2 years over at theologyonline, and I've read some material (by enyart, for example). I understand, I just disagree.

Justin

------------------
If we'd go again all the way from the start, I would try to change the things that killed our love, my pride has built a wall, so strong that I can't get through, Is there really no chance, to start once again? I'm loving you...

IP: Logged

Bob Hill
Administrator
Posts: 694
From:Dupont, Colorado, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
posted 09-19-2001 07:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin,
You asked,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I'm the one confusing! What I meant to ask was why didn't the circumcision books/letters mention the gospel of grace that much? You touch on this later, I just wanted to clarify what I was asking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul called his gospel that was given to him by the resurrected Lord, the gospel of grace: Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

When Paul had gone up to Jerusalem in Acts 15, he went up to tell them about the new gospel that Christ had given to him. Gal 2:2-7 “And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision had been committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter”.

When we look at 2 Peter 3:15,16, I think we can see why the gospel of grace was not mentioned by the Apostles of the Circumcision, except there, because Peter wrote: “and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

The gospel of grace, with its absence of law keeping, would have caused problems for them, “things hard to understand”.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

====================================

Questions & Answers
I John (Page 2)

This topic is 2 pages long:
Author Topic: I John
Justin
New Member
Posts: 6
From:Altoona PA
Registered: Sep 2001
posted 09-25-2001 03:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Hill

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you disagree that there are difficult problems in the Circumcision Epistles that cannot be reconciled with the salvation by faith alone material in Paul’s Epistles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you disagree that there are two methods of salvation in the two groups of epistles,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
][Do you disagree] that works are a necessary expression of faith is the Circumcision Epistles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said in the other thread, I believe that "positively responding" to God is necessary, and yes, that includes human efforts, like repenting of sins, confessing belief in the Lord, etc. etc.

------------------
If we'd go again all the way from the start, I would try to change the things that killed our love, my pride has built a wall, so strong that I can't get through, Is there really no chance, to start once again? I'm loving you...

[This message has been edited by Justin (edited 09-25-2001).]

This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/8/2001 3:34 AM (GMT -6)

chance, and/or others...

Just above this is a post with a clip from Bob's website. The very last one a "Justin" from Altoona, PA was responding to Bob's questions. at least as I read Bob's questions, and seemingly in the context of the rest of what was on his site, bob seemed to hold the positions in his questions, and Justin disagreed with Bob'b position on those issues. Here are the three issues, with Justin's responses.

chance, you and 1way seemed to give partial answers. In the above it "all hangs out." This way, maybe, you can discuss it with someone who wants to continue this discussion. (I'm done, but might join in if anyone esle is interested--like if there is 3 or 4.)

Q1==Bob Hill: Do you disagree that there are difficult problems in the Circumcision Epistles that cannot be reconciled with the salvation by faith alone material in Paul’s Epistles?
A1==Justin: Yes.

Q2==Bob Hill: Do you disagree that there are two methods of salvation in the two groups of epistles,
A2==Justin: Yes.

Q2==Bob Hill: [Do you disagree] that works are a necessary expression of faith is the Circumcision Epistles?
A2==Justin: As I said in the other thread, I believe that "positively responding" to God is necessary, and yes, that includes human efforts, like repenting of sins, confessing belief in the Lord, etc. etc.

Well, I think that Bob's questions pretty well sketch out his position. I pretty much like Justin's answers.

PoW

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 12/10/2001 11:00 PM (GMT -6)

Been busy, though I bet the break will have been helpful.

Pow said

quote:
quote:
Chance, you wrote this way: I see the threat that God makes in Jer 18:9-10 restated again in Luke 13:9b and acted upon after the fourth year had come to an end (Luke 13:8). Does that make things a bit clearer?

PoW: I find that patronizing. A boxing in, too, as if to insist that there is only one correct answer and that you have it. This is what I first encountered in Bob and 1way...and remember from the Late Great Planet Earth days of the 70s. It doesn't fit so well outside Dispensationalism, I think it belongs more in a algebra or geometry class.

That is hilarious! I state part of my take on Luke 13:6-9 you respond with "I find that patronizing. A boxing in, too, as if to insist that there is only one correct answer and that you have it." Of course giving my interpretation of a parable will sound exactly like I'm insisting that there is only ONE correct answer and that I have it. I am giving my interpretation of the parable! Then you say that my interpretation only seems to fit well within Dispensationalism. I utterly reject that. I am almost certain that the interpretation I give this parable could work within a nondispensational theology. The only problem I have with supporting that is that I have never read an interpretation of this parable (that says anything significant about the parable) outside of anyone who holds to the Acts 9/Open view save for Augustine. And his take on the parable I find to be untenable and unhelpful. Do you know what Augustine said about this parable? If not, here it is

