| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2008 03:29:21 AM |
| Object: |
Dispensationalism’s Interpretive Inconsistencies |
DISPENSATIONALISM'S INTERPRETIVE INCONSISTENCIES
Dispensational author Paul Benware accuses Preterists
of not interpreting prophetic passages in a literal way.
As an example, he points to Matthew 24:29:
“But immediately after the tribulation of those days
THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON
WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL
FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens
will be shaken”.
Since Jesus tells His questioners that this event will take
place before “this generation passes away” (Matt. 24:34),
and “this generation” refers to the generation to whom
Jesus was speaking, the Sun, Moon, and stars language
must refer to events of the first century.
Dispensationalists say this is impossible given a literal
hermeneutic. When similar passages are found in
the Old Testament, Dispensationalists have no trouble
dropping their so-called literal hermeneutic.
Charles L. Feinberg, writing in the Dispensational Liberty
Bible Commentary, writes: “The Sun, Moon, and stars
indicate a complete system of government and remind
the reader of Genesis 37:9”. Notice that Feinberg argues
that Sun, Moon, and stars relate to “a complete system
of government” and not literal stellar phenomena.
He also references Genesis 37:9 where Sun, Moon,
and stars are used as symbols for Israel. Other
Dispensational authors follow a similar pattern
of interpretation.
John A. Martin, writing in the Dispensational-oriented
Bible Knowledge Commentary, argues that “the statements
in [Isaiah] 13:10 about the heavenly bodies (stars … Sun
… Moon) no longer functioning may figuratively describe
the total turnaround of the political structure of the Near
East. The same would be true of the heavens trembling
and the earth shaking (v. 13), figures of speech suggesting
all-encompassing destruction” . So why couldn’t Jesus be
using the language from Isaiah 13:10 in Matthew 24:29
to “figuratively describe the total turnaround of the
political structure of” Israel that took place with the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70?
Consider the comments of Dispensational author John
F. Walvoord on Revelation 12:1 and how he draws from
the Old Testament to explain the meaning of the cosmic
language used: “The description of the woman as clothed
with the Sun and the Moon is an allusion to Genesis 37:9–11,
where these heavenly bodies represent Jacob and Rachel,
thereby identifying the woman with the fulfillment of
the Abrahamic covenant. In the same context, the stars
represent the patriarchs, the sons of Jacob. The symbolism
may extend beyond this to represent in some sense the
glory of Israel and her ultimate triumph over her enemies.”.
If Sun, Moon, and stars represent Babylon (Isa. 13:10)
and Israel (Gen. 37:9) in the Old Testament and the
New Testament (Rev. 12:1), then why can’t Sun, Moon,
and stars represent Israel in Matthew 24:29?
Benware never discusses these issues and seems oblivious
to what his fellow Dispensationalists say about the nature
of cosmic language and how the prophets used it to describe
past local judgments.
R.T. France’s comments on the use of cosmic language
from his commentary on Mark 13:24–25, which parallel
Matthew 24:29, show how Jesus borrows language from
the prophets and uses them to make His judicial case
against Israel:
The passages cited in [Mark 13] vv. 24b–25 use the language
of cosmic disintegration to denote, as often in prophecy,
climactic (not climatic!) changes to the existing world
order. The lights are going out in the centres of power,
and the way is being prepared for a new world order. . . .
The language of v. 24b is paralleled at several points in
the prophetic literature (Ezk. 32:7; Jo. 2:10, 31; 3:15;
Amos 8:9) but is verbally most closely related to LXX5
Is. 13:10, part of the oracle against Babylon. . . . In most
of these passages the immediate reference is to the imminent
downfall of specific nations (Egypt, Babylon, Edom, Israel,
and Judah). . . . In the original prophetic context,
therefore, such ‘cosmic’ language conveys a powerful
symbolism of political changes with world history, and
is not naturally to be understood of a literal collapse of
the universe at the end of the world. . . . The natural
sense of such language, used in a Jewish context, is
surely clear. Mk. 13:24b–27 is not about the collapse
of the universe, but about drastic events on the world
scene, interpreted in the light of the divine judgment
and purpose. What is startling about the use of such
language by Jesus in this context is not that he uses
the same language as the prophetic, but that he uses
it with regard to the fate of Jerusalem and its temple.
A good way to test interpretive methodologies is to
compare Psalm 18 with the actual historical events
when “the LORD delivered [David] from the hand
of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul”.
The language of the Psalm is as apocalyptic to what we
find in Isaiah 13:10, Matthew 24:29, and Mark 13:24–25,
and yet Psalm 18 describes God’s deliverance of one man
over his flesh and blood enemies with depictions of a
“volcanic eruption that shook the mountains and raised
the sea bed”.
<Begin insert quote of Psalm 18 and comments>
Quoted in part, the Psalm reads about this deliverance
of one man:
Psalm 18:1-15
1) I will love You, O LORD, my strength.
2) The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
My God, my strength, in whom I will trust;
My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.
3) I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised;
So shall I be saved from my enemies.
6) In my distress I called upon the LORD,
And cried out to my God;
He heard my voice from His temple,
And my cry came before Him, even to His ears.
7) THEN THE EARTH SHOOK AND TREMBLED;
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE HILLS ALSO QUAKED
AND WERE SHAKEN, because He was angry.
8) Smoke went up from His nostrils,
And devouring fire from His mouth;
Coals were kindled by it.
9) HE BOWED THE HEAVENS ALSO AND CAME DOWN
WITH DARKNESS UNDER HIS FEET.
10) *_AND HE RODE UPON A CHERUB AND FLEW;_*
He flew upon the wings of the wind.
11) He made darkness His secret place;
His canopy around Him was dark waters
And thick clouds of the skies.
12) From the brightness before Him,
His thick clouds passed WITH HAILSTONES
AND COALS OF FIRE.
13 The LORD thundered from heaven,
And the Most High uttered His voice,
Hailstones and coals of fire.
14) HE SENT OUT HIS ARROWS and scattered the foe,
LIGHTNINGS IN ABUNDANCE, and He vanquished
them.
15) Then the channels of the sea were seen,
The foundations of the world were uncovered
At Your rebuke, O LORD,
At the blast of the breath of Your nostrils.
Yes folks, this is about the deliverance of ONE MAN,
David! So how can anyone say that this type of
language is physically literal?! They claim that it is
when Jesus used it, but on what basis do they do that?
Certainly not by letting Scripture interpret Scripture,
since both the Old and New Testaments show that
this type of language is symbolic! So they pick one
place (and the parallels in Mark and Luke) in which
they WANT it to be physically literal and then have
the gall to call someone a heretic, because they
don't buy into the Dispy (Futurist) concept of;
"It's physically literal in this one spot, because we
said so and you're a heretic if you don't agree!".
Yea, that's some real scholarly work there! (:
<End insert of Psalm 18 and comments>
A reading of David’s encounter with Saul in the historical
narratives of 1 Samuel will show that no series of events
line up with the narrative of Psalm 18. Following the
standards of Dispensational interpretive principles, the
descriptions in Psalm 18 are yet to be fulfilled in some
future prophetic scenario when David and Saul are
raised from the dead to battle again.
Benware and other Dispensationalists insist on a literal
interpretation of Revelation. If the claim is made that
the “stars” are actually meteorites, then there is a problem
with Revelation 12:4 where a “great red dragon” uses his
“tail” to sweep a “third of the stars of heaven” to throw
“them to the earth”. Such a barrage would destroy
the earth, making it uninhabitable for man and beast
for millennia. And yet, we are to believe that the armies
of the entire world are going to pick a fight with Israel
(Rev. 16:13–16) after a third of the earth’s population
has been wiped out. Robert L. Thomas, who consistently
criticizes those who interpret much of Revelation as
symbolic, interprets the stars as “angels who fell with
Satan in history past”. He might be correct, but this
seems to violate his interpretive premise and that
of Dispensationalists in general that “a symbolic
interpretation assumes the absence of strict realism
in a vision”. So why not a real red dragon and
literal stars in this context?
As stated, Dispensationalists are inconsistent in their
interpretive method and their scenarios are pure fantasy
and not proper Scriptural interpretive methodology!
--
Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
.
|
|
| User: "Randy ®" |
|
| Title: Re: Dispensationalism’s Interpretive Inconsistencies |
24 Jan 2008 11:54:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:29:21 -0500,
in article <7jmgp352ujftd10qgqnhb6uj5i574l6d4q@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
DISPENSATIONALISM'S INTERPRETIVE INCONSISTENCIES
Dispensational author Paul Benware accuses Preterists
of not interpreting prophetic passages in a literal way.
As an example, he points to Matthew 24:29:
“But immediately after the tribulation of those days
THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON
WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL
FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens
will be shaken”.
Since Jesus tells His questioners that this event will take
place before “this generation passes away” (Matt. 24:34),
and “this generation” refers to the generation to whom
Jesus was speaking, the Sun, Moon, and stars language
must refer to events of the first century.
