quote:

---

Bob, chance, 1 way. Tell me if I'm terribly off on this.

---

I'd say significantly wrong, not "terribly". As to

quote:

---

Remember, that there is NOTHING wrong with asking questions of method.

---

I agree and welcome such mutual sharing. I was objecting to so much subjective aversion away from apologetically presented scripture, while at the same time raising manmade doctrines as though they were comparable, they are not. If a person's faith is ultimately based upon the supreme authority of God's word, then we must end up there, in working out whatever (fundamental) differences that occur.

I do not place God's word as an idol, nor do I violate it with excessive literalism. But, obviously, that is my personal opinion. The proof is in the pudding, comparison to God's word. Back to square one.

I think there has been a large amount of putting our cart before the horse, to one extent or the other. There has been most likely examinations of historical examples of dispensationalism, as well as the common critical opposition. Your citations and remarks are not grievous, but resemble accordingly. In fact I take your post as a friendly attempt to clear murky waters, and I appreciate that. However, I diverge significantly from those, I didn't even go read them. In particular, you suggest that we have done (all) the framing and emphasis, and you don't understand why we do it that way. That is not the case with myself (nor do I believe it's the case with my brothers in the Lord you mentioned).

I should mention that I have had some previous experience with the last site you mentioned, the one you liked, ("sabigail" = Shawn Abigail) that site does seem to have some fairly good dispensational information. But, if I recall correctly, he is KJV only, I am not, and we disagree on divorce and remarriage, I believe that God instituted it, regulated it (God does not regulate sin, He forbids it), and spoke of Himself as being implicated in divorce with the nation of Israel because of her harlotry. I think he views divorce in a more simplistic way, that it is basically always wrong or is a sin. I say it is sometimes the right and even the Godly thing to do, and that remarriage after divorce is not necessarily wrong.

"1Co 7:28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.".

Quite simply, the best theology is that which conforms most closely to the truth about God and His word.

God, and reality teaches us that the truth is both whole and in part, it is all together inextricably unified. (Remarks requested)

You can not reject any part of the truth, while at the same time claiming to accept or represent the truth. You must be faithful to the entire aspect of the truth, both general and specific, both contextually wide and narrow, and all points in between, if you intend on remaining faithful to the truth.

That is (at) the foundation of my personal methodology for Bible understanding. God wrote to us for a good reason, I lean of His words and ways for my understanding. There are many other considerations that also end up being highly fundamental, like the guidance of the indwelling HS and so on, but little else is as comprehensive and fundamental. So the first step and foundational precept is to affirm several general concepts about God that are easily and readily agreed upon by the most humble Bible students.

God is supreme and good and loving and true, His authority is ultimate.

The progression continues with the general (and specific) observations that

God is true, and faithful, and does not lie to us.

Therefore I affirm that God's word (in general/overview) and the words (specific/particulars) are both true and in complete harmony with each other. Is one more primary or foundational than the other? I say that in a certain way, yes it is. You should grasp the whole before you settle in the particulars. The reason should be manifest, when going from general (understanding) to specific (understanding), you have an easier time getting the details correct because the wider (and widest) context has already been taken into account. If you do the opposite, especially in a system like the Bible which has undoubtedly thousands of specific particulars and certainly hundreds of significant doctrines, and many many contextual themes and plot twists, you may never get the whole truth to agree in harmony. Such is the laws of conformity and foundational precepts. The more foundational the precept is, the more important it is to get that precept right. If you don't get the foundational precepts right, just like the man who built his house on the sand instead of the rock, the rest of his work (the particulars) will be subject to that error and does not hold integrity. So foundational principles matter exceedingly.

So far, all I have suggested is simply logical and effective methodology for understanding God's word. And I have said absolutely nothing about dispensationalism, because it is fully subsequent and resultant to these primary and foundational precepts.