quote:
1. Touching "the fig-tree" which had its three years' trial, and bare no fruit, and "the woman which was in an infirmity eighteen years," hearken to what the Lord may grant me to say. The fig-tree is the human race. And the three years are the three times; one before the Law, the second under the Law, the third under grace. Now there is nothing unsuitable in understanding by "the fig-tree" the human race. For when the first man sinned, he covered his nakedness with fig-leaves;1 covered those members, from which we derive our birth. For what before his sin should have been his glory, after sin became his shame. So before that, "they were naked, and were not ashamed."2 For they had no reason to blush, when no sin had gone before; nor could they blush for their Creator's works, because they had not yet mingled any evil work of their own with the good works of their Creator. For they had not yet eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of which they had been forbidden to eat. After then that they had eaten and sinned, the human race sprang from them; that is, man from man, debtor from debtor, mortal from mortal, sinner from sinner. In this "tree" then he entitles those, who through the whole range of time would not bear fruit; and for this cause the axe was hanging over the unfruitful tree. The gardener intercedes for it, punishment is deferred, that help may be administered. Now the gardener who intercedes, is every saint who within the Church prays for those who are without the Church. And what does he pray? "Lord, let it alone this year also;" that is, in this time of grace, spare the sinners, spare the unbelievers, spare the barren, spare the unfruitful. "I will dig about it, and put a basket of dung about it; if it bear fruit, well; but if not, thou shall come and cut it down."3 "Thou shall come:" When? Thou shalt come in judgment, when Thou shall come to judge the quick and dead. Meanwhile they are spared. But what is the "digging "? What is the "digging about it," but the teaching lowliness and repentance? For a ditch is low ground. The basket of dung understand in its good effects. It is filthy, but it produces fruit. The gardener's filth is the sinner's sorrows. They who repent, repent in filthy robes; if, that is, they understand aright, and repent in truth. To this tree then is it said, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."4 --Augustine sermon 60 on the Gospels

What do you think of Augustine's interpretation of this parable?

you said

quote:
PoW: One problem is that it leaves no width to the OT message or to the NT.

What does that mean? Why is the "width" of the message of the Old and New Testament messages a concern when interpreting one parable? Please point out the width of the NT message in Luke 13:6-9 if you can.

quote:
Plainly, as far as that one tree goes it is a narrow statement.

Amen! (though Augustine disagrees)

quote:
But haven't you caught that I sincerely consider God to use the literal (as in the limits of the nation of Israel, for a good example) as in some ways illustrative of something behind it all. If not, if you can't pick that up from me, or find it difficult to follow, then our discussion will continue to be hampered.

I have picked that up a bit and I believe I agree to some extent. COuld you give me an example or two of this concept to help me understand what you mean?

quote:
PoW: In this vein I had said: "It was not the literal law, but what was on their hearts, AND their ministry of offering back to God eucharistically that was Israel; not their lineage. Nahum joins this--and ends up in Luke."

Yes, and Christ's ministry was directed towards Israel, not Gentiles and Samaritans, even in Luke. Before He ascended He told them to go convert Israel first (Luke 24:47) so that the nation of Israel could eventually evangelize the world as God had wanted the nation to do one day. I do realize that just because someone did not become a proselyte Jew did not mean that their damnation was guaranteed. But Gen 17:11 was still binding upon those in Israel nonetheless. If their sons were not circumcised they would be cut off. To whom much is given much is expected and vice-versa you know (Luke 12:48).

quote:
quote:
chance: "If this passage is evidence that Luke's account of Christ's words and deeds was written for Gentiles then why wouldn't Christ's healing of the Canaanite woman's daughter in Matt 15:22-28 also be evidence for a Gentile audience?"

PoW: COME ON! This was a scholarly book by a seasoned professional, with sources in the insets that would make you take notice. Don't be that way. I find good reason to accept the set of framings that the book gave for Mt, Mk and Lk. (In the mean time I certainly don't feel motivated to go find the book and type stuff so that you can turn up your nose at it.)

Oh, that's nice. I've already said that it doesn't matter whether or not Luke was put together in a way that would make it easier for Gentiles to understand what Christ's ministry was about and who it was directed to. Yet, you say that if you post the substance behind the claim that Luke was written for Gentiles that I'll just stick my nose up at it. Yeah, that's helpful to the discussion to say things like that

. I'll just look it up myself.

quote:
quote:
springs: "Are you trying to say by pointing out Luke 4:27 that God's relationship to Israel and the Gentile nations was the same then as it is now after the mystery has been revealed? Or are you saying something else?"

PoW: I'm not trying to think within the RUBRICs that you are. maybe to you this is a "plus-2" or a "negative-2"; but to me it might be a "pear."

First of all, why did you call me springs? Second, I've never heard anyone use the word "rubrics" to refer to the way I am thinking. Let me look it up here. Got it.

quote:
ru·bric (rbrk)
n.