Dispensationalists say this is impossible given a literal
hermeneutic. When similar passages are found in
the Old Testament, Dispensationalists have no trouble
dropping their so-called literal hermeneutic.
Charles L. Feinberg, writing in the Dispensational Liberty
Bible Commentary, writes: “The Sun, Moon, and stars
indicate a complete system of government and remind
the reader of Genesis 37:9”. Notice that Feinberg argues
that Sun, Moon, and stars relate to “a complete system
of government” and not literal stellar phenomena.
He also references Genesis 37:9 where Sun, Moon,
and stars are used as symbols for Israel. Other
Dispensational authors follow a similar pattern
of interpretation.
John A. Martin, writing in the Dispensational-oriented
Bible Knowledge Commentary, argues that “the statements
in [Isaiah] 13:10 about the heavenly bodies (stars … Sun
… Moon) no longer functioning may figuratively describe
the total turnaround of the political structure of the Near
East. The same would be true of the heavens trembling
and the earth shaking (v. 13), figures of speech suggesting
all-encompassing destruction” . So why couldn’t Jesus be
using the language from Isaiah 13:10 in Matthew 24:29
to “figuratively describe the total turnaround of the
political structure of” Israel that took place with the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70?
Consider the comments of Dispensational author John
F. Walvoord on Revelation 12:1 and how he draws from
the Old Testament to explain the meaning of the cosmic
language used: “The description of the woman as clothed
with the Sun and the Moon is an allusion to Genesis 37:9–11,
where these heavenly bodies represent Jacob and Rachel,
thereby identifying the woman with the fulfillment of
the Abrahamic covenant. In the same context, the stars
represent the patriarchs, the sons of Jacob. The symbolism
may extend beyond this to represent in some sense the
glory of Israel and her ultimate triumph over her enemies.”.
If Sun, Moon, and stars represent Babylon (Isa. 13:10)
and Israel (Gen. 37:9) in the Old Testament and the
New Testament (Rev. 12:1), then why can’t Sun, Moon,
and stars represent Israel in Matthew 24:29?
Benware never discusses these issues and seems oblivious
to what his fellow Dispensationalists say about the nature
of cosmic language and how the prophets used it to describe
past local judgments.
R.T. France’s comments on the use of cosmic language
from his commentary on Mark 13:24–25, which parallel
Matthew 24:29, show how Jesus borrows language from
the prophets and uses them to make His judicial case
against Israel:
The passages cited in [Mark 13] vv. 24b–25 use the language
of cosmic disintegration to denote, as often in prophecy,
climactic (not climatic!) changes to the existing world
order. The lights are going out in the centres of power,
and the way is being prepared for a new world order. . . .
The language of v. 24b is paralleled at several points in
the prophetic literature (Ezk. 32:7; Jo. 2:10, 31; 3:15;
Amos 8:9) but is verbally most closely related to LXX5
Is. 13:10, part of the oracle against Babylon. . . . In most
of these passages the immediate reference is to the imminent
downfall of specific nations (Egypt, Babylon, Edom, Israel,
and Judah). . . . In the original prophetic context,
therefore, such ‘cosmic’ language conveys a powerful
symbolism of political changes with world history, and
is not naturally to be understood of a literal collapse of
the universe at the end of the world. . . . The natural
sense of such language, used in a Jewish context, is
surely clear. Mk. 13:24b–27 is not about the collapse
of the universe, but about drastic events on the world
scene, interpreted in the light of the divine judgment
and purpose. What is startling about the use of such
language by Jesus in this context is not that he uses
the same language as the prophetic, but that he uses
it with regard to the fate of Jerusalem and its temple.
A good way to test interpretive methodologies is to
compare Psalm 18 with the actual historical events
when “the LORD delivered [David] from the hand
of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul”.
The language of the Psalm is as apocalyptic to what we
find in Isaiah 13:10, Matthew 24:29, and Mark 13:24–25,
and yet Psalm 18 describes God’s deliverance of one man
over his flesh and blood enemies with depictions of a
“volcanic eruption that shook the mountains and raised
the sea bed”.
<Begin insert quote of Psalm 18 and comments>
Quoted in part, the Psalm reads about this deliverance
of one man:
Psalm 18:1-15
1) I will love You, O LORD, my strength.
2) The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
My God, my strength, in whom I will trust;
My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.
3) I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised;
So shall I be saved from my enemies.
6) In my distress I called upon the LORD,
And cried out to my God;
He heard my voice from His temple,
And my cry came before Him, even to His ears.
7) THEN THE EARTH SHOOK AND TREMBLED;
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE HILLS ALSO QUAKED
AND WERE SHAKEN, because He was angry.
8) Smoke went up from His nostrils,
And devouring fire from His mouth;
Coals were kindled by it.
9) HE BOWED THE HEAVENS ALSO AND CAME DOWN
WITH DARKNESS UNDER HIS FEET.
10) *_AND HE RODE UPON A CHERUB AND FLEW;_*
He flew upon the wings of the wind.
11) He made darkness His secret place;
His canopy around Him was dark waters
And thick clouds of the skies.
12) From the brightness before Him,
His thick clouds passed WITH HAILSTONES
AND COALS OF FIRE.
13 The LORD thundered from heaven,
And the Most High uttered His voice,
Hailstones and coals of fire.
14) HE SENT OUT HIS ARROWS and scattered the foe,
LIGHTNINGS IN ABUNDANCE, and He vanquished
them.
15) Then the channels of the sea were seen,
The foundations of the world were uncovered
At Your rebuke, O LORD,
At the blast of the breath of Your nostrils.
Yes folks, this is about the deliverance of ONE MAN,
David! So how can anyone say that this type of
language is physically literal?! They claim that it is
when Jesus used it, but on what basis do they do that?
Certainly not by letting Scripture interpret Scripture,
since both the Old and New Testaments show that
this type of language is symbolic! So they pick one
place (and the parallels in Mark and Luke) in which
they WANT it to be physically literal and then have
the gall to call someone a heretic, because they
don't buy into the Dispy (Futurist) concept of;
"It's physically literal in this one spot, because we
said so and you're a heretic if you don't agree!".
Yea, that's some real scholarly work there! (:
<End insert of Psalm 18 and comments>
A reading of David’s encounter with Saul in the historical
narratives of 1 Samuel will show that no series of events
line up with the narrative of Psalm 18. Following the
standards of Dispensational interpretive principles, the
descriptions in Psalm 18 are yet to be fulfilled in some
future prophetic scenario when David and Saul are
raised from the dead to battle again.
Benware and other Dispensationalists insist on a literal
interpretation of Revelation. If the claim is made that
the “stars” are actually meteorites, then there is a problem
with Revelation 12:4 where a “great red dragon” uses his
“tail” to sweep a “third of the stars of heaven” to throw
“them to the earth”. Such a barrage would destroy
the earth, making it uninhabitable for man and beast
for millennia. And yet, we are to believe that the armies
of the entire world are going to pick a fight with Israel
(Rev. 16:13–16) after a third of the earth’s population
has been wiped out. Robert L. Thomas, who consistently
criticizes those who interpret much of Revelation as
symbolic, interprets the stars as “angels who fell with
Satan in history past”. He might be correct, but this
seems to violate his interpretive premise and that
of Dispensationalists in general that “a symbolic
interpretation assumes the absence of strict realism
in a vision”. So why not a real red dragon and
literal stars in this context?
As stated, Dispensationalists are inconsistent in their
interpretive method and their scenarios are pure fantasy
and not proper Scriptural interpretive methodology!
Preterism is the system of lies that employs an inconsistent
method of interpretation. They have to impose a strict,
singular, literal interpretation on a few phrases like "soon",
"at hand", and "this generation", then spiritualize virtually
everything else the Bible says about prophecy, to the point it
becomes a perfect contradiction to what it plainly states.
For those who prefer to allow the Bible to mean what it says,
rather than what someone wants it to mean, let me show how you
can interpret Revelation literally, while allowing for it's
symbolic language, and without employing an inconsistent
method of interpretation:
Revelation 1
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith
the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the
Almighty.
Ok, here, Christ says He is the Alpha and Omega. This is a
symbolic reference. So what does it mean? Does the literal
system of interpretation say it mean Christ is the first and
last letters of the Greek alphabet? No. It says right in the
text that follows. It means He is the "Lord which is, and
which was, and which is to come...". Thus, the symbolism
means that the Lord is eternal, Almighty God. The plain,
literal statements of the surrounding text qualifies what the
symbol means.
Now, let's move on to the next symbol:
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me
a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Now, it says John heard a great voice, as of a trumpet. Does
the literal system of interpretation claim that means John
heard a literal trumpet playing? No. It says he heard a
great voice "as" of a trumpet. By using the word "as", the
text is plainly identifying that "trumpet" is a symbol to show
what the voice sounded like.