Another foundational precept is that we need to align ourselves rhetorically concerning the reasons for why the writings were created. i.e. Who wrote the book, what was the occasion for the writing, who was the primary audience, what was the assumptions held by all relevant parties, when, where and why was it written, what is the common themes and overall focus, etc. etc. etc. etc.

God's word was created full of meaning and dynamic relationships, it is the job of the good bible student to orient himself to the intended meaning offered.

God created and imposed the dispensational changes, they are there for us to observe, and to learn from them, they are not for us to creatively invent from our own thinking. God emphasized their significance tacitly according to formal communications, and also overtly by clear demonstration. But because most Christians have been taught error concerning dispensational thought, most people naturally hold false views about it.

I believe that the same explanation holds true for the open view (for example), or any other aspect of my theology. These views are not primary, they are the result of the foundational precepts of right bible understanding. So I believe that my Bible understanding is not most fundamentally dispensational, rather, it's fundamentally an obedient and correct observation (and understanding) from God's word.

tTt

"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Edited by - 1way on 11/02/2001 01:54:13 AM

quote:

---

1way: you make a statement that "You cannot reject any part of the truth, while at the same time..." what about those who actively disagree with each other's interpretations of the truth, yet are still followers of Christ? Would you assume that people who don't agree with you are in the category of "rejecting the truth," and therefore are not representing the truth? It seems to me that you are painting a very narrow road for the rest of us to follow.

---

quote:

---

God, and reality teaches us that the truth is both whole and in part, it is all together inextricably unified. You can not reject any part of the truth, while at the same time claiming to accept or represent the truth. You must be faithful to the entire aspect of the truth, both general and specific, both contextually wide and narrow, and all points in between, if you intend on remaining faithful to the truth.

... the first step and foundational precept is to affirm several general concepts about God that are easily and readily agreed upon by the most humble Bible students.

God is supreme and good and loving and true, His authority is ultimate.

The progression continues with the following manifest general (and specific) observations:

God is true, and faithful, and does not lie to us.

Therefore I affirm that God's word (singular, in general/overview) and the words (the many, specific/particulars) are both true and in complete harmony with each other.

---

2
Next, we need to get the overview correct in order to allow the details their full contextual understandings.

quote:

---

You should grasp the whole before you settle in the particulars. The reason should be manifest, when going from general (understanding) to specific (understanding), you have an easier time getting the details correct because the wider (and widest) context has already been taken into account.

Such is the rules of conformity and foundational precepts. The more foundational the precept is, the more important it is to get that precept right. If you don't get the foundational precepts right, just like the man who built his house on the sand instead of the rock, the rest of his work (the resultant particulars) will all be built upon that same error and does not hold integrity. So foundational principles matter exceedingly.

---

3
Next, the rhetorical survey, is a huge foundational precept for right understanding, it involves discovering the dynamics involved that brought about the writing, it's very much like getting inside the minds of those involved way back then, reconstructing what happened, etc.

quote:

---

Another foundational precept is that we need to align ourselves rhetorically concerning the reasons for why the writings were created. i.e. Who wrote the book, what was the occasion for the writing, who was the primary audience, what was the assumptions held by all relevant parties, when, where and why was it written, what is the common themes and overall focus, etc. etc. etc. etc.

God's word was created full of meaning and dynamic relationships, it is the job of the good bible student to orient himself to the intended meaning offered.

---

4
Lastly, just a quick note about dispensational thought.

quote:

---

God created and imposed the dispensational changes, they are there for us to observe, and to learn from them, they are not for us to creatively invent from our own thinking. God emphasized their significance tacitly according to formal communications, and also overtly by clear demonstration. And sometimes, as in the case of the present dispensation of Grace, He plainly expounds about it.

---

Precept upon precept, we build our house of faith and understanding of God's word, as directed by God's word.

The following may be a fitting example of how contextual relationships are nearly veiled and yet can yield tremendous rewards. Could you imagine the sort of Bible quiz that Jesus could create for even the most able Bible expositors? We get a glimpse of His contextual awareness from the following NT example. Jesus was known and called, "the son of David".

quote:

---

Mt 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David."