A class or category: “This mission is sometimes discussed under the rubric of ‘horizontal escalation’... from conventional to nuclear war” (Jack Beatty).
A title; a name.
A part of a manuscript or book, such as a title, heading, or initial letter, that appears in decorative red lettering or is otherwise distinguished from the rest of the text.
A title or heading of a statute or chapter in a code of law.
Ecclesiastical. A direction in a missal, hymnal, or other liturgical book.
An authoritative rule or direction.
A short commentary or explanation covering a broad subject.
Red ocher.

Is that what you were refering to?

Not sure how you could not get a 2+2 type of thing out of this. Rom 11:30 says "For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience". See the "have now obtained"? There was a significant change that transpired that made it possible to say yet have NOW obtained. It wasn't so before this change. Now it is so. Saying "now" makes no sense if there is no before or after around it. 2+2=4. Nothing wrong with that, right. Remember abother place where Paul writes "now"? Remember Eph 3:10 just a few posts above? There came a point in history where it could be said NOW the mystery has been revealed by God. It was not revealed previous to this "now" (Eph 3:8-9). But "now" is here. It's finally arrived and the mystery has been revealed in this "now". Any problems with that at all?

quote:
PoW: As I wrote a few posts ago, I see this as a PARABLE, and not an ALLEGORY. and I pretty much subscribe to the version that says a parable has one major point--not several. I'll modify that to accept the spiritual lessons many have found in them. But that doesn't follow literalistic paths. That leaves us two different places. And I'm VERY comfortable where I am. And when I told you my answer you maybe felt like I hadn't even begun answering the question. Is that right?

Well, yeah, that's how I felt. I believe the one major point is that it is a warning to Israel similar to the warnings God has given elsewhere (Ex 19:4-6; Jer 18:7-10). If Israel does not produce fruit by the end of the fourth year the fig tree will be cut down. There, was that one point major "major" enough for you? Were the surrounding minor points like the "one more year" and Israel being "cut down" OK too? I have another significant minor point also. I believe that the digging around and fertilizing of the fig tree occured when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost in Acts 2. What do you think of that?

quote:
Springs, as to "Distraction/Distortion" issues we will both have to be our own judges. Do you really understand what I'm saying there. It didn't sound like it. I got THAT not from anything that YOU said; but it was crystal clear in what Bob presented. (in 1way it is even more brash!) The outline and its definitions affect how the verses are considered and digested. YOU are smarter than that. Like I say, YOU decide for yourself how much that is true, for you. But I suspect that it is more than the "telling of the story more intelligible for me and others" in that it makes you expect to find one thing or another. An example of this kind of mental dynamic, taken from the next room where my son is reciting the Luke X-mas story, of the angels, is the "good will towards men" (KJV/RSV) versus "to men on whom his favor rests" (NIV--the more Calvinist).
PoW: "WE ALL DO IT!!!"

Yes, I understand that very well. I know that developing a certain scheme or, more accurately, PLOT from Scripture guides the way I read the Bible and leads me to different conclusions that others who don't recognize the same plot as I do would be lead. It's a matter of comparing the best and most Scripturally accurate plot lines to see who tells the best story.

Oh, I believe that the difference between the KJV/RSV and the NIV has its basis in textual criticism. I believe the Greek is formulated differently between the two or something like that. I've read of it before. Will try to find some info on it soon to share with others.

quote:
quote:
chance: OK. What do you believe verse 9 is telling us?

PoW: I always hated leading Sunday School questions.

quote:
quote:
chance: I also find a helpful timeline within the parable that helps me to understand why the events in Acts happened as they did. Do you see this also?

PoW: I really don't think that is what the parable is trying to do. It feels like you are forcing it!

Do you agree that the "certain [man]" who "had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it" for "three years" and "found none" is Jesus? If so, then how can the "this year also" not be something like one year? Is the fig tree going to be cut down after that year or not? Do you think it's been extended to about 2,000 years? I think it means around one year because of what happens around one year later as described in Scripture. What do you think?

quote:
I'm repeating myself, aren't I? I'm just not comfortable with your hermeneutic. (I'm running out of steam before Christmas vacation too!)

I'm not comfortable with your hermeneutic either. Not sure I really understand it yet. Maybe if you had a book I could read that presented it better.

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

Edited by - chance on 12/11/2001 10:15:48 AM

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 12/11/2001 6:04 AM (GMT -6)

POW said

quote:
IF YOU START WITH THE PRESUPPOSITION THAT DIFFERENCES ARE ALL GOING TO BE "DISPENSATIONS" THEN WHAT YOU FIND WILL TEND TO REENFORCE THAT, WHETHER OR NOT EACH IS AS SIGNIFICANT AS THE LAST.

BOB, ON HIS SITE, DISCUSSED ROMANS 8 WITH A PAUL D., AND MADE REMARKS ABOUT HOW NON-CALVINST TEXTS ARE FRAMED BY CALVINIST TRANSLATERS TO APPEAR CALVINIST. THAT IS A FAIR COMMENT. BUT THE METHOD OF HIS THEO 101 CLASS IS AS "LEADING."