The great majority of symbols in the book of Revelation,
are like this. They tell us something is "like", or "as"
something else, then use a symbol to describe what it is like.
Thus, you can interpret according to the plain meaning of the
text, while allowing for symbols.
Now, let's move on to a different example:
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And
being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his
mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as
the sun shineth in his strength.
Here, it refers to candlesticks and stars, but doesn't say
"as" a star, or "like" a candlestick. So must we now resort
to some spiritualization to understand what this means? No.
Why? Because the text plainly tells us what these symbols
are:
20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my
right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars
are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven
candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
The stars are the messengers of the seven churches, and the
candlesticks are the seven churches. Then, further on, in
chapter 2, the context gives us even more explanation:
1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things
saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who
walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;...
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent,
and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly,
and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou
repent.
The Lord holds the stars (messengers) in His hand, and can
remove the candlestick (the church, with it's light bearing
testimony).
How about the sword that goes out of the Lord's mouth? "and
out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword:" Does the
literal system of interpretation conclude Christ must be
walking around with a literal sword coming out of His mouth?
No. Then how do we know what the sword is? Because the Bible
plainly tells us:
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and
sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing
asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and
is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord
shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy
with the brightness of his coming:
Thus, the "two-edged sword", is the "word of God".
What about the horse Christ rides on? Well, again, the Bible
gives us other examples of what this could mean. For example:
2 Kings 2
10 "You have asked a difficult thing," Elijah said, "yet if
you see me when I am taken from you, it will be yours—
otherwise not."
11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly
a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated
the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
12 Elisha saw this and cried out, "My father! My father! The
chariots and horsemen of Israel!" And Elisha saw him no more.
Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them apart.
Or again:
2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee,
open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes
of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was
full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
So apparently, heavenly beings do sometimes literally appear
to those who dwell on earth, to be riding on horses. Why then
can we not understand that Christ may literally appear, riding
on what literally appears to be a horse?
Yes, there are many symbols used in the book of Revelation,
but almost all of them fit into these categories. Either they
are simply symbolic comparisons (feet "like" brass) to tell us
what something is "like", or "as", or the text plainly tells
us what the mystery is, or the Bible elsewhere gives us a
clear definition of what it means.
Thus, you can safely interpret the book of Revelation,
according to a literal system of interpretation that does not
ascribe a non-sensical meaning to the text (such as that
Christ is walking around with a literal sword coming out of
His mouth), and which safeguards against wild and variant
spiritualizations that basically allow you to read whatever
meaning you want into the text.
Basically, the literal system of interpretation just says that
the text means what it plainly says, unless it indicates it is
using symbols, or figures of speech. And even these, as we
have seen, are almost always explained by the text itself.
Otherwise, anyone can spiritualize the text to the point it
can basically mean whatever they want.
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
--
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Dispensationalism's Interpretive Inconsistencies |
24 Jan 2008 02:19:00 PM |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ttjhp31a59mo198d8idcj2smqo3883g8et@4ax.com...
[snip]
Preterism is the system of lies that employs an inconsistent
method of interpretation.
Yes, but so is Dispensationalism.
Ike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy ®" |
|
| Title: Re: Dispensationalism's Interpretive Inconsistencies |
25 Jan 2008 12:16:39 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:19:00 GMT,
in article <Uo6mj.4968$NU6.4307@trndny01>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ttjhp31a59mo198d8idcj2smqo3883g8et@4ax.com...
[snip]
Preterism is the system of lies that employs an inconsistent
method of interpretation.
Yes, but so is Dispensationalism.
Ike
Nope. The Bible clearly teaches dispensations. The word is
used in the Bible, and basically means house rule. Throughout
the Bible, God has presented man with a number of different
stewardships. In each case, man fails, then God brings both
judgment, and saving grace.
Prior to the fall, man lived in the dispensation of innocence,
when he was given the stewardship of tending the garden, and
avoiding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man
failed by eating of the tree. God brought judgment, in
banishing Adam and Eve from the garden, thorns and thistles in
the ground, labor pains in child birth, spiritual death, and
the process of physical death began. God's redeeming grace
was typified by the animal skin coverings (a picture of
Christ's atonement), and the promise of a seed which would
crush the serpent's head (fulfilled by Christ).
Then you had the age of conscience, where men were governed by
their conscience. Romans says that before the Law came, men
were still guilty of sin, because their conscience bore
witness. During this age, man failed, so that their thoughts
became only evil, continuously. God's judgment was the flood,
and His saving grace was the ark, which is a picture of
redemption through faith in Christ.
After the flood, God established the dispensation of human
government, telling Noah that whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed, and to multiply and fill the
earth. During this age, Noah failed in getting drunk, so his
judgment became impaired. Also, men refused to spread across
the earth, but decided to make the tower of Babel. God sent
the judgment against Ham, and confused the languages. His
redeeming grace was to be seen in choosing one family from
among the earth, through whom to bring the promised redeemer.
Then you have the age of promise, which came 430 years before
the Law, in which God called Abram to come from the land of
his fathers, to a new land. He promised Abraham land, seed,
and blessing. Man's failure in this dispensation, was that
Abraham took relatives with him, lived close to Egypt, tried
to receive God's promise in the strength of his flesh, by
fathering Ishmael through Hagar, etc. The judgment was 430
years bondage in Egypt. The redeeming grace was a deliverer,
Moses.
Next, you have the dispensation of the Law, which was a tutor
to lead men to Christ. God gave hundreds of rules. Man
failed with idolatry, and breaking the commandments. God sent
the judgment of captivity and dispersion. God's redeeming
grace was in sending Christ.
Now you have the church age. God's stewardship is to love
Him, your brother, stay pure, and promote the gospel. Man's
failure will become more and more evident, until the
restrainer is removed and the man of sin is revealed. Judgment
will be Tribulation wrath mentioned in Revelation 4-19.
Redeeming grace will be the salvation of the 144,000 and
multitude from all peoples, and the return of Christ to earth,
with His bride, the church, to slaughter the combined armies
of the earth, and send the beast to the lake of fire.
Then you'll have the age of the kingdom, when Christ will
reign for a thousand years. God's stewardship is to obey the
king. Man's failure will become evident when Satan is
released from the pit for a season, at the end of the thousand
years, to promote rebellion. Judgment will be fire coming
down from heaven, the casting of Satan into the lake of fire,
the folding up and dissolving of the present heavens and earth
by fire, the Great white throne of judgment, etc.
Then you have the eternal state described in Revelation 21-22,
where everything will be confirmed forever. The lost will be
in the lake of fire, the redeemed will enjoy eternal life with
God and the Lamb, in New Jerusalem, and the new heavens and
earth. There will be no more death, sin, sorrow, sadness, or
abominations.
Yes, the Bible clearly teaches a series of different
stewardships God has given, and will give towards men, man's
failure, and God's redeeming Grace in Christ.
These stewardships can be comprehended as the unfolding of
God's kingdom, or as God's redeeming Grace in Christ.
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
--
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Dispensationalism's Interpretive Idiocies |
25 Jan 2008 03:02:41 AM |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abuip39ij0khgs4td3ge1q19dqjnbsd61v@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:19:00 GMT,
in article <Uo6mj.4968$NU6.4307@trndny01>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ttjhp31a59mo198d8idcj2smqo3883g8et@4ax.com...
[snip]
Preterism is the system of lies that employs an inconsistent
method of interpretation.
Yes, but so is Dispensationalism.
Ike
Nope. The Bible clearly teaches dispensations.
In a line, a step at a time, which are not different, but a continuation of
an ongoing revelatory theme, which will conclude in ONE result--whole
Israel.
The word is
used in the Bible, and basically means house rule.
The word is in the Bible, but it is not used the way Dispensationalists
twist it.
Throughout
the Bible, God has presented man with a number of different
stewardships.
No, NOT "different stewardships." The SAME stewardship, revealed in
evolutionary steps.
In each case, man fails, then God brings both
judgment, and saving grace.
It is ALWAYS the case that man fails, and God brings forth judgment, and
saving grace.
Prior to the fall, man lived in the dispensation of innocence,
when he was given the stewardship of tending the garden, and
avoiding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
No, prior to the fall, MAN lived in an age of lawlessness, but there was no
law, and where there is no law, sin is not "imputed," i.e. one cannot sin
where there is no law, as the law defines sin.
Romans 5:13-17
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who
is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is
the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the
grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath
abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift:
for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many
offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by
one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of
righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Meanwhile, Adam, not being one of the natural "men," was created in a
sinless state. But Adam and Eve were given ONE law--don't touch that "tree,"
i.e. do not get involved in the things of the other "seed."
When the two "seeds" got together, THAT'S when the trouble started--Adam
came under the curse of sin for breaking the one law gave him, and the
natural man came under the curse of the law because his sins were then
defined.
And thus began the evolution of God's revelation, which all started with one
law, and grew from there.
Man
failed by eating of the tree.