(They gave the correct answer(!) to the first question. But more importantly, Jesus' follow up question demonstrated that contextually speaking, they did not understand what they were speaking about. Jesus strongly alluded to the proper contextual understanding and demonstrated how their general understanding was lacking. But don't forget, they answered the first question correctly because of their familiarity with that particular detail. If only they first respected the context it belongs to, particularly the one Jesus mentioned, then perhaps the details would have fit in together without their misunderstanding.)

43 He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him `Lord,' saying: 44 `The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"'? 45 "If David then calls Him `Lord,' how is He his Son?" (loud baffling silence) 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.

---

We have the mind of Christ, we certainly have more revelation from God over what was intended, yet perhaps the most important lesson to be learned here is the benefit of seeking and learning and understanding the proper context. Jesus demonstrated that the details are subject to contextual implications by sometimes overlooked relationships that should be correctly understood prior to judging over them.

God, through Paul, says

quote:

---

Ro 1:3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

---

So we see that Jesus is called to son of David because that is His earthly lineage and strongly signifies how it was that God prophetically witnessed about Jesus way back in the OT. Understanding the wider context is simply just that important and rewarding, and neglecting the context is just that wrong and damaging.

Edited by - 1way on 11/02/2001 02:36:01 AM

quote:

---

"The truth" can be known by people, I mean God's absolute truth can be known and witnessed by mere mortals, we do it all the time. But whatever human's say of their own accord is necessarily subject to human error, where as what God says is obviously not subject to human error.

---

quote:

---

Your exegesis seems to rely heavily on an argument from silence. That is, since Paul doesn’t mention baptism as part of his ministry, he didn’t believe baptism was necessary any longer. He does tell us that he wasn’t called to baptize people (I Cor. 1), but that’s not the same as saying that it was revealed to him that water baptism was no longer to be practiced in the Church. Rather, he seems to assume that baptism IS to be practiced in the Church. So, for example, he askes the Corinthians, “Into what name were you all baptized...?” (I Cor. 1). Similarly, in Rom. 6 he appeals to the Romans baptism to teach them about their identity in Christ.

---

quote:

---

QUESTION: "In Acts 11:16, 'John baptized with water, but you
will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' Many use this as a proof
verse that we do not need water baptism, but the one and only
baptism is that of the Holy Spirit. Charismatics mean,
'tongues,' fundamentalists mean this occurs upon saying the
'Sinner's Prayer.' How would the Orthodox explain this verse?"

ANSWER: How, indeed? There are many answers. Of course this is
part of Peter's report of what happened with Cornelius and his
household. And the actual events there must be at least
confusing to people who would have this mean that "the only
baptism is that of the Holy Spirit" or that it means the
"Sinner's Prayer." For what can they make of: "While Peter was
still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those
who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed
were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of
the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For
they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter
answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be
baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And
he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then
they asked him to stay a few days" (Acts 10:44-48).

The very fact that Peter immediately commanded these people to be
baptized in the name of the Lord is significant. St. John
Chrysostom comments: "[Peter's words in 11:15] mean that no new
thing has happened but just what the Lord foretold. Some may
say, 'There was now no need to baptize.' But the baptism was
carried out. And he [Peter] does not say, I ordered them to be
baptized, but says, "If therefore God gave them the same gift as
He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I
that I could withstand God?" He shows that he had himself done
nothing: for the very thing which we have obtained, he says, that
same did those men receive."

By and large, Orthodox commentators tend to say essentially that
this shows that it is God Who carries out baptism anyway, not man
-- at least in so far as I can tell. One thing we know for sure:
the incident did not impled the practice of baptism. The
disciples continued to baptize, as evidenced by the rest of the
New Testament. And the Didache is evidence of the continued
teaching of the same. There was no break.

---