AM I FAIR. DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. I WON'T BE INTERESTED TO DISCUSS IT. BUT I THOUGHT THIS POST NECESSARY TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT I'D SAID ABOVE--TO NOT LEAVE YOU WONDERING...

Of course it's "leading". The class is Dispensationalism 101! It's a class that is about Dispensational Theology for crying out loud.

you said

quote:
Chance, HERE seems to be a live discussion on Bob's site that is about what THIS thread was supposed to be about. I THOUROUGHLY DISAGREE WITH AND SEE NO NEED FOR what it contains. But it is more "there" than ever was here.

I believe that only Paul's epistles are addressed to the Body of Christ. I do not believe that the rest of Scripture is because it does not have the mystery or the house rules of the grace of God that were given to Paul in mind when it was written. Show me where you see this new revelation to Paul in the rest of Scripture and I will concede that it may have been addressed to us.

I do not believe that James was written to us, the Body, because he does not address it to the Body. Do you think the following greeting is one that would be given to a letter written to those in the Body? If so, please explain.

quote:
James 1:1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad [diaspora]: Greetings.

Could you possibly use a greeting that was more against the reality of the Body of Christ (where there is neither Jew or Greek) than this? Again, if you can somehow explain how such a letter addressed to such a specific group could be seen as address to the Body of Christ, please enlighten me.

To make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery,

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/11/2001 11:40 AM (GMT -6)

Dear Chance:

We began this exchange transparently, and I will end it also, without ambiguity. I won't refer to this as being a conversation. (We didn't get anywhere.) But I might attach these tow post-notes.

1. Where you challenge "Show me where you see this new revelation to Paul in the rest of Scripture and I will concede that it may have been addressed to us." I can repeat myself and say that I (and Modes) don't consider it new. it was long promised, and anticipated in more than just verbiage It was part of the woodwork all the time, ready at the right time to emerge. So I'd change your sentence--which you wouldn't like. Also, I did show many ways, and you ignored or discounted them. Since I answered and my answers still vividly resound for me...we are at an impasse.

2. You said: "...explain how such a letter addressed to such a specific group could be seen as address to the Body of Christ..." To this I just say, or ask a question right back at you, of how a group as big as the Body itself could see those books as being addressed to the Body and make them cannon in that context? They did it. I assent to the guidance of the Spirit of that. Settled. If this is an impasse too, then....

Absolutely nothing off of you, but for me to be back on this topic it would have to be in a multiple directional exchange. I'm very tired of impassed, axionomical-diagrement arguments.

I'm off for something else.

Thanks!

PotOnWheel

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 12/15/2001 12:01 AM (GMT -6)

POW said

quote:
We began this exchange transparently, and I will end it also, without ambiguity. I won't refer to this as being a conversation. (We didn't get anywhere.)

I believe the reasons we didn't get that far were 1) your unwillingness to agree with me on some points because of my association with the somewhat "dispensational" view I hold and 2) your inability to communicate your own view effectively and intelligibly.

I found your insistence that the mystery that Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15:51 is also revealed in the Transfiguration account as somewhat desperate. A desperate attempt to try and show that the mystery that Paul speaks of was not actually a mystery (that is, a secret that has now been revealed), but that it was revealed earlier. Of course the Transfiguration deals with Christ prior to His obtaining His resurrected and glorified incorruptible body which is what Paul is refering to in 1 Cor 15:51-55 but the fact that the Transfiguration is the transfiguring of Christ's common human body (the likeness of sinful flesh) didn't seem to matter to you one bit. That's why I see what you were attempting to show as desperate. Are many EOs like this?

quote:
1. Where you challenge "Show me where you see this new revelation to Paul in the rest of Scripture and I will concede that it may have been addressed to us." I can repeat myself and say that I (and Modes) don't consider it new. it was long promised, and anticipated in more than just verbiage It was part of the woodwork all the time, ready at the right time to emerge. So I'd change your sentence--which you wouldn't like.

I agree that what God was doing in history would one day come to the point where He would reveal the mystery. I believe He could have revealed it at different times based upon how those He was working with responded. He could have revealed it soon after Adam ate from the Tree of Life. He could have revealed it sometime after Israel accepted the kingdom with Christ as its king in early Acts (Acts 3:19-26). And, obviously, God could have since He did so reveal the mystery when He casted away Israel and raised up Paul (Rom 11:11-12,15,20,30-32). So, yes I believe God was wroking up to revealiong the mystery, but it was not knowable apart from God revealing it. And until God revealed the mystery no one could be held accountable for believing it and living according to it or not doing so. Eph 3:8-9 specificly tells us that the mystery was not made known until it was revealed at the present time through Paul (Eph 3:3-6 Cf. Rom 16:25; Col 1:26). No one knew and no one acted upon the mystery because God had not revealed it. Without God revealing it it remained unknowable and unpreachable.

quote:
Also, I did show many ways, and you ignored or discounted them.

