 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 11/6/2001 9:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | Abbie said:
quote:
I know I am new here, but I have a couple things I wanted to say. I thought the question about methodology was a good one, but I am not familiar enough with how methodologies differ to know what it was that needed defending. I was waiting to say anything until I thought I could say something that would be helpful. Modes, I found your system of dispensations to be offensive. I don't mind humor, but I didn't see anything humorous in that post. After reading it, I lost any desire to say anything.
I in no way retract my apology for any undue offense. However, the point was important, as many recognized, though clearly not all. So Abbie, I will ask you here instead. Please correct me if I am wrong but it is likely that you felt two sorts of offense:
1. Sexual issues being dealt with in a coarse and unappealing way.
2. The Bible being abused to make it say things that we all ought to know better about.
Now, the first is what my apology was for. The second is still very much a real problem. I am SO offended at the way dispensationalists use the Bible, that I had to find some way to get at the issue of HOW we read the Bible. I will get to a single question at the end that I'd like your help with.
Abbie wrote:
quote:
I also wanted to say a couple things about Bob. He is not one to show respect of persons. He has treated me with more respect than anyone else I have known and has always respected everything I've had to say. That means a lot to me because I have sometimes felt like other people don't take me seriously since I am young and female. Bob has never seemed to care about that. He is not looking for followers. He is more concerned with making sure people support what they believe out of the Bible. He is the most gracious person I have known. He doesn't agree with all of my theology, but he still responds with love and kindness. He is one of the few people with whom I would feel safe discussing certain theological questions. I have learned a lot about God's love by watching it flow through him. It is more beautiful than words can express.
This does my heart good to know. I truly hope that you will never let the fact that you are a woman interfere with God's calling on your life. (Gal. 3:28) As far as supporting what we believe about the Bible, that's where we are headed.
Abbie continued in another post:
quote:
Modes,
Thanks for the apology. My problem was not with the satire on dispensationalism but rather with the inclusion of sexual matters in the joke. I know that it doesn't seem to have bothered other people; but since it was bothering me, I decided to say something about it.
If all you saw was a satire or joke, then you missed something very important. The teachings that I layed out are NO MORE ARBITRARY than those which are made by dispensationalists. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. I still am waiting to see if a dispensationalist can show me why their distinctions are valid while mine are not.
quote:
If your point was that you can create dispensations out of just about anything in the Bible, you are right. You can do that. The set of dispensations that we use is based on the major changes that God made in His dealings with man, changes like the addition of the Law. My guess is that if you make up dispensations for specific things, you will find that the changes in what God said about those things will correspond with the general changes He made. You will find changes when God instituted the Law, when Christ came to earth, and when God set aside the nation of Israel.
The set of dispensations that I used is on the major changes that God has given us for God's design for human sexual relations. We are created male and female in the image of God. What could be more important than understanding our sexual identities and roles as well as how we are to relate to each other and the violators of these roles? I too highlighted changes in God's Law and requirements for sexual relations. Because yours are about salvation and mine are about human sexual interaction makes no difference at all. Either the WAY of approach is correct or it is not.
quote:
Salvation has always been by faith (Heb 11:6), but it has not always been by faith in Christ. Peter says that the prophets did not understand what they were saying when they prophesied about Christ's death and the glory coming after it (I Pet 1:10-12). Not even the twelve disciples understood that Christ would die (Lk 18:31-34). It wasn't until after Christ's resurrection that they finally did understand (Lk 24:44-46). Before Christ's death, men believed whatever message God gave them to believe. Noah believed that God would send a flood (Heb 11:7). Abraham believed that God would give him a land and descendents (Acts 7:3; Heb 11:8; Gen 15:4-6, 18). Works come into play when the message men were to believe required works. Noah could not have believed that God would send a flood without building the ark. Even though salvation has always been by faith, there were times when faith could not have existed without works (James 2:20-24). Now that God has told us that salvation is by faith alone and not by works, working for one's salvation is a sign of unbelief (Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8-9).
The words "testament" and "covenant" are used to translate the same Greek word, and the word "testament" is used to speak of what the OT calls the covenant (Ex 24:8; Heb 9:19-20). In Jer 31:31-34, God tells Israel that someday He will make a new covenant with her that is not like the covenant that He made on Mount Sinai. Christ called His blood the blood of the new testament (Matt 26:28). If the covenants/testments were the same, God would not have made a distinction between them.