LOL
You think all this happened because of a piece of "fruit?"
Grow up already.
God brought judgment, in
banishing Adam and Eve from the garden, thorns and thistles in
the ground, labor pains in child birth, spiritual death, and
the process of physical death began.
Yeah: They took on the existence of the natural man, which WAS "the garden
of Eden."
Once again you demonstrate your childish ignorance of what the story was
REALLY about.
Genesis, up through the flood account, is slave literature, much like Negro
spirituals. The American slaves could not openly encourage one another, or
give one another directions on how to escape, so they took the stories of
their captors--church stories--applied their own stylistic musical
conventions on it, and used it to send messages one to another, to whit...
"So, too, in many instances did the spirituals themselves. Spirituals
sometimes provided comfort and eased the boredom of daily tasks, but above
all, they were an expression of spiritual devotion and a yearning for
freedom from bondage. Songs like "Steal Away (to Jesus)", or "Swing Low,
Sweet Chariot" raised unexpectedly in a dusty field, or sung softly in the
dark of night, signaled that the coast was clear and the time to escape had
come. The River Jordan became the Ohio River, or the Mississippi, or another
body of water that had to be crossed on the journey to freedom. "Wade in the
Water" contained explicit instructions to fugitive slaves on how to avoid
capture and the route to take to successfully make their way to freedom.[1]
Leaving dry land and taking to the water was a common strategy to throw
pursuing bloodhounds off one's trail. "The Gospel Train", and "Swing Low,
Sweet Chariot" all contained veiled references to the Underground Railroad,
and Follow the Drinking Gourd contained a coded map to the Underground
Railroad. The title itself was an Africanized reference to the Big Dipper,
which pointed the way to the North Star and freedom."
Likewise, the Hebrews could not come out and call their antagonists "the
children of their own devil" openly, so they took the mythology of the
Assyro-Babylonians (derived from the first civilization of man that rose up
in the fertile crescent), and turned the stories around against their
captors in a way they couldn't understand, teaching their monotheism (as
opposed to the abominable pantheism of their captors), and teaching their
distinct creation (as opposed to dirty mingled "seed" of their captors), and
teaching their wise law (as opposed to the materialistic monetary codes of
Hammurabi), and so on, and so forth.
God's redeeming grace
was typified by the animal skin coverings (a picture of
Christ's atonement), and the promise of a seed which would
crush the serpent's head (fulfilled by Christ).
The other "seed" being the Gentiles, i.e. the Assyro-Babylonians, childish
one.
Then you had the age of conscience, where men were governed by
their conscience.
Nonsense. The first crisis of law, and the establishment of the first
worship precedence, occurred immediately thereafter, when Cain brought a
sacrifice of foods from the field, and Abel brought a sacrifice of meat. As
there was no blood shed in Cain's sacrifice, there was no covering for sin
as sin requires that flesh die, and God rejected Cain's offering, but
accepted Abel's. And Cain rebelled violently.
This established the first precedence of temple practices, and gave rise to
the first new law--killing curses the earth, where the "earth" represents
the sons of God (as opposed to the "sea" or "waters," which represents the
Gentiles, as that is where they came from).
And everything else evolved from there, one step at a time.
Romans says that before the Law came, men
were still guilty of sin, because their conscience bore
witness.
NO, it doesn't. It says that about THAT POINT IN TIME, i.e. when Paul wrote
it, as it applies now--people inherently know what is right or wrong, but
don't follow their God-given consciousness of the law.
Paul took up the subject of time BEFORE THE LAW in the passage I cited
earlier, Romans 5:13-27.
During this age, man failed, so that their thoughts
became only evil, continuously.
No, their thoughts are NOW only evil continuously.
God's judgment was the flood,
and His saving grace was the ark, which is a picture of
redemption through faith in Christ.
Which is also a prophecy of the triune conflict," the accepted sons of God
being reflected in Shem, the rejected sons being reflected in Ham, and the
Gentiles being restored through Japeth (which means Japheth's wife had to
have been a Gentile).
After the flood, God established the dispensation of human
government, telling Noah that whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed, and to multiply and fill the
earth.
Which was just another evolutionary step in the process.
[snip the bedtime story section]
Next, you have the dispensation of the Law, which was a tutor
to lead men to Christ. God gave hundreds of rules. Man
failed with idolatry, and breaking the commandments. God sent
the judgment of captivity and dispersion. God's redeeming
grace was in sending Christ.
WRONG. God was dispensing the law from the very beginning, one evolutionary
step at a time.
Now you have the church age.
The church age is NOT a different direction from the Old Covenant--it is a
parallelism to the Old Covenant, and God will join covenant to covenant in
the end of the age, starting with a remnant that will "keep the commandments
of God AND have the faith of Jesus Christ," i.e they will be Israelites AND
Christians, born of "father" Israel and mother "Christianity," beginning a
new age in which God reconciles the two Testaments into ONE.
And thus, Dispensationalism is a complete lie, teaching separate fates where
God will take yet ANOTHER evolutionary step, and all to cut the hard parts
off of Jesus' prophecies and turn them into lies.
[snip the rest of the false dogma]
These stewardships can be comprehended as the unfolding of
God's kingdom, or as God's redeeming Grace in Christ.
You comprehend little of the Bible OR what God is doing through Christ, oh,
childish one.
Ike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy ®" |
|
| Title: Re: Dispensationalism's Interpretive Idiocies |
25 Jan 2008 08:49:49 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:02:41 GMT,
in article <RAhmj.11793$4b6.7415@trndny08>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abuip39ij0khgs4td3ge1q19dqjnbsd61v@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:19:00 GMT,
in article <Uo6mj.4968$NU6.4307@trndny01>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ttjhp31a59mo198d8idcj2smqo3883g8et@4ax.com...
[snip]
Preterism is the system of lies that employs an inconsistent
method of interpretation.
Yes, but so is Dispensationalism.
Ike
Nope. The Bible clearly teaches dispensations.
In a line, a step at a time, which are not different, but a continuation of
an ongoing revelatory theme, which will conclude in ONE result--whole
Israel.
The word is
used in the Bible, and basically means house rule.
The word is in the Bible, but it is not used the way Dispensationalists
twist it.
Throughout
the Bible, God has presented man with a number of different
stewardships.
No, NOT "different stewardships." The SAME stewardship, revealed in
evolutionary steps.
In each case, man fails, then God brings both
judgment, and saving grace.
It is ALWAYS the case that man fails, and God brings forth judgment, and
saving grace.
Prior to the fall, man lived in the dispensation of innocence,
when he was given the stewardship of tending the garden, and
avoiding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
No, prior to the fall, MAN lived in an age of lawlessness, but there was no
law, and where there is no law, sin is not "imputed," i.e. one cannot sin
where there is no law, as the law defines sin.
Thanks for acknowledging a distinction in the stewardships God
has committed to different groups of men, throughout the ages.
You are already a dispensationalist, but just hadn't realized
it yet.
Romans 5:13-17
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who
is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is
the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the
grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath
abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift:
for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many
offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by
one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of
righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Romans 2
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish
without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be
judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but
the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by
nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the
law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the
mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
I, nor any dispensationalist would dispute that imputed sin is
the reason for death, since Adam. So is inherited sin (Psalm
51:5), and personal acts of sin (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). That
doesn't change the fact that "as many [Gentiles] as have
sinned without the Law" (and that would include all Gentiles
from Adam until the present), have been governed by their
conscience (Romans 2:12).
Adam and Eve didn't realize they were naked, until they sinned
by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus,
they began being governed by their conscience at the time of
the fall. That some aspects of some dispensations (like man's
conscience) carry over, doesn't change that there are still
distinct stewardships God has committed to men throughout the
ages, and you have already acknowledged that in substance,
even if you don't want to call it dispensationalism.
God did not give you the stewardship of tending the garden of
Eden. He did give it to Adam and Eve. God did not give Adam
and Eve the stewardship of tending the garden after the fall.
God did not give Adam and Eve the stewardship of the Law. He
did give it to Israel, etc. That God has given distinct
stewardships to different groups of people, throughout the
ages, is an indisputable fact. Dispensationalists didn't
invent these stewardships, they simply observed them, and saw
the systematic development of God's program, even though it is
all comprehended in the unified theme of the unfolding of
God's kingdom, or the grace of God through Christ.
Meanwhile, Adam, not being one of the natural "men,"
When Adam sinned, he became a natural man, as did everyone
born through him and Eve thereafter. Your attempt to convert
Genesis 1 and 2 into two separate creation events, one for
Adam, the other for a mass of Gentiles, just to accommodate
the fairy-tale myth of evolution, is unfounded, and has, to my
satisfaction, already been debunked, point by point, from the
verses you used to try and support it.
was created in a
sinless state.
And thus you acknowledge the difference that exists between
the age of innocence and fallen man. You just hadn't realized
you already believe in dispensationalism.