The Transfiguration did not reveal any mystery to anyone. I explained above why the transfiguration could not be counted as a revelation by God of the mystery that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 15.

Also, God still worked within the covenant guidelines He had earlier established with Israel even though He saved Namaan. What God did for Namaan is not equivalent in any way to Him revealing the mystery that is spoken of in Eph 3 or Col 1. Otherwise, the statements made about the mystery not being revealed prior to its being revealed to Paul are false (Eph 1:9; 3:3-11; Col 1:26).

quote:
Since I answered and my answers still vividly resound for me...we are at an impasse.

For your answers to "resound for" you you must ignore clear statements made in Scripture to the contrary (Eph 3:9 and those like it).

quote:
2. You said: "...explain how such a letter addressed to such a specific group could be seen as address to the Body of Christ..." To this I just say, or ask a question right back at you, of how a group as big as the Body itself could see those books as being addressed to the Body and make them cannon in that context? They did it. I assent to the guidance of the Spirit of that. Settled. If this is an impasse too, then....

So just because a book is in the Bible it is addressed to us? Really? So Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Hosea are addressed to us too? I deny that a book's inclusion in the canon necessarily implies that it is addressed to us. It is definitely for us, but that does not mean it is addressed to us. If I am reading Scripture that was written without knowledge of the mystery or the house rules of the grace of God then I must take that into account. And so I do

quote:
Absolutely nothing off of you, but for me to be back on this topic it would have to be in a multiple directional exchange. I'm very tired of impassed, axionomical-diagrement arguments.

You quit, we both lose. At least I'm not the quitter.

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

Edited by - chance on 12/15/2001 05:47:36 AM

Edited by - chance on 12/16/2001 05:03:48 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/18/2001 4:47 PM (GMT -6)

TryTHIS.

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/18/2001 9:48:26 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/18/2001 4:52 PM (GMT -6)

THIS WILL BE MY LAST POST ON THIS SITE. i'M MOVING OVER TO THE "TRANSFIGURATION" SITE. BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT I AM GOING TO, OR WANT TO CONVINCE ANY DISPENSATIONALISTS OF ANYTHING. AND SINCE IT IS HARD TO TREAT CHANCE AS SOMETHING MORE THAN THAT HERE -- AND HE SEEMS TO DESERVE MORE -- MAYBE A CHANGE OF ADDRESS IS GOOD.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN E-MAIL OF MINE TO CHANCE. I PRESUME THAT CHANCES E-MAIL IS JUST WHAT HE POSTED HERE. SO THIS SEEMS OK TO DO.

- PoW
===========================================

== MY RESPONSE WILL BE WITH THESE MARKS ON EACH END. ==

I hit the send button by mistake. Here is my finished e-mail I intended to send.
I am sending this to you in case you haven't read this yet.

POW said: We began this exchange transparently, and I will end it also, without ambiguity. I won't refer to this as being a conversation. (We didn't get anywhere.)

I believe the reasons we didn't get that far were 1) your unwillingness to agree with me on some points because of my association with the somewhat "dispensational" view I hold and 2) your inability to communicate your own view effectively and intelligibly.

== This (above) style of writing does not earn one an audience. ==

I found your insistence that the mystery that Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15:51 is also revealed in the Transfiguration account as somewhat desperate. A desperate attempt to try and show that the mystery that Paul speaks of was not actually a mystery (that is, a secret that has now been revealed), but that it was revealed earlier. Of course the Transfiguration deals with Christ prior to His obtaining His resurrected and glorified incorruptible body which is what Paul is refering to in 1 Cor 15:51-55 but the fact that the Transfiguration is the transfiguring of Christ's common human body (the likeness of sinful flesh) didn't seem to matter to you one bit. That's why I see what you were attempting to show as desperate. Are many EOs like this?

== Ask one (EO); I'm not. But don't ask EOs if they are "desparate!" Let me make this clear right away. That style of writing will not keep any discussion going with me.

== As to content in the above paragraph: "mystery" first calls to my mind something that is beyond reduction to mere rational examination. By the definition you use, I can see how you find problems. By my definition, for me, there are no problems. I won't tell you not to use your definition -- I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. But I really don't expect you to try and prevent me from using mine either. I'm assuming that is OK. ==

== I truthfully think that the Transfiguration was DIRECT EVIDENCE of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15:51-55 (1 Corinthians 15: 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." 55 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"). You asked/said, chance: "the fact that the Transfiguration is the transfiguring of Christ's common human body (the likeness of sinful flesh)..." And Paul says above: "the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality" And if I read you correctly, you seem to imply that these two statements are different. ==

== We are REALLY on differnet wave lengths. ==

== So as you said, it: "didn't seem to matter to (me) one bit." Yup! ==

== The OCA site says of the Transfiguration: "The Transfiguration of Christ reveals to us our ultimate destiny as Christians, the ultimate destiny of all men and all creation to be transformed and glorified by the majestic splendor of God himself." ==

== Good enough for me! ==

quote:
1. Where you challenge "Show me where you see this new revelation to Paul in the rest of Scripture and I will concede that it may have been addressed to us." I can repeat myself and say that I (and Modes) don't consider it new. it was long promised, and anticipated in more than just verbiage It was part of the woodwork all the time, ready at the right time to emerge. So I'd change your sentence--which you wouldn't like.