If God had never made any changes, wouldn't we still have to worry about doing no work on the Sabbath (Ex 16:29; 20:9-10)? God commanded that a man be stoned when he was found simply picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:32-36).
In my Father's love,
Abbie
I appreciate that this is yet again another summary of how you understand the dispensations. But that doesn't help my question. Please understand that just as you reposted your dispensations in response to questions, I too will post mine, but without the sarcasm. I think if I were to ever consider your dispensations, then I would be bound to attend to these as well:
18 dispensations for biblical sexual ethics:
Regarding personal exposure:
*Gen. 2 nudity was normative. *Gen 3 introduces physical hiddenness which endures through until the resurrection where we will receive transfigured clothes and be asexual like the angels. 2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3 are also examples of prohibitions against nudity prior to the resurrection. To accidentally violate this command warrants a curse (Gen. 9:20-27).
Regarding male/female relations generally:
*Gen 3 also intiates the dispensation of sexual tension (3:15) which is accompanied by the curse of childbearing pains for the woman (16).
*The dispensation of Patriarchy begins when Adam is punished for submitting to his wife (3:17 says, "because you have listened to the voice of your wife…") and this is not lifted until Gal. 3:28 but it is then reinstated again in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2. This period between Gen 3:17 and Gal. 3:28 is to be understood as the dispensation of marital strife which is followed by a very short dispensation of marital harmony (Gal. 3:28 through 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2). After that the strife reensues. Under the dispensation of marital strife is the allowance of divorce (Deut. 24:1-4). But this is forbidden by Christ (Mark 10:1-12) presummably because our ability to keep the sexual ethical laws has increased over the many generations practice. This in some ways anticipates the immenent dispensation of marital harmony.
* The Dispensation of using female slaves, concubines and captives at the sexual whims of the master is supported by 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18. The justification for these practices is not clearly rescinded in the either Testament.
Against male masturbation:
*The spilling of semen for any non-procreative purpose--in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation--was considered the same as abortion or murder. This dispensation is still in effect so far as the text is concerned.
Regarding the Impurity of Intercourse:
* Another universal dispensation is the dispensation of unclean sex (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse makes you unclean until sundown and this is never retracted.
*As initiated in Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24 where it was now completely disallowed to have sexual intercourse during the woman’s menstrual period. Violators where to be expelled from the community but this penalty was not in effect during whatever time period it took Moses to get from Lev. 15:19-24 to 18:19.
Regarding the treatment of daughters vs. guests:
* Dispensation of hospitality Under this dispensation the sexual integrity of one’s daughters is understood to be subordinated to that of guests whom you may have. This is evidenced by the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29) in which Lot was willing to give up his two daughters so that the men of Sodom could do as they please. "Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." (Gen. 19:8).
Regarding Homosexuality:
*Condemnation of Male Gays began with the giving of Lev. 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (NRSV). (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." The condemnation of female gay didn’t start until Paul wrote Rom. 1:26.
On sexual relations in terms of social order:
* Adulterers are to be stoned to death. This began with the writing of Deut. 22:22. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both. However, it was not possible, during this dispensation, for a man to commit adultery against any of his own wives, only against a wife of another man. So unmarried non-virgins were exempt. Female virginity is the issue here, male virginity is not relevant. Jesus put an end to this dispensation with the incident of the woman caught in adultery in John’s record. While I recognize that this passage is questionable in terms of textual integrity (it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts) I assure you it is best to keep it IN the canon.
* The Dispensation of Polygamy is also among the universal dispensations that the Bible never retracts. Included in this dispensation is the Leverite Marriage which also is universal in scope. (Jesus mentions this practice without criticism in Mark 12:18-27).
*The Dispensation of Prostitution was in effect (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7) until Paul undoes it 1 Cor. 6:12-20. Again only the woman is to be regarded as sinning in prostitution during the dispensation of prostitution, whereas both are sinners after this dispensation comes to fulfillment through the writings of Paul.
*For a very short period we see that Paul carried the dispensation of celebacy (1 Cor. 7). Even though it was regarded as aberrant in the Old Testament and considered heretical in 1 Tim 4:1-3. In this last instance it is clear that it is the demons who "forbid marriage".
* The avoidance of male genitals Dispensation was initiated by necessity in Deut. 25:11f. "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity". Another universal dispensation from that point forward.
I do hope that I have taken whatever offensiveness was my own addition to these texts out and preserved only the offensiveness of the method and the texts themselves. My contention is simply that I am just reading the Bible, and this is what it has to say regarding proper sexual relations between men and women who claim to be adherents of the Book. Now for the one question that I did promise:
Abbie, please tell me how you can say that you believe the dispensations as you presented them but now you don't believe the dispensations as I have presented them?
"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
Edited by - ModesofThought on 11/06/2001 2:55:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Abbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 11/6/2001 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
I was offended only because of your treatment of sexual matters. When you made the post, all I read were the bold faced words. I didn't even get all of those read before I was so disturbed I quit reading. I didn't have a chance to be offended at anything else. I did later read more of the post because I thought I should do so before I confronted you about it.
I am willing to discuss dispensationalism with you but not under these circumstances. I know that you have removed the sarcasm from your post, but I cannot bring myself to read it again. Sexual relationships should only be discussed in a God honoring manner, and there is no reason to force them into totally unrelated topics. I find it totally disgusting.
In my Father's care,
Abbie | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 11/6/2001 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | I honestly have to say I am shocked. I do very clearly mean to say that this is what the Bible teaches on these issues. If you cannot stand to even view the evidence, how then can you claim that this presentation is not God honoring? I very much wish to honor God in my theology, and I am saying to you as simply as I know how that if I beleived what you do about things, I would have to come to the conclusion that I am to follow strictly according to the dispensations in all areas. Why think they only apply to God's will for salvation? Do they not also apply to God's will for relations between men and women? I genuinely am not trying to embarass you or anything of the sort, in fact, I am trying to get someone to tell me how and where I am wrong in this. If dispensationalism is true and my proposal of what the necessary implications of that are is false, someone ought to be able to show me why that is the case. Please don't take this as an attack, I am quite confused and a little hurt that you say that I again offended you. I have every intention of discussing things in a God honoring manner and nothing in the Bible is unrelated when we are talking about dispensationalism.
I am at a loss. I do hope that you will reconsider this serious problem. Again, no offense intended at all. Just my own confusion about how you can arbitrarily affirm one set of thematic connections and ignore others. The danger in doing so of course is that you open yourself up to the charge of hypocrisy.
Please do reconsider my request. The Bible is the Bible, whether you like what it says or not. I don't see that you can opt out on the basis of personal subjective "disgust". I have not done anything other than point to the Bible. Either it is to be read and applied in this way or it is not. That's what I am trying to figure out.
Blessings.
"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
Edited by - modesofthought on 11/07/2001 07:18:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 11/7/2001 3:03 AM (GMT -6) | | (Little angel sitting on Meph's left shoulder: "Here you go again, Meph...watch it, buddy...")
(Little devil sitting on Meph's right shoulder: "Lay it down RAW, daddy!")
Whatever, yo. Both of y'all, chill.  Hello, Abbie, this is Meph. This is my first time talking to you, so howdy and how do you do. I just wanted to breeze by to say some things. Hope they're not offensive and if they are, please forgive and old sinner.
You said:
quote:
I was offended only because of your treatment of sexual matters. When you made the post, all I read were the bold faced words. I didn't even get all of those read before I was so disturbed I quit reading. I didn't have a chance to be offended at anything else. I did later read more of the post because I thought I should do so before I confronted you about it.
Now, when you were talking about the possible inordinate level of sarcasm in Modes' first post, I was like okay. I could see how some people could possibly get offended at that. Modes apologized. (Good going, buddy) But now it seems that we are getting in to some straight prudery. I trust that you believe that sex IS within the realm of Christian discussion and debate. Seeing as how we have tons of teenage pregnancy, homosexuality among minsters, divorces and remarriage, and transexual believers now. I figure you believe that sex should be discussed. But what I can't understand is this "God-honoring" idea that you are talking about? And how do you say that this is forcing sex into an totally unrelated idea? Perhaps you think of this like someone bringing up the subject of intercourse in a discussion on interior decorating or something. I don't know. What I'm trying to understand is how do you consider what Modes is NOW doing not "God-honoring"?
For the record, this is what I see Modes doing. He has pulled Scriptures that either directly or tangentially deal with sexual matters in the Bible. He has arranged them into a format that HE SEES in order to make certain dispensations. If you will notice again, in Modes' posting of the dispensations above, all the marks of the sarcasm are gone. We are deal with NOTHING but Scripture and intelligent commentary. If we were to be at a Bible study discussing what WE PERSONALLY THINK God feels about human sexuality and how sexual mores have changed over times, I could see someone who (for whatever reason) REALLY believed this, to break it out and LEGITIMATELY try to talk about it in the discussion. It would NOT be out of line or anything...unless some of the people in the discussion just felt uncomfortable talking about sex as a whole. (Let's face it. There are many Christians out there who are...unfortunately) Now, if YOU found yourself at that Bible study, wouldn't YOU ask Modes:
"Where did you come up with this? What hermeneutic or framework are you using? How do you define the beginning and end of these 'dispensations?'"
In short, wouldn't you ask him UPON WHAT AUTHORITATIVE BASIS his framework should be accepted? This is exactly what Modes wants you to ask him...and THEN ask yourself as a dispensationalist.
One more remark. This creative display is the marks of a person who is DESPERATELY trying to understand a perspective...but keeps getting the friggin run around. So, he tries to go for broke on illustrative (and somewhat, shock) value. I can WHOLEHEARTEDLY relate to this. I don't know if you were here, but LONG ago, I was in the same predicament. I was asking serious questions and it seemed at every turn I was being stonewalled or given the run around. So, in my frustration and creativity, I came up with the OPEN VIEW CONVERT idea, where I acted as if I had converted. Oh, some people just didn't like THAT at all! And I had to deal with that. But some people KNEW that this was a desparate ploy because I had tried plain asking till I was blue in the face! This is EXACTLY what I think Modes has gone through. For the life of me, I couldn't understand why Bob, chance, or 1 way could just ANSWER the questions being posed. So, on that score, I don't fault Modes one bit for doing what he's done. His conversation partners, by their inaction, forced his hand somewhat.
Hey, Abbie. If you're ticked about what I've said, I'm genuinely sorry. Not for what I've said, but for any offense given. I stand by what I'm saying here. I ask that you try to place all this in a bigger context and try NOT to remain offended. Sometimes I think WE get more offended than GOD does at some of the things we say and hear. So, with that, I'm out. Nice meetin' ya. 
PS: To the other dispensationalists, can I please see some straighter answers, darnit?? I'm sick!! (cough, wheeze, cough)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 11/7/2001 3:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Abbie: Welcome to the board. I appreciate your contribution. You seem to be straight-up about what’s on your heart and mind. I like that, it takes courage. I think Modes and Mephi have offered some sincere inquiries and insights. Give them a chance.
Meph: Good call. When Modes posted his dispensations, I had a flashback to when you asked open theists, “What are your presuppositions?!” about a hundred times, to no avail. I was struck by the huge irony.
Peace,
pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
God is wild. § Harold | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 11/7/2001 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm not trying to be offensive, but you are missing the point completely Abbie. Modes has defined dispensations in the exact same way that most dispensationalists do, and has used Scripture to back it up. Yes, the titles would be offensive to a child reading this post, but as mature adults I believe we can handle it since Scripture is filled with mature issues like this.
Modes could have chosen a different subject like eating dispensations or musical dispensations. The point he is trying to make is that the reason dispensationalists cant agree on a set number of dispensations is not due to some spooky revelation that only some people get, but it is in fact due to an ambiguous interpretation of Scripture based on manmade separations which God himself never designates. Did God ever designate for Noah to be under the dispensation of Human Government? NO, he simply gave him the instruction that if someone murders, then the congregation should come together and kill that person. So, why did this become a dispensation? Because a couple guys in the late 1800's (Schafer, Scofield and Darby to name a few) decided that there was enough difference between God's administration then and before the flood. IS there though? I believe for you to say this, you would have to say that EVERYTIME God reveals a law or instruction that was not revealed before that you begin a new dispensation. This would easily give us 100's of dispensations. Modes was just showing that you can make a dispensation out of anything, and that the lines are manmade. There are some apparent differences in Scripture, but as you study the progressive revelation of God, you see the unity in it, not the division.
Kyle Essary
Edited by - Kyle Essary on 11/07/2001 11:54:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|