But Adam and Eve were given ONE law--don't touch that "tree,"
i.e. do not get involved in the things of the other "seed."
ibid. He gave "Adam and Eve" one law that he did not give to
you, or anyone else since the fall. Thanks for admitting the
distinction in stewardships God has committed to men. You are
indeed a dispensationalist.
When the two "seeds" got together, THAT'S when the trouble started--Adam
came under the curse of sin for breaking the one law gave him, and the
natural man came under the curse of the law because his sins were then
defined.
And thus began the evolution of God's revelation, which all started with one
law, and grew from there.
Man
failed by eating of the tree.
LOL
You think all this happened because of a piece of "fruit?"
No, because of one sin.
Grow up already.
God brought judgment, in
banishing Adam and Eve from the garden, thorns and thistles in
the ground, labor pains in child birth, spiritual death, and
the process of physical death began.
Yeah: They took on the existence of the natural man, which WAS "the garden
of Eden."
Once again you demonstrate your childish ignorance of what the story was
REALLY about.
Rant as you wish. You're not really distinguishing yourself,
because you have already admitted to a distinction in
stewardships God has committed to men throughout the ages.
<yawn>.....
Genesis, up through the flood account, is slave literature, much like Negro
spirituals. The American slaves could not openly encourage one another, or
give one another directions on how to escape, so they took the stories of
their captors--church stories--applied their own stylistic musical
conventions on it, and used it to send messages one to another, to whit...
"So, too, in many instances did the spirituals themselves. Spirituals
sometimes provided comfort and eased the boredom of daily tasks, but above
all, they were an expression of spiritual devotion and a yearning for
freedom from bondage. Songs like "Steal Away (to Jesus)", or "Swing Low,
Sweet Chariot" raised unexpectedly in a dusty field, or sung softly in the
dark of night, signaled that the coast was clear and the time to escape had
come. The River Jordan became the Ohio River, or the Mississippi, or another
body of water that had to be crossed on the journey to freedom. "Wade in the
Water" contained explicit instructions to fugitive slaves on how to avoid
capture and the route to take to successfully make their way to freedom.[1]
Leaving dry land and taking to the water was a common strategy to throw
pursuing bloodhounds off one's trail. "The Gospel Train", and "Swing Low,
Sweet Chariot" all contained veiled references to the Underground Railroad,
and Follow the Drinking Gourd contained a coded map to the Underground
Railroad. The title itself was an Africanized reference to the Big Dipper,
which pointed the way to the North Star and freedom."
Likewise, the Hebrews could not come out and call their antagonists "the
children of their own devil" openly, so they took the mythology of the
Assyro-Babylonians (derived from the first civilization of man that rose up
in the fertile crescent), and turned the stories around against their
captors in a way they couldn't understand, teaching their monotheism (as
opposed to the abominable pantheism of their captors), and teaching their
distinct creation (as opposed to dirty mingled "seed" of their captors), and
teaching their wise law (as opposed to the materialistic monetary codes of
Hammurabi), and so on, and so forth.
God's redeeming grace
was typified by the animal skin coverings (a picture of
Christ's atonement), and the promise of a seed which would
crush the serpent's head (fulfilled by Christ).
The other "seed" being the Gentiles, i.e. the Assyro-Babylonians, childish
one.
Then you had the age of conscience, where men were governed by
their conscience.
Nonsense. The first crisis of law, and the establishment of the first
worship precedence, occurred immediately thereafter, when Cain brought a
sacrifice of foods from the field, and Abel brought a sacrifice of meat. As
there was no blood shed in Cain's sacrifice, there was no covering for sin
as sin requires that flesh die, and God rejected Cain's offering, but
accepted Abel's. And Cain rebelled violently.
This established the first precedence of temple practices, and gave rise to
the first new law--killing curses the earth, where the "earth" represents
the sons of God (as opposed to the "sea" or "waters," which represents the
Gentiles, as that is where they came from).
And everything else evolved from there, one step at a time.
Romans says that before the Law came, men
were still guilty of sin, because their conscience bore
witness.
NO, it doesn't. It says that about THAT POINT IN TIME, i.e. when Paul wrote
it, as it applies now--people inherently know what is right or wrong, but
don't follow their God-given consciousness of the law.
It specifies "Gentiles", and says "as many as have sinned
without the law" (Rom. 2:12). That includes all pre-flood
Gentiles. That condition has existed since the fall of man.
Paul took up the subject of time BEFORE THE LAW in the passage I cited
earlier, Romans 5:13-27.
During this age, man failed, so that their thoughts
became only evil, continuously.
No, their thoughts are NOW only evil continuously.
God's judgment was the flood,
and His saving grace was the ark, which is a picture of
redemption through faith in Christ.
Which is also a prophecy of the triune conflict," the accepted sons of God
being reflected in Shem, the rejected sons being reflected in Ham, and the
Gentiles being restored through Japeth (which means Japheth's wife had to
have been a Gentile).
After the flood, God established the dispensation of human
government, telling Noah that whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed, and to multiply and fill the
earth.
Which was just another evolutionary step in the process.
[snip the bedtime story section]
Next, you have the dispensation of the Law, which was a tutor
to lead men to Christ. God gave hundreds of rules. Man
failed with idolatry, and breaking the commandments. God sent
the judgment of captivity and dispersion. God's redeeming
grace was in sending Christ.
WRONG. God was dispensing the law from the very beginning, one evolutionary
step at a time.
Now you have the church age.
The church age is NOT a different direction from the Old Covenant--it is a
parallelism to the Old Covenant, and God will join covenant to covenant in
the end of the age, starting with a remnant that will "keep the commandments
of God AND have the faith of Jesus Christ," i.e they will be Israelites AND
Christians, born of "father" Israel and mother "Christianity," beginning a
new age in which God reconciles the two Testaments into ONE.
And thus, Dispensationalism is a complete lie, teaching separate fates where
God will take yet ANOTHER evolutionary step, and all to cut the hard parts
off of Jesus' prophecies and turn them into lies.
[snip the rest of the false dogma]
These stewardships can be comprehended as the unfolding of
God's kingdom, or as God's redeeming Grace in Christ.
You comprehend little of the Bible OR what God is doing through Christ, oh,
childish one.
Ike
In substance, you have already admitted there have been
different stewardships committed to different groups of men,
throughout the ages. You _are_ a dispensationalist, even if
you don't like to give it that title. You strike me as one
who, even if he generally agreed in substance, would feign
indignation, and re-word things according to his own ideas,
just to try and distinguish himself. Thanks for showing us
how mature you are, Ike.
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
--
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Dispensationalism's Interpretive Idiocies |
25 Jan 2008 11:00:37 AM |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1jqjp354sjb7fc32s372tem4e9h2h1khi5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:02:41 GMT,
in article <RAhmj.11793$4b6.7415@trndny08>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abuip39ij0khgs4td3ge1q19dqjnbsd61v@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:19:00 GMT,
in article <Uo6mj.4968$NU6.4307@trndny01>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ttjhp31a59mo198d8idcj2smqo3883g8et@4ax.com...
[snip]
Preterism is the system of lies that employs an inconsistent
method of interpretation.
Yes, but so is Dispensationalism.
Ike
Nope. The Bible clearly teaches dispensations.
In a line, a step at a time, which are not different, but a continuation
of
an ongoing revelatory theme, which will conclude in ONE result--whole
Israel.
The word is
used in the Bible, and basically means house rule.
The word is in the Bible, but it is not used the way Dispensationalists
twist it.
Throughout
the Bible, God has presented man with a number of different
stewardships.
No, NOT "different stewardships." The SAME stewardship, revealed in
evolutionary steps.
In each case, man fails, then God brings both
judgment, and saving grace.
It is ALWAYS the case that man fails, and God brings forth judgment, and
saving grace.
Prior to the fall, man lived in the dispensation of innocence,
when he was given the stewardship of tending the garden, and
avoiding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
No, prior to the fall, MAN lived in an age of lawlessness, but there was
no
law, and where there is no law, sin is not "imputed," i.e. one cannot sin
where there is no law, as the law defines sin.
Thanks for acknowledging a distinction in the stewardships God
has committed to different groups of men, throughout the ages.
You are already a dispensationalist, but just hadn't realized
it yet.
Not "distinction." Who said anything about "distinction?"
Romans 5:13-17
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who
is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is
the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more
the
grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ,
hath
abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift:
for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many
offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by
one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of
righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Romans 2
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish
without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be
judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but
the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by
nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the
law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the
mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
I, nor any dispensationalist would dispute that imputed sin is
the reason for death, since Adam. So is inherited sin (Psalm
51:5), and personal acts of sin (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). That
doesn't change the fact that "as many [Gentiles] as have
sinned without the Law" (and that would include all Gentiles
from Adam until the present), have been governed by their
conscience (Romans 2:12).
SINCE Adam. Not before.
Adam and Eve didn't realize they were naked, until they sinned
by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Which has nothing to do with the Gentiles that were there.
Thus,
they began being governed by their conscience at the time of
the fall. That some aspects of some dispensations (like man's
conscience) carry over, doesn't change that there are still
distinct stewardships God has committed to men throughout the
ages, and you have already acknowledged that in substance,
even if you don't want to call it dispensationalism.
NOT "Dispensationalism."
Evolution.
God did not give you the stewardship of tending the garden of
Eden. He did give it to Adam and Eve.
Which was giving it to us, and that stewardship is STILL IN EFFECT.
God doesn't undo.
He ADDS.
That's EVOLUTIONARY, NOT "Dispensational."
God did not give Adam
and Eve the stewardship of tending the garden after the fall.
Goofy.
Man IS "the garden."
God did not give Adam and Eve the stewardship of the Law.
Yes, He did, starting with the first one: "Don't touch that tree."
He
did give it to Israel, etc.
Nope.
That was another step up the ladder, NOT an entirely new thing. The
FOUNDATION of the required animal sacrifices was laid down in the conflict
between Cain and Abel, and in fact, the making of skins for Adam and Eve.
That God has given distinct
stewardships to different groups of people, throughout the
ages, is an indisputable fact.
It's completely disputable: God never did it. He ADDED and REFINED what He
did previously. He did NOT start over again anywhere along the way.
Dispensationalists didn't
invent these stewardships, they simply observed them, and saw
the systematic development of God's program, even though it is
all comprehended in the unified theme of the unfolding of
God's kingdom, or the grace of God through Christ.
Which is a lie, as Dispensationalists DIVIDE Israel from Christianity when
God is getting ready to COMBINE them.
Meanwhile, Adam, not being one of the natural "men,"
When Adam sinned, he became a natural man, as did everyone
born through him and Eve thereafter.
Because the SIN was WITH "natural man."
Your attempt to convert
Genesis 1 and 2 into two separate creation events, one for
Adam, the other for a mass of Gentiles, just to accommodate
the fairy-tale myth of evolution, is unfounded, and has, to my
satisfaction, already been debunked, point by point, from the
verses you used to try and support it.
LOL
Wrong again.
THIS is what the second Genesis account is actually all about....
Eze 31:3-18a
Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with
a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick
boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her
rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto
all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the
trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became
long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his
branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under
his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in
the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were
not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor
any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the
trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast lifted up thyself
in height, and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs, and his heart
is lifted up in his height; I have therefore delivered him into the hand of
the mighty one of the heathen; he shall surely deal with him: I have driven
him out for his wickedness.
And strangers, the terrible of the nations, have cut him off, and have
left him: upon the mountains and in all the valleys his branches are fallen,
and his boughs are broken by all the rivers of the land; and all the people
of the earth are gone down from his shadow, and have left him.
Upon his ruin shall all the fowls of the heaven remain, and all the
beasts of the field shall be upon his branches: To the end that none of all
the trees by the waters exalt themselves for their height, neither shoot up
their top among the thick boughs, neither their trees stand up in their
height, all that drink water: for they are all delivered unto death, to the
nether parts of the earth, in the midst of the children of men, with them
that go down to the pit.
Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day when he went down to the grave I
caused a mourning: I covered the deep for him, and I restrained the floods
thereof, and the great waters were stayed: and I caused Lebanon to mourn for
him, and all the trees of the field fainted for him. I made the nations to
shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that
descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of
Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the
earth.
They also went down into hell with him unto them that be slain with the
sword; and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst
of the heathen.
To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of
Eden?
Yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether
parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised with
them that be slain by the sword.
was created in a
sinless state.
And thus you acknowledge the difference that exists between
the age of innocence and fallen man. You just hadn't realized
you already believe in dispensationalism.
Evolution, not "Dispensationalism."
But Adam and Eve were given ONE law--don't touch that "tree,"
i.e. do not get involved in the things of the other "seed."
ibid. He gave "Adam and Eve" one law that he did not give to
you, or anyone else since the fall. Thanks for admitting the
distinction in stewardships God has committed to men. You are
indeed a dispensationalist.
LOL
He "dispensed" a law.
That's NOT "Dispensationalism" as you liar teach it, dividing asunder what
God is joining together.
When the two "seeds" got together, THAT'S when the trouble started--Adam
came under the curse of sin for breaking the one law gave him, and the
natural man came under the curse of the law because his sins were then
defined.
And thus began the evolution of God's revelation, which all started with
one
law, and grew from there.
Man
failed by eating of the tree.
LOL
You think all this happened because of a piece of "fruit?"
No, because of one sin.
You think "eating" a piece of "fruit" was the sin in the garden?
You think THAT'S what God got so upset about?
Get a clue, childish one.
Pr 30:20 [emphasis added]
Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she "eateth," and wipeth her
"mouth," and saith, I have done no wickedness.
THIS is what the event in the garden was about, NOT a piece of fruit, oh,
childish one.
Grow up already.
God brought judgment, in
banishing Adam and Eve from the garden, thorns and thistles in
the ground, labor pains in child birth, spiritual death, and
the process of physical death began.
Yeah: They took on the existence of the natural man, which WAS "the garden
of Eden."
Once again you demonstrate your childish ignorance of what the story was
REALLY about.
Rant as you wish. You're not really distinguishing yourself,
because you have already admitted to a distinction in
stewardships God has committed to men throughout the ages.
No rant to it: EZEKIEL revealed what the story was REALLY about, and it
wern't 'bout no "piece of fruit," childish one.
Genesis, up through the flood account, is slave literature, much like
Negro
spirituals. The American slaves could not openly encourage one another, or
give one another directions on how to escape, so they took the stories of
their captors--church stories--applied their own stylistic musical
conventions on it, and used it to send messages one to another, to whit...
"So, too, in many instances did the spirituals themselves. Spirituals
sometimes provided comfort and eased the boredom of daily tasks, but above
all, they were an expression of spiritual devotion and a yearning for
freedom from bondage. Songs like "Steal Away (to Jesus)", or "Swing Low,
Sweet Chariot" raised unexpectedly in a dusty field, or sung softly in the
dark of night, signaled that the coast was clear and the time to escape
had
come. The River Jordan became the Ohio River, or the Mississippi, or
another
body of water that had to be crossed on the journey to freedom. "Wade in
the
Water" contained explicit instructions to fugitive slaves on how to avoid
capture and the route to take to successfully make their way to
freedom.[1]
Leaving dry land and taking to the water was a common strategy to throw
pursuing bloodhounds off one's trail. "The Gospel Train", and "Swing Low,
Sweet Chariot" all contained veiled references to the Underground
Railroad,
and Follow the Drinking Gourd contained a coded map to the Underground
Railroad. The title itself was an Africanized reference to the Big Dipper,
which pointed the way to the North Star and freedom."
Likewise, the Hebrews could not come out and call their antagonists "the
children of their own devil" openly, so they took the mythology of the
Assyro-Babylonians (derived from the first civilization of man that rose
up
in the fertile crescent), and turned the stories around against their
captors in a way they couldn't understand, teaching their monotheism (as
opposed to the abominable pantheism of their captors), and teaching their
distinct creation (as opposed to dirty mingled "seed" of their captors),
and
teaching their wise law (as opposed to the materialistic monetary codes of
Hammurabi), and so on, and so forth.
You don't have a clue, do you.
Here is the essence of everything that the beginning of Genesis is about,
and it went right over your head.
God's redeeming grace
was typified by the animal skin coverings (a picture of
Christ's atonement), and the promise of a seed which would
crush the serpent's head (fulfilled by Christ).
The other "seed" being the Gentiles, i.e. the Assyro-Babylonians, childish
one.
Then you had the age of conscience, where men were governed by
their conscience.
Nonsense. The first crisis of law, and the establishment of the first
worship precedence, occurred immediately thereafter, when Cain brought a
sacrifice of foods from the field, and Abel brought a sacrifice of meat.
As
there was no blood shed in Cain's sacrifice, there was no covering for sin
as sin requires that flesh die, and God rejected Cain's offering, but
accepted Abel's. And Cain rebelled violently.
This established the first precedence of temple practices, and gave rise
to
the first new law--killing curses the earth, where the "earth" represents
the sons of God (as opposed to the "sea" or "waters," which represents the
Gentiles, as that is where they came from).
And everything else evolved from there, one step at a time.
Romans says that before the Law came, men
were still guilty of sin, because their conscience bore
witness.
NO, it doesn't. It says that about THAT POINT IN TIME, i.e. when Paul
wrote
it, as it applies now--people inherently know what is right or wrong, but
don't follow their God-given consciousness of the law.
It specifies "Gentiles", and says "as many as have sinned
without the law" (Rom. 2:12). That includes all pre-flood
Gentiles. That condition has existed since the fall of man.
Nope. BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned, there was no sin, because where there is
no LAW, there is no sin imputed.
And the "law" in the context of Romans 2:12 is the ritual law, NOT moral
law, as Jesus and Paul spoke of the Gentiles doing what is right by nature,
revealing the working of the law in their inward parts.
Paul took up the subject of time BEFORE THE LAW in the passage I cited
earlier, Romans 5:13-27.
During this age, man failed, so that their thoughts
became only evil, continuously.
No, their thoughts are NOW only evil continuously.
God's judgment was the flood,
and His saving grace was the ark, which is a picture of
redemption through faith in Christ.
Which is also a prophecy of the triune conflict," the accepted sons of God
being reflected in Shem, the rejected sons being reflected in Ham, and the
Gentiles being restored through Japeth (which means Japheth's wife had to
have been a Gentile).
After the flood, God established the dispensation of human
government, telling Noah that whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed, and to multiply and fill the
earth.
Which was just another evolutionary step in the process.
[snip the bedtime story section]
Next, you have the dispensation of the Law, which was a tutor
to lead men to Christ. God gave hundreds of rules. Man
failed with idolatry, and breaking the commandments. God sent
the judgment of captivity and dispersion. God's redeeming
grace was in sending Christ.
WRONG. God was dispensing the law from the very beginning, one
evolutionary
step at a time.
Now you have the church age.
The church age is NOT a different direction from the Old Covenant--it is a
parallelism to the Old Covenant, and God will join covenant to covenant in
the end of the age, starting with a remnant that will "keep the
commandments
of God AND have the faith of Jesus Christ," i.e they will be Israelites
AND
Christians, born of "father" Israel and mother "Christianity," beginning a
new age in which God reconciles the two Testaments into ONE.
And thus, Dispensationalism is a complete lie, teaching separate fates
where
God will take yet ANOTHER evolutionary step, and all to cut the hard parts
off of Jesus' prophecies and turn them into lies.
[snip the rest of the false dogma]
These stewardships can be comprehended as the unfolding of
God's kingdom, or as God's redeeming Grace in Christ.
You comprehend little of the Bible OR what God is doing through Christ,
oh,
childish one.
Ike
In substance, you have already admitted there have been
different stewardships committed to different groups of men,
throughout the ages.
There has NEVER been a "different" stewardship. There has been ONE
stewardship with ever increasing complexity.
See, you can't even keep MY statements straight let alone the Bible's.
God teaches E-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n, NOT D-i-s-p-e-n-s-a-t-i-o-n-s.
You _are_ a dispensationalist, even if
you don't like to give it that title. You strike me as one
who, even if he generally agreed in substance, would feign
indignation, and re-word things according to his own ideas,
just to try and distinguish himself. Thanks for showing us
how mature you are, Ike.
Ah, the childish one totters off, having completely missed the point, still
teaching bedtime stories and divisive doctrines instead of seeing the truth
that exists right under everyone's noses.
You are a shame to the memory of Luther.
Ike
--
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
The Tree of Life (from "The Character Map")
The Beloved
Faith Hope
Righteousness Judgment Compassion
Courage Integrity Diligence Grace
Discipline of Thought Service Desire Decision and Belief
Glory Honor Power Wisdom Riches Blessing Strength w/Thanksgiving
He Who Loves
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mikal119" |
|
| Title: Re: Dispensationalism's Interpretive Idiocies |
25 Jan 2008 08:59:03 AM |
|
|
On Jan 25, 8:49 am, Randy (R) <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:02:41 GMT,
in article <RAhmj.11793$4b6.7415@trndny08>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Randy (R)" <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abuip39ij0khgs4td3ge1q19dqjnbsd61v@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:19:00 GMT,
in article <Uo6mj.4968$NU6.4307@trndny01>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Randy (R)" <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ttjhp31a59mo198d8idcj2smqo3883g8et@4ax.com...
[snip]
Preterism is the system of lies that employs an inconsistent
method of interpretation.
Yes, but so is Dispensationalism.
Ike
Nope. The Bible clearly teaches dispensations.
In a line, a step at a time, which are not different, but a continuation of
an ongoing revelatory theme, which will conclude in ONE result--whole
Israel.
The word is
used in the Bible, and basically means house rule.
The word is in the Bible, but it is not used the way Dispensationalists
twist it.
Throughout
the Bible, God has presented man with a number of different
stewardships.
No, NOT "different stewardships." The SAME stewardship, revealed in
evolutionary steps.
In each case, man fails, then God brings both
judgment, and saving grace.
It is ALWAYS the case that man fails, and God brings forth judgment, and
saving grace.
Prior to the fall, man lived in the dispensation of innocence,
when he was given the stewardship of tending the garden, and
avoiding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
No, prior to the fall, MAN lived in an age of lawlessness, but there was no
law, and where there is no law, sin is not "imputed," i.e. one cannot sin
where there is no law, as the law defines sin.
Thanks for acknowledging a distinction in the stewardships God
has committed to different groups of men, throughout the ages.
You are already a dispensationalist, but just hadn't realized
it yet.
Romans 5:13-17
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who
is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is
the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the
grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath
abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift:
for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many
offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by
one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of
righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Romans 2
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish
without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be
judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but
the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by
nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the
law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the
mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
I, nor any dispensationalist would dispute that imputed sin is
the reason for death, since Adam. So is inherited sin (Psalm
51:5), and personal acts of sin (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). That
doesn't change the fact that "as many [Gentiles] as have
sinned without the Law" (and that would include all Gentiles
from Adam until the present), have been governed by their
conscience (Romans 2:12).
Adam and Eve didn't realize they were naked, until they sinned
by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus,
they began being governed by their conscience at the time of
the fall. That some aspects of some dispensations (like man's
conscience) carry over, doesn't change that there are still
distinct stewardships God has committed to men throughout the
ages, and you have already acknowledged that in substance,
even if you don't want to call it dispensationalism.
God did not give you the stewardship of tending the garden of
Eden. He did give it to Adam and Eve. God did not give Adam
and Eve the stewardship of tending the garden after the fall.
God did not give Adam and Eve the stewardship of the Law. He
did give it to Israel, etc. That God has given distinct
stewardships to different groups of people, throughout the
ages, is an indisputable fact. Dispensationalists didn't
invent these stewardships, they simply observed them, and saw
the systematic development of God's program, even though it is
all comprehended in the unified theme of the unfolding of
God's kingdom, or the grace of God through Christ.
Meanwhile, Adam, not being one of the natural "men,"
When Adam sinned, he became a natural man, as did everyone
born through him and Eve thereafter. Your attempt to convert
Genesis 1 and 2 into two separate creation events, one for
Adam, the other for a mass of Gentiles, just to accommodate
the fairy-tale myth of evolution, is unfounded, and has, to my
satisfaction, already been debunked, point by point, from the
verses you used to try and support it.
was created in a
sinless state.
And thus you acknowledge the difference that exists between
the age of innocence and fallen man. You just hadn't realized
you already believe in dispensationalism.
But Adam and Eve were given ONE law--don't touch that "tree,"
i.e. do not get involved in the things of the other "seed."
ibid. He gave "Adam and Eve" one law that he did not give to
you, or anyone else since the fall. Thanks for admitting the
distinction in stewardships God has committed to men. You are
indeed a dispensationalist.
When the two "seeds" got together, THAT'S when the trouble started--Adam
came under the curse of sin for breaking the one law gave him, and the
natural man came under the curse of the law because his sins were then
defined.
And thus began the evolution of God's revelation, which all started with one
law, and grew from there.
Man
failed by eating of the tree.
LOL
You think all this happened because of a piece of "fruit?"
No, because of one sin.
Grow up already.
God brought judgment, in
banishing Adam and Eve from the garden, thorns and thistles in
the ground, labor pains in child birth, spiritual death, and
the process of physical death began.
Yeah: They took on the existence of the natural man, which WAS "the garden
of Eden."
Once again you demonstrate your childish ignorance of what the story was
REALLY about.
Rant as you wish. You're not really distinguishing yourself,
because you have already admitted to a distinction in
stewardships God has committed to men throughout the ages.
<yawn>.....
Genesis, up through the flood account, is slave literature, much like Negro
spirituals. The American slaves could not openly encourage one another, or
give one another directions on how to escape, so they took the stories of
their captors--church stories--applied their own stylistic musical
conventions on it, and used it to send messages one to another, to whit...
"So, too, in many instances did the spirituals themselves. Spirituals
sometimes provided comfort and eased the boredom of daily tasks, but above
all, they were an expression of spiritual devotion and a yearning for
freedom from bondage. Songs like "Steal Away (to Jesus)", or "Swing Low,
Sweet Chariot" raised unexpectedly in a dusty field, or sung softly in the
dark of night, signaled that the coast was clear and the time to escape had
come. The River Jordan became the Ohio River, or the Mississippi, or another
body of water that had to be crossed on the journey to freedom. "Wade in the
Water" contained explicit instructions to fugitive slaves on how to avoid
capture and the route to take to successfully make their way to freedom.[1]
Leaving dry land and taking to the water was a common strategy to throw
pursuing bloodhounds off one's trail. "The Gospel Train", and "Swing Low,
Sweet Chariot" all contained veiled references to the Underground Railroad,
and Follow the Drinking Gourd contained a coded map to the Underground
Railroad. The title itself was an Africanized reference to the Big Dipper,
which pointed the way to the North Star and freedom."
Likewise, the Hebrews could not come out and call their antagonists "the
children of their own devil" openly, so they took the mythology of the
Assyro-Babylonians (derived from the first civilization of man that rose up
in the fertile crescent), and turned the stories around against their
captors in a way they couldn't understand, teaching their monotheism (as
opposed to the abominable pantheism of their captors), and teaching their
distinct creation (as opposed to dirty mingled "seed" of their captors), and
teaching their wise law (as opposed to the materialistic monetary codes of
Hammurabi), and so on, and so forth.
God's redeeming grace
was typified by the animal skin coverings (a picture of
Christ's atonement), and the promise of a seed which would
crush the serpent's head (fulfilled by Christ).
The other "seed" being the Gentiles, i.e. the Assyro-Babylonians, childish
one.
Then you had the age of conscience, where men were governed by
their conscience.
Nonsense. The first crisis of law, and the establishment of the first
worship precedence, occurred immediately thereafter, when Cain brought a
sacrifice of foods from the field, and Abel brought a sacrifice of meat. As
there was no blood shed in Cain's sacrifice, there was no covering for sin
as sin requires that flesh die, and God
...
read more >>
Randy the origjnal sin is CANCELLED
Get it through your skull.
# Jeremiah 31:29
"In those days people will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour
grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
Jeremiah 31:28-30 (in Context) Jeremiah 31 (Whole Chapter)
# Jeremiah 31:30
Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--
his own teeth will be set on edge.
Jeremiah 31:29-31 (in Context) Jeremiah 31 (Whole Chapter)
Thats NOW Randy.
As for this nonsense about Adam and Eve, understand this.
"The Prescient God cannot be imagined to do any thing, which he
foreknows he will afterwards be grieved at his heart for having done"
Sir William Drummond quote that.It means at no time were their acyions
beyond Gods plan, at no time did a serpent foil Gods authority.
It means just like Jesus was destined for death and then life, Adam
and Eve were destined to do what they did for Jesus to even have a
purpose.
However, since you never bother to actually respond to my posts, and
the other nutcases here claim I am actually satan, you just go on and
slander our parents some more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy ®" |
|
| Title: Re: Dispensationalism's Interpretive Idiocies |
25 Jan 2008 09:27:47 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:59:03 -0800 (PST),
in article
<5b1e61c0-de6a-4d92-92d8-ccdf0e82b44d@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Mikal119 <adravirgo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 25, 8:49 am, Randy (R) <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:02:41 GMT,
in article <RAhmj.11793$4b6.7415@trndny08>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Randy (R)" <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abuip39ij0khgs4td3ge1q19dqjnbsd61v@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:19:00 GMT,
in article <Uo6mj.4968$NU6.4307@trndny01>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Randy (R)" <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ttjhp31a59mo198d8idcj2smqo3883g8et@4ax.com...
[snip]
Preterism is the system of lies that employs an inconsistent
method of interpretation.
Yes, but so is Dispensationalism.
Ike
Nope. The Bible clearly teaches dispensations.
In a line, a step at a time, which are not different, but a continuation of
an ongoing revelatory theme, which will conclude in ONE result--whole
Israel.
The word is
used in the Bible, and basically means house rule.
The word is in the Bible, but it is not used the way Dispensationalists
twist it.
Throughout
the Bible, God has presented man with a number of different
stewardships.
No, NOT "different stewardships." The SAME stewardship, revealed in
evolutionary steps.
In each case, man fails, then God brings both
judgment, and saving grace.
It is ALWAYS the case that man fails, and God brings forth judgment, and
saving grace.
Prior to the fall, man lived in the dispensation of innocence,
when he was given the stewardship of tending the garden, and
avoiding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
No, prior to the fall, MAN lived in an age of lawlessness, but there was no
law, and where there is no law, sin is not "imputed," i.e. one cannot sin
where there is no law, as the law defines sin.
Thanks for acknowledging a distinction in the stewardships God
has committed to different groups of men, throughout the ages.
You are already a dispensationalist, but just hadn't realized
it yet.
Romans 5:13-17
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who
is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is
the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the
grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath
abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift:
for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many
offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by
one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of
righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Romans 2
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish
without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be
judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but
the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by
nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the
law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the
mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
I, nor any dispensationalist would dispute that imputed sin is
the reason for death, since Adam. So is inherited sin (Psalm
51:5), and personal acts of sin (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). That
doesn't change the fact that "as many [Gentiles] as have
sinned without the Law" (and that would include all Gentiles
from Adam until the present), have been governed by their
conscience (Romans 2:12).
Adam and Eve didn't realize they were naked, until they sinned
by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus,
they began being governed by their conscience at the time of
the fall. That some aspects of some dispensations (like man's
conscience) carry over, doesn't change that there are still
distinct stewardships God has committed to men throughout the
ages, and you have already acknowledged that in substance,
even if you don't want to call it dispensationalism.
God did not give you the stewardship of tending the garden of
Eden. He did give it to Adam and Eve. God did not give Adam
and Eve the stewardship of tending the garden after the fall.
God did not give Adam and Eve the stewardship of the Law. He
did give it to Israel, etc. That God has given distinct
stewardships to different groups of people, throughout the
ages, is an indisputable fact. Dispensationalists didn't
invent these stewardships, they simply observed them, and saw
the systematic development of God's program, even though it is
all comprehended in the unified theme of the unfolding of
God's kingdom, or the grace of God through Christ.
Meanwhile, Adam, not being one of the natural "men,"
When Adam sinned, he became a natural man, as did everyone
born through him and Eve thereafter. Your attempt to convert
Genesis 1 and 2 into two separate creation events, one for
Adam, the other for a mass of Gentiles, just to accommodate
the fairy-tale myth of evolution, is unfounded, and has, to my
satisfaction, already been debunked, point by point, from the
verses you used to try and support it.
was created in a
sinless state.
And thus you acknowledge the difference that exists between
the age of innocence and fallen man. You just hadn't realized
you already believe in dispensationalism.
But Adam and Eve were given ONE law--don't touch that "tree,"
i.e. do not get involved in the things of the other "seed."
ibid. He gave "Adam and Eve" one law that he did not give to
you, or anyone else since the fall. Thanks for admitting the
distinction in stewardships God has committed to men. You are
indeed a dispensationalist.
When the two "seeds" got together, THAT'S when the trouble started--Adam
came under the curse of sin for breaking the one law gave him, and the
natural man came under the curse of the law because his sins were then
defined.
And thus began the evolution of God's revelation, which all started with one
law, and grew from there.
Man
failed by eating of the tree.
LOL
You think all this happened because of a piece of "fruit?"
No, because of one sin.
Grow up already.
God brought judgment, in
banishing Adam and Eve from the garden, thorns and thistles in
the ground, labor pains in child birth, spiritual death, and
the process of physical death began.
Yeah: They took on the existence of the natural man, which WAS "the garden
of Eden."
Once again you demonstrate your childish ignorance of what the story was
REALLY about.
Rant as you wish. You're not really distinguishing yourself,
because you have already admitted to a distinction in
stewardships God has committed to men throughout the ages.
<yawn>.....
Genesis, up through the flood account, is slave literature, much like Negro
spirituals. The American slaves could not openly encourage one another, or
give one another directions on how to escape, so they took the stories of
their captors--church stories--applied their own stylistic musical
conventions on it, and used it to send messages one to another, to whit...
"So, too, in many instances did the spirituals themselves. Spirituals
sometimes provided comfort and eased the boredom of daily tasks, but above
all, they were an expression of spiritual devotion and a yearning for
freedom from bondage. Songs like "Steal Away (to Jesus)", or "Swing Low,
Sweet Chariot" raised unexpectedly in a dusty field, or sung softly in the
dark of night, signaled that the coast was clear and the time to escape had
come. The River Jordan became the Ohio River, or the Mississippi, or another
body of water that had to be crossed on the journey to freedom. "Wade in the
Water" contained explicit instructions to fugitive slaves on how to avoid
capture and the route to take to successfully make their way to freedom.[1]
Leaving dry land and taking to the water was a common strategy to throw
pursuing bloodhounds off one's trail. "The Gospel Train", and "Swing Low,
Sweet Chariot" all contained veiled references to the Underground Railroad,
and Follow the Drinking Gourd contained a coded map to the Underground
Railroad. The title itself was an Africanized reference to the Big Dipper,
which pointed the way to the North Star and freedom."
Likewise, the Hebrews could not come out and call their antagonists "the
children of their own devil" openly, so they took the mythology of the
| | | | | | | |