I agree that what God was doing in history would one day come to the point where He would reveal the mystery. I believe He could have revealed it at different times based upon how those He was working with responded. He could have revealed it soon after Adam ate from the Tree of Life. He could have revealed it sometime after Israel accepted the kingdom with Christ as its king in early Acts (Acts 3:19-26). And, obviously, God could have since He did so reveal the mystery when He casted away Israel and raised up Paul (Rom 11:11-12,15,20,30-32). So, yes I believe God was wroking up to revealiong the mystery, but it was not knowable apart from God revealing it. And until God revealed the mystery no one could be held accountable for believing it and living according to it or not doing so. Eph 3:8-9 specificly tells us that the mystery was not made known until it was revealed at the present time through Paul (Eph 3:3-6 Cf. Rom 16:25; Col 1:26). No one knew and no one acted upon the mystery because God had not revealed it. Without God revealing it it remained unknowable and unpreachable.

Quote: Also, I did show many ways, and you ignored or discounted them.

The Transfiguration did not reveal any mystery to anyone. I explained above why the transfiguration could not be counted as a revelation by God of the mystery that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 15.

Also, God still worked within the covenant guidelines He had earlier established with Israel even though He saved Namaan. What God did for Namaan is not equivalent in any way to Him revealing the mystery that is spoken of in Eph 3 or Col 1. Otherwise, the statements made about the mystery not being revealed prior to its being revealed to Paul are false (Eph 1:9; 3:3-11; Col 1:26).

quote: Since I answered and my answers still vividly resound for me...we are at an impasse.

For your answers to "resound for" you you must ignore clear statements made in Scripture to the contrary (Eph 3:9 and those like it).

quote:
2. You said: "...explain how such a letter addressed to such a specific group could be seen as address to the Body of Christ..." To this I just say, or ask a question right back at you, of how a group as big as the Body itself could see those books as being addressed to the Body and make them cannon in that context? They did it. I assent to the guidance of the Spirit of that. Settled. If this is an impasse too, then....

So just because a book is in the Bible it is addressed to us? Really? So Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Hosea are addressed to us too? I deny that a book's inclusion in the canon necessarily implies that it is addressed to us. It is definitely for us, but that does not mean it is addressed to us. If I am reading Scripture that was written without knowledge of the mystery or the house rules of the grace of God then I must take that into account. And so I do.

== I started collecting verses from Hosea. i suppose you picked a tough one. But ITS THERE TOO! The book deals only with Israel, insofar as it deals with people. Not too universal in scope -- not beyond Israel. But where it addresses the OTHER part of the effects of the fall it presents the promise (preaches the gospel) for Israel' s land AND the whole rest of the earth. for those with eyes to see (I'm talking about THEM, and not trying to one-up you!!!) it is there for them to have seen -- if their hearts were enlightened!

quote:
Absolutely nothing off of you, but for me to be back on this topic it would have to be in a multiple directional exchange. I'm very tired of impassed, axionomical-diagrement arguments.

You quit, we both lose. At least I'm not the quitter.

chance

== sticks and..... ==

I have several books that are on my reading list for the next several months. They are Chris Hall's book Reading Scripture With the Church Fathers and Franke's Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, am reading through Searching for an Adequate God now. Going to read through the Four Views books on foreknowledge and time. Also going to read Paul Borgman's book,Genesis: The Story We Haven't Heard. Are there any that you would recommend that would help me better understand your way of doing theology?

== I am not a Theologian. So, I don't do theology. I can't stand not knowing things that affect me. And the Orthodox view of sprituality seems the best. That is important. I'm over the hill. Life and death. And what one's kids are exposed to too. I like Reformed theo. as to Escatology (parallels Orth.) and as to man, God and the creation (again, parallels Orth.). I try very hard not to be reactionary. to not try and be better than someone. To not turn up my nose; but rather would LIKE to bring folks along. (But I'm not the one to be persuasive.) ==

I told a friend at Huntington what you said about the parable in Luke 13:6-9. Specificly how you said that a parable has "one major point" and how that belief made the "minor points" that I believed were in the parable ( 1) Christ's three year ministry 2) the possible cutting down of the fig tree at the end of the fourth year 3) Pentecost being the fertilizing of the fig tree) disappear and rendered the parable useless as a guide for how early Acts unfolded . He immediately said "How Evangelical of him".
====Yes, how Evalgelical of me--no surprise!--and how Reformed. I agree (but I don't know what the 4 you mention below are) with the EO that Western and particularly moderns look down at and steriotype what the Early Fathers did. I read those text books. Turns out their critique was wrong. But, chance, IT WAS YOU who posted a long piece by Augustine. My take on that was that you were humiliating him, post mortum. No way was I going to try and present something complicated to you. The explanation of ONE POINT served fine in contrasting to what you were doing.==== He mentioned how the church looked at Scripture as having four different meanings and how evangelicals look at Scripture as having just one divinely intended meaning. ====I was presenting one LITERARY meaning==== I have heard of this in the past, but haven't looked into it a great deal. I bet I'll read more about it in Hall's book. I met Chris Hall about two months ago when he came to Huntington to do some public dialogue with Sanders. Do you know him at all? Neat guy for a classical theist.

== I've started the thread on the Transfiguration. ==

== - PoW ==

=============================

SEE YOU ON THE TRANSFIGURATION THREAD.

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 12/19/2001 7:15 PM (GMT -6)

POW,

This is what I believe about the mystery that was revealed to Paul.

It was no mystery that God wanted Israel to win Gentiles to Judaism. But the mystery is quite different in our view of the Scriptures. The mystery is defined in Ephesians 3:2-6 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages (ho eterais geneais – which in other generations) was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel.” I think there are a number of points we should consider in this passage:

1. The dispensation of grace was given to Paul for the Gentiles. When we read Galatians 1 and 2, we see that the gospel associated with the mystery was revealed by Christ only to Paul. In the same way, God revealed the mystery only to Paul. Then we see that Paul told the mystery to, and the Holy Spirit revealed it to the holy apostles and prophets.

2. This mystery was hidden from the ages and generations in God until it was revealed to Paul. This, literally, is: the dispensation of the mystery which has been hid from the ages in God (hay oikonomia tou mustayriou tou apokekrummenou apo; twn aiwvnwn en tw thew). According to Ephesians 3:9, it cannot be traced out. (anexicniaston – untraceable, that cannot be searched out.) That means we cannot find anything about the mystery in the Old Testament, the Gospels or until Paul’s conversion in Acts 9.

3. There is a new creation, not an acceptance of minority Gentiles as they convert to Judaism. Instead, the walls are broken down. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ. There is one new man, the body of Christ. This is clear in Ephesians 2:14-16: “For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.” Colossians 3:9-11 is similar: “Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.”

There are many ramifications of this. Paul instructed us to be followers of him in 1 Corinthians 4:16, “Therefore I urge you, imitate me”, and 11:1, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ”. Paul’s and our commission is found in Ephesians as we continue in 3:7-9: “of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.” I believe this means that we all have the responsibility not only to evangelize, but to make all see the dispensation of the mystery, that is, the relationships and differences between the different dispensations.

The mystery was revealed in Paul’s first epistle, Galatians. The mystery’s essence is in Galatians 3:26-29: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” This is the secret that was hidden from the ages in God. In addition, Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians tells us of the practical hidden wisdom which pertains to us, the mystery body. 1 Corinthians 2:6-8: “However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”

He also showed how we get into this body in 1 Co 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free – and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” Then, in Paul’s last epistle before he was thrown into prison, he wrote in Romans 12:5, “So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.” In 16:25-27 of that same book he wrote, “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 (Literally, kept secret in age times cronois aiwniois sesigaymenou) 26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures (Paul’s epistles.) has been made known to all the Gentiles, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith.”

Therefore, I conclude that the mystery was revealed to Paul first. It was also revealed very early in his ministry. He continued receiving further revelations until the apex of this truth was given to him in the Roman prison in Ephesians and Colossians.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/20/2001 9:38 AM (GMT -6)

Bob, it is significant that you swap "sterwardship" or "commission" or "administration" for "dispensation" in your translation. Why do this? "Dispensation" sounds like a decisively new era where these other words do not. They merely indicate that there was a clear calling on Paul's life to do this given task, as the Lord leads. And verse 7, where Paul says he "was made a minister...." indicates that Paul is not necessarily alone or unique in this. If the point was to indicate the uniqueness of Paul's commission here surely the text would read "THE minister..." Even the content of the ministry is revealed (6) and we see tht Peter too knew this mystery....that Gentiles are fellow heirs.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 12/20/2001 10:54 AM (GMT -6)

Modes – As to

quote:
And verse 7, where Paul says he "was made a minister...." indicates that Paul is not necessarily alone or unique in this. If the point was to indicate the uniqueness of Paul's commission here surely the text would read "THE minister..." Even the content of the ministry is revealed (6) and we see that Peter too knew this mystery....that Gentiles are fellow heirs.

Bob was using those passages to show how Paul’s teaching is supposed to be ours too. Paul considered the differences between his gospel and Peter’s significant enough to give them two separate carriers to two separate people (in Gal 2) and all over Paul’s writings the circumcision and uncircumcision is variously referred to almost constantly, like around 50 occasions, even though he is the one who taught that in Christ there is no more Jew and Gentile. The two gospel theory makes sense here until the gospel unto the circumcision ended with their dispensation that ended when those people under that calling died. (1 Corinthians 7:18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.)

We also find Paul calling Peter a hypocrite over matters concerning unclean eating regulations as tied to the gospel itself! Paul’s gospel message had no such regulation about clean and unclean foods and law based observance, but the men come from James were close enough in faith to Peter’s faith to influence Peter to become hypocritical concerning the gospel especially because of their influence over the uncircumcision.

It seems that verse 14 demonstrates what behavior is going too far. It was ok for the Jew to act like a gentile in the midst of the gentiles, and elsewhere Paul clearly shows that it’s ok for a gentile to act like a Jew in the midst of the Jews. BUT, Paul did not try to make the Jew’s act like the gentiles out of respect for their gospel, and the Jews were not to compel the gentiles to live like the Jews out of respect for their gospel. Notice that Paul makes no distinction between Peter’s actions and the life of a Jew. I believe that Paul understood that Peter’s faith was still law based and everything would have been fine if they had not involved making their Jewish gospel practices something for the gentiles to follow. And naturally we see Paul go on a rant about us (the uncircumcision) not being under the law.

I think that Peter was a hypocrite not because his gospel still involved law based unclean (eating) regulations, but because he violated those of the uncircumcision who’s gospel was not bound to the law.

But again, what you said simply wasn’t consistent to what Bob said.

quote:
Paul instructed us to be followers of him in 1 Corinthians 4:16, “Therefore I urge you, imitate me”, and 11:1, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ”. Paul’s and our commission is found in Ephesians as we continue in 3:7-9: “of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.” I believe this means that we all have the responsibility not only to evangelize, but to make all see the dispensation of the mystery, that is, the relationships and differences between the different dispensations.

Let me emphasize what I believe you apparently misunderstood.

quote:
I believe this means that we all have the responsibility not only to evangelize, but to make all see the dispensation of the mystery, that is, the relationships and differences between the different dispensations.

I’m sure that Bob finds Paul’s personal uniqueness in other passages and in contextual relationship, like that he was personally given the dispensation of grace to give to us (Ephesians 2:3-5

Ephesians 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
... 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:),

and

1 Timothy 1:16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. I hope this helps.

Edited by - 1way on 12/20/2001 3:58:37 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/20/2001 11:13 AM (GMT -6)

1way, of course my qusetion wasn't "consistent to" what Bob said. I asked a simple question of method. Why take liberties with the text and insert "dispensation" where the other words i listed above are used in various translations. I hve no idea why you felt the need to expound on all of that other stuff. I am not particularly interested. So don't tell me. I just wanted to point out that it is conspicuous that we appearantly need a "Bob version" of the Bible to see the "Bob version" of the Gospel. 1way, try to stay a bit more focused.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 12/20/2001 1:03 PM (GMT -6)

Modes – As to my focus, sure I went off on a tangent as to “your” particulars, but not as to the general topic of this discussion. But you didn’t touch what was in direct response to “your particulars”. The following is the particular that I was referring to.

quote:
And verse 7, where Paul says he "was made a minister...." indicates that Paul is not necessarily alone or unique in this. If the point was to indicate the uniqueness of Paul's commission here surely the text would read "THE minister...

That wasn’t Bob’s focus. This is how I responded in hopes of a better understanding of Bob’s point.

quote:
... what you said simply wasn’t consistent to what Bob said.
quote:
Paul instructed us to be followers of him in 1 Corinthians 4:16, “Therefore I urge you, imitate me”, and 11:1, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ”. Paul’s and our commission is found in Ephesians as we continue in 3:7-9: “of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.” I believe this means that we all have the responsibility not only to evangelize, but to make all see the dispensation of the mystery, that is, the relationships and differences between the different dispensations.
Let me emphasize what I believe you apparently misunderstood.
quote:
I believe this means that we all have the responsibility not only to evangelize, but to make all see the dispensation of the mystery, that is, the relationships and differences between the different dispensations.
I’m sure that Bob finds Paul’s personal uniqueness in other passages and in contextual relationship, like that he was personally given the dispensation of grace to give to us (Ephesians 2:3-5

Ephesians 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
... 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:),

and

1 Timothy 1:16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. I hope this helps.

That is and was in focus as to the part quoted. I didn’t want to answer your entire post, just the aspect that I thought was more easily corrective by an outside view. It was a simple mistake and was evidently not your focus. I hope you can you see that you somewhat misstated Bob’s effort as to that one point, and that I have shown at least two other passages that do lend to the uniqueness of Paul’s ministry.

Edited by - 1way on 12/21/2001 01:20:20 AM

155 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:41 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual