• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Baptist Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead

Status
Not open for further replies.

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
So after all the stuff you have been shouting at me in defense of Darby's epiphany and subsequently a systematic doctrine of dispensationalism you won't 'fess up that you are a dispensationalist. It was clear you did not know much about dispensationalism but that is normal. The knowledge of most who claim to be dispensationalists doesn't extend beyond "Rapture Ready"!
Clearly you don't pay attention!
I have not once defended Darby. In fact I have distanced myself from him. That is why I quoted to you Isaac Watts. Dispensationalism started well before Darby. I have told you time and again I have never read any of Darby's books. Why would you associate me with him? :rolleyes:

I have also reiterated many times that, yes, I am a dispensationalist. But I have never, never, categorized myself into a specific kind of dispensationalist such as you want me to.
You are like the Calvinist who must label all non-covenantalists as dispensationalists after their groupings. The Calvinist typically labels all non-Cals as Arminians. You have the same mind set. You want to put me in a box of your liking where I don't fit. I follow the Bible, not man's teaching.

You really don't know what I believe because you are too busy quoting the beliefs of others to find out what I believe.

Let's get some things straight.
One doesn't have to intertwine and confuse different threads of doctrine.

There is the doctrine of last things called eschatology. That has nothing to do with dispensationalism. It is separate.
Then there is dispensationalism.
Then there is the doctrine of the resurrection entirely apart from the above two, although it has some relevance to the doctrine of eschatology, in that our resurrection is still to happen.

These are separate doctrines.

My wife used to be Presbyterian before she married me.
She was pre-trib and pre-mil, but not dispensational.

There are those on this board that are dispensational but not pre-trib.
Some are mid-trib and some are post-trib.

Chiliasm is Millennialism, and many of them believed in a rapture.
They were dispensational in their thinking. That cannot be denied.
Search it out. This has already been demonstrated to you. You simply flat reject it. It is a denial of truth.
Links to this evidence have been posted before.

Remember:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).
--With respect to all your learned sources, that is all a dispensation is.
Work with it.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
So after all the stuff you have been shouting at me in defense of Darby's epiphany and subsequently a systematic doctrine of dispensationalism you won't 'fess up that you are a dispensationalist. It was clear you did not know much about dispensationalism but that is normal. The knowledge of most who claim to be dispensationalists doesn't extend beyond "Rapture Ready"!
Clearly you don't pay attention!
I have not once defended Darby. In fact I have distanced myself from him. That is why I quoted to you Isaac Watts. Dispensationalism started well before Darby. I have told you time and again I have never read any of Darby's books. Why would you associate me with him?

Your problem DHK is what is called "reading comprehension"! You do not comprehend what you read. Try again in my previous post. I did not say you defended Darby. I said you had defended Darby's epiphany and subsequently a systematic doctrine of dispensationalism. I have made the case, as have others, that Darby is the "grand puba" of dispensationalism; that means he invented it. You have defended dispensationalism for years. Now just because you are ignorant of the history of dispensationalism, since Darby's revelation around 1830, and the subsequent contributions of Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Ironside, Gaebelein, Walvoord and numerous others don't blame me!

In all honesty DHK I don't care whether you 'fess up to being dispensationalist of whatever stripe. I am pleased to see that the partial or Progressive Dispensationalist, for which Chafer expresses contempt, are moving to a Biblical position regarding the Church and Israel. As I noted in my post #59:

"Watts calls Israel “the church,” proclaims the “church or nation of the Jews” to be a “type or figure of the whole invisible church of God,”

"Watts argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin and has replaced them with the Christian church."

"The church, according to Watts, inherits all of the promises God made to Israel, albeit in spiritual form"


I believe this is the direction that the partial or Progressive dispensationalists are moving.

:laugh::wavey::laugh::wavey:
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Your problem DHK is what is called "reading comprehension"! You do not comprehend what you read. Try again in my previous post. I did not say you defended Darby. I said you had defended Darby's epiphany and subsequently a systematic doctrine of dispensationalism. I have made the case, as have others, that Darby is the "grand puba" of dispensationalism; that means he invented it. You have defended dispensationalism for years. Now just because you are ignorant of the history of dispensationalism, since Darby's revelation around 1830, and the subsequent contributions of Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Ironside, Gaebelein, Walvoord and numerous others don't blame me!

In all honesty DHK I don't care whether you 'fess up to being dispensationalist of whatever stripe. I am pleased to see that the partial or Progressive Dispensationalist, for which Chafer expresses contempt, are moving to a Biblical position regarding the Church and Israel. As I noted in my post #59:

"Watts calls Israel “the church,” proclaims the “church or nation of the Jews” to be a “type or figure of the whole invisible church of God,”

"Watts argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin and has replaced them with the Christian church."

"The church, according to Watts, inherits all of the promises God made to Israel, albeit in spiritual form"


I believe this is the direction that the partial or Progressive dispensationalists are moving.
One can lead a horse to water but he can't make him drink.

Again:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

Irenaeus (A. D. 130-200). Irenaeus "refers in his writings to four principal covenants given
to the human race, particularly drawing a distinction between three covenants of the Old Testament and the gospel. This distinction is typical of dispensationalism."



We then move onto Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 150-220) who "identified four dispensations: Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic."

Augustine (A. D. 354-530) comes along next and refers to changes from one economy in
God's plan to another as "the changes of successive epochs."

[FONT=&quot]John Edwards (1637-1716) followed Poiret, publishing two volumes called A Compleat[/FONT][FONT=&quot] History or Survey of All the Dispensations. In this work, he attempted to show how God had dealt with the creation until the end of the world. His outline for dispensationalism was far[/FONT][FONT=&quot] more involved than Poiret's.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We then move onto Isaac Watts (1674-1748), who was really the precursor to Scofield's[/FONT][FONT=&quot] system of dispensationalism. Watts' identification of dispensationalism was more[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot] defined. His outline closely resembles Scofield's, with the exception of the Millennial[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Kingdom.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.scribd.com/doc/11248105/The-Real-History-of-Dispensationalism[/FONT]

That is a history of dispensationalism as we know it. If you are honest you will accept it.

Remember:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

You need to accept this whether or not it agrees with your theology.
--You can mix into dispensationalism ccovenantalism, the rapture, two different resurrections or one general resurrection, or anything you want.
That doesn't change the fact that it is still dispensationalism.
--A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
One can lead a horse to water but he can't make him drink.

Again:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.scribd.com/doc/11248105/The-Real-History-of-Dispensationalism[/FONT]

That is a history of dispensationalism as we know it. If you are honest you will accept it.

Remember:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

You need to accept this whether or not it agrees with your theology.
--You can mix into dispensationalism ccovenantalism, the rapture, two different resurrections or one general resurrection, or anything you want.
That doesn't change the fact that it is still dispensationalism.
--A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

[/COLOR]
:laugh::wavey::laugh::wavey:
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
One can lead a horse to water but he can't make him drink.
I understand it is harder to make a small donkey drink than a horse!

Again:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).
God has always dealt with mankind through Grace. This was initially demonstrated when God killed an animal to make a covering [an atonement] for the nakedness, which represented their sin,. God gave the initial promise of the redemption of mankind in Genesis 3:15. That has not changed and will not change!

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.scribd.com/doc/11248105/The-Real-History-of-Dispensationalism[/FONT]

That is a history of dispensationalism as we know it. If you are honest you will accept it.
The information presented in the link other than that related to Darby and Scofield really has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with classic dispensationalism. None of these earlier writers [those prior to Darby] believed there was an eternal distinction between Israel and the Church which Ryrie calls the sine qua non of classic dispensationalism. Therefore they are not dispensationalists like for example, MacArthur, or Ryrie, or Chafer, or Scofield, or Walvoord, probably you and Dr. Bob! And don't forger Beameup!

You call Watts a dispensationalist. That is utterly false given what the Classic Dispensationalist proclaims today.

WATTS’S VIEW OF ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH

From: http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf

The answer to the previous question will become clearer in considering how Watts views the relationship between Israel and the church. In several cases Watts calls Israel “the church,”{47} proclaims the “church or nation of the Jews” to be a “type or figure of the whole invisible church of God,”{48} and explains that for Israel “the church was their whole nation, for it was ordained of God to be a national church.”{49} This does not necessarily indicate a blurring of the two, however, for dispensationalists are not immune from calling Israel a “church”— both Darby and Scofield do so. For example, Darby mentions the “Jewish church (i.e., assembly) or nation” in his writings,{50} and like- wise, Scofield says, “It [‘church’] is thus appropriately used, not only of the New Testament church and of the New Testament churches, but also of Israel in the wilderness (Acts vii : 38), and of the town meeting of Ephesus (Acts xix : 32, 39, 41, ‘assembly’).”{51} As both of them high- light the underlying meaning of “assembly,” however, they seem to be using the term in its general sense rather than specifically referring to the New Testament body. Watts, however, appears to use the term more specifically and sees at least a typological relationship between the two bodies and very likely a replacement of Israel by the church.

Watts manifests this replacement emphasis in several places. He argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin and has replaced them with the Christian church:

God has fulfilled his word, and cut them off according to his threaten- ings, from his relation to him as their God, nor are they any longer his people; they have left their names for a curse to his chosen people, that is, the gospel church made up chiefly of Gentiles, who esteem the name of a Jew a reproach or a curse, and God has called his people, by another name, that is, christians, as he threatened so plainly by Isaiah, his prophet, chapter lxv. 15. These were the children of the kingdom con- cerning whom our Savior foretels, that they should not sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, but should be cast out into outer darkness; Mat. viii. 11, 12.{52}​

The church, according to Watts, inherits all of the promises God made to Israel, albeit in spiritual form:
As those Gentiles who do, really and inwardly, receive the Messiah, and practise his religion in faith and holiness, come into all these inward, real, and spiritual privileges and blessings; so all that make a visible and credi- ble profession of faith, and holiness, and universal subjection to Christ, come into all the outward privileges of the visible church, under the gos- pel: Some few of which privileges are continued from the Jewish church, but the greatest part of them are abolished, because the gospel state is more spiritual than the dispensation of the levitical law, and not such a typical state as that was; and none are to be admitted into this visible church, and esteemed complete members of it, but those who make such a declaration and profession of their faith in Christ, and their avowed subjection to him, as may be supposed, in a judgment of charity, to manifest them to be real believers in Christ, the true subjects of his spiri- tual kingdom, and members of the invisible church.{53}​

Watts’s ideas are perhaps best understood on this matter when it becomes clear that he views both Old Testament Israel and the Gentile nations as types of believers and unbelievers in every era. He argues that the Jews represent those “under the kingdom of God,” while the Gentiles picture those “under the kingdom of Satan.” The physical nature of these two groups enters then a “more spiritual state and economy” in the New Testament, wherein birth no longer grants one entrance into one group or the other, but now “a visible profession of our being born of God, of real faith in Christ, of true repentance, and inward holiness...render [believers] real members of the invisible church of God.”{54} Again, Watts’s typological understanding of Israel in the Old Testament seems to downplay the importance of the nation itself in order to highlight the reality of its antitype, the church.

Footnotes:

47. For example, Watts dedicates an entire discourse to comparing the Jewish “church” and the Christian “church” in which he states that “the Jewish nation was once the only visible church of God among men, and the Gentiles were excluded” (Watts, Works in Nine Volumes, 3:603.)
48. Ibid., 3:598–99.
49. Ibid., 3:601.
50. John Nelson Darby, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, ed. William Kelly, 34 vols. (Sunbury, PA: Believers Bookshelf, n.d.), 2:35.
51. C. I. Scofield and Arno Clemens Gaebelein, Things New and Old: Old and New Testament Studies (New York: Publication Office “Our Hope,” 1920), p. 257 (empha- sis original).
52. Watts, Works in Nine Volumes, 3:612 (emphasis original).
53. Ibid., 3:613.
54. Ibid., 3:620 (emphasis original).

It is foolish to call Watts a dispensationalist when he clearly believes that Israel is the Church in its Old Testament form; a type of the New Testament Church.

Your favorite author Paul Enns writes admiringly as follows:
CHARLES C. RYRIE
by Paul P. Enns

Charles Caldwell Ryrie (b. 1925) is a graduate of Haverford College (B.A.), Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M., Th.D.) and the University of Edinburgh, Scotland (Ph.D.). For many years he served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, where he challenged students to precision in theological speaking and writing. Dr. Ryrie is especially gifted in his ability to clarify profound theological truths in simple, precise language. He has enabled people to understand biblical truth that they would otherwise not readily comprehend and in this he has made an inestimable contribution to the Christian world.

Dr. Ryrie's writings have consistently been on the theological cutting edge, addressing the critical issues of the day and speaking on behalf of dispensational premillennialism. In his classic text, Dispensationalism Today (1965), and his recent update, Dispensationalism (1995), Ryrie clarifies many of the misunderstandings that opponents of premillennialism and dispensationalism have leveled. He notes that even Louis Berkhof, a covenant theologian, makes (dispensational) distinctions, differentiating the OT from the NT and seeing four subdivisions in the OT. Ryrie defines a dispensation as "a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose" (Dispensationalism, 28). In a dispensation God places people under a stewardship or responsibility, people invariably failing the test, with a corresponding judgment and change.

Ryrie clearly delineates the sine qua non of dispensationalism:

1. Dispensationalism keeps Israel and the church distinct. This is the most basic test of dispensationalism.


http://www.gracebiblestudies.org/Res..._Biography.htm

So you see how foolish it is to call Isaac Watts a dispensationalist. I understand it is harder to make a small donkey drink water than a horse!

Remember:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).
You need to accept this whether or not it agrees with your theology.
--You can mix into dispensationalism ccovenantalism, the rapture, two different resurrections or one general resurrection, or anything you want.
That doesn't change the fact that it is still dispensationalism.
--A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

[/COLOR]

NO! You remember:
Ryrie clearly delineates the sine qua non of dispensationalism:
1. Dispensationalism keeps Israel and the church distinct. This is the most basic test of dispensationalism.
:laugh::wavey::laugh::wavey:
 
I understand it is harder to make a small donkey drink than a horse!


God has always dealt with mankind through Grace. This was initially demonstrated when God killed an animal to make a covering [an atonement] for the nakedness, which represented their sin,. God gave the initial promise of the redemption of mankind in Genesis 3:15. That has not changed and will not change!

The information presented in the link other than that related to Darby and Scofield really has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with classic dispensationalism. None of these earlier writers [those prior to Darby] believed there was an eternal distinction between Israel and the Church which Ryrie calls the sine qua non of classic dispensationalism. Therefore they are not dispensationalists like for example, MacArthur, or Ryrie, or Chafer, or Scofield, or Walvoord, probably you and Dr. Bob! And don't forger Beameup!

You call Watts a dispensationalist. That is utterly false given what the Classic Dispensationalist proclaims today.



It is foolish to call Watts a dispensationalist when he clearly believes that Israel is the Church in its Old Testament form; a type of the New Testament Church.

Your favorite author Paul Enns writes admiringly as follows:


So you see how foolish it is to call Isaac Watts a dispensationalist. I understand it is harder to make a small donkey drink water than a horse!



NO! You remember:

:laugh::wavey::wavey:

 

RLBosley

Active Member
Irenaeus (A. D. 130-200). Irenaeus "refers in his writings to four principal covenants given

And that supports dispensationalism how?

Just give it up DHK. If this was a boxing match, you'd have been KO about 4 pages ago.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
And that supports dispensationalism how?

Just give it up DHK. If this was a boxing match, you'd have been KO about 4 pages ago.
One can't discuss anything without a common definition:

Again:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

Until OR is willing to accept that the entire discussion is all in vain. I challengened him weeks ago: Did God deal with Adam (speak to Adam) in the same way that God now speaks to you? He dodged the question and wouldn't answer. He knew where it would lead.

The fact is that we must recognize that God deals differently with people in differeent ages. That is dispensationalism stripped down to its basic core.

That is what Scofield believed; Isaac Watts believed and even many of the ECF believed. That is what dispensationalism is, nothing more, nothing less.
As long as OR won't accept common definitons any debate is useless.

It is like denying the commnon defnition of the trinity, the virgin birth, the depravity of man. One cannot have a discussion on these topics unless one first agrees on a common definition. OR doesn't.
 

RLBosley

Active Member
One can't discuss anything without a common definition:

Again:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

Until OR is willing to accept that the entire discussion is all in vain. I challengened him weeks ago: Did God deal with Adam (speak to Adam) in the same way that God now speaks to you? He dodged the question and wouldn't answer. He knew where it would lead.

The fact is that we must recognize that God deals differently with people in differeent ages. That is dispensationalism stripped down to its basic core.

That is what Scofield believed; Isaac Watts believed and even many of the ECF believed. That is what dispensationalism is, nothing more, nothing less.
As long as OR won't accept common definitons any debate is useless.

It is like denying the commnon defnition of the trinity, the virgin birth, the depravity of man. One cannot have a discussion on these topics unless one first agrees on a common definition. OR doesn't.

That is not the common definition of dispensationalism and you know it. It is inaccurate at best to say that.

Nor does this response answer how Irenaeus' quote supports dispensationalism.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
You call Watts a dispensationalist. That is utterly false given what the Classic Dispensationalist proclaims today.
Watts is a Dispensationalist. Who said anything about "Classic"?
We don't have to adhere to your terminology, or the kind of dispensationalism that you define.
Again:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

As long as Watts fits into that defnition he is a dispensationalist. And he certainly does.
You lose.
It is foolish to call Watts a dispensationalist when he clearly believes that Israel is the Church in its Old Testament form; a type of the New Testament Church.
What does Watts believe:
Again:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).
Perhaps someday you will get it.
Your favorite author Paul Enns writes admiringly as follows:
You quote selectively, just like you refused to quote a portion from your own link about Watts, where the author said that Watts outline of dispensations was more like Scofields than Darby or anyone else's that preceded Scofield.
So you see how foolish it is to call Isaac Watts a dispensationalist. I understand it is harder to make a small donkey drink water than a horse!
You quote selectively, out of context what you want to quote, making the author contradict himself. That is dishonest and deceitful.

You should be ashamed.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
That is not the common definition of dispensationalism and you know it. It is inaccurate at best to say that.

Nor does this response answer how Irenaeus' quote supports dispensationalism.
It is a common definition of diapensationalism. That is all it is.
A dispensation is a period of time. That is all a dispensation is.
God works in different ways through different ages, yet still in grace, through periods of time or dispensations. That basic truth is taught in Heb.1:1,2.
 

RLBosley

Active Member
It is a common definition of diapensationalism. That is all it is.

No that is a lie. The one guy that you are trying to hammer may have said that, but that is not the common definition of dispensationalism. That is patently false.

A dispensation is a period of time. That is all a dispensation is.
God works in different ways through different ages, yet still in grace, through periods of time or dispensations. That basic truth is taught in Heb.1:1,2.

Yes God works in different ways or through different means. Everyone agrees to that. That is not all there is to dispensationalism, otherwise we are all dispensationalists. Nonsense. Also, scripture never says that God works through "dispensations" ever. He works through covenants. It is not in scripture.

And you are still ignoring my fundamental question about the Irenaeus quotation.
 

RLBosley

Active Member
Theopedia said:
Dispensationalism is a theological system that teaches biblical history is best understood in light of a number of successive administrations of God's dealings with mankind, which it calls "dispensations." It maintains fundamental distinctions between God's plans for national Israel and for the New Testament Church, and emphasizes prophecy of the end-times and a pre-tribulation rapture of the church prior to Christ's Second Coming.

http://www.theopedia.com/Dispensationalism

Got Questions? said:
Dispensationalism is a system of theology that has two primary distinctives. 1) A consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy. 2) A distinction between Israel and the church in God's program.
http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html

Desiring God said:
Dispensationalism
It can be hard to summarize dispensational theology as a whole because in recent years multiple forms of it have developed. In general, there are three main distinctives.

First, dispensationalism sees God as structuring His relationship with mankind through several stages of revelation which mark off different dispensations, or stewardship arrangements. Each dispensation is a "test" of mankind to be faithful to the particular revelation given at the time. Generally, seven dispensations are distinguished: innocence (before the fall), conscience (Adam to Noah), government (Noah to Babel), promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), grace (Pentecost to the rapture), and the millennium.

Second, dispensationalism holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture. This does not deny the existence of figures of speech and non-literal language in the Bible, but rather means that there is a literal meaning behind the figurative passages.

Third, as a result of this literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel (even believing Israel) and the church. On this view, the promises made to Israel in the OT were not intended as prophecies about what God would do spiritually for the church, but will literally be fulfilled by Israel itself (largely in the millennium).
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles...m-covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology

Dispensationalism is a system of prophetic theology.

In short dispensationalists are those who believe in the pre-tribulational rapture of the church.

Dispensationalists emphasis the teaching of prophecy and the imminent, at any moment, return of Christ.
....
The maim points of dispensationalism (1) are:

The recognition of a distinction between Israel and the Church.

A consistently literal principle of interpretation -- particularly of Bible prophecy.

A basic working and conception of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than as the single purpose of salvation.
http://answers.org/theology/dispensationalism.html

I just pulled a couple quotes from the first page of results when I Googled dispensationalism definition. While yes there is agreement that it means God works in different ways at different times (though that is twisted in the system too), that is by no means the "common definition" and nothing else. That's pure fantasy.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
It is a common definition of diapensationalism. That is all it is.
A dispensation is a period of time. That is all a dispensation is.

DHK, That is false and, even worse and most sadly, you know it it is false.

The word dispensation does not appear in the Old Testament.

The word "dispensation" appears 4 times in the KJV New Testament and is the translation of the Greek word "oikonomia: and means:
administration (of a household or estate); specifically, a (religious) "economy":-- dispensation, stewardship.

That same Greek word is translated "stewardship" three times. The pertinent Scripture are:

Luke 16:2. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

Luke 16:3. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.

Luke 16:4. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.

1Corinthians 9:17. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Ephesians 1:10. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;


**********************************************

The NASB translates the word as follows:

Luke 16:2. “And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’

Luke 16:3. “And the steward said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig; I am ashamed to beg.

Luke 16:4. ‘I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the stewardship, they will receive me into their homes.’

1Corinthians 9:17. For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.

Ephesians 1:10. with a view to an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him

Ephesians 3:2. if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you;

Colossians 1:25. Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,


DHK, You are taking liberties with Scripture that are not yours to take!

****************************************

Hubert Baker
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We hold that the Lord has superceded.rendered the Old covenant as being null and voided out now by the much superior New Covenant, so no continuation between the two!

rather , One was for national Isreal, but that is now done away with by the new One!

Do you think God replaced isreal with the Church then? or that the Church received all things promised to national isreal?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I just pulled a couple quotes from the first page of results when I Googled dispensationalism definition. While yes there is agreement that it means God works in different ways at different times (though that is twisted in the system too), that is by no means the "common definition" and nothing else. That's pure fantasy.
Your sources are a joke.

Dispensationalism is a system of theology that has two primary distinctives. 1) A consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy. 2) A distinction between Israel and the church in God's program.
http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html

Although the above is true it ignores the basic definition of dispensationalism. It describes it but not defines it.

2.
Originally Posted by Desiring God
Dispensationalism
It can be hard to summarize dispensational theology as a whole because in recent years multiple forms of it have developed. In general, there are three main distinctives

--Not looking for a summary. There is no definition here.


3. Dispensationalism is a system of prophetic theology.

In short dispensationalists are those who believe in the pre-tribulational rapture of the church.

Dispensationalists emphasis the teaching of prophecy and the imminent, at any moment, return of Christ.
--This is patently false. Many dispensationalists are not pre-trib, and I think you know that.

Your other source is from theopedia, a ultra calvinistic source.
Originally Posted by Theopedia
Dispensationalism is a theological system that teaches biblical history is best understood in light of a number of successive administrations of God's dealings with mankind, which it calls "dispensations." It maintains fundamental distinctions between God's plans for national Israel and for the New Testament Church, and emphasizes prophecy of the end-times and a pre-tribulation rapture of the church prior to Christ's Second Coming.
--However, it has it partly right.

Dispensationalism is a theological system that teaches biblical history is best understood in light of a number of successive administrations of God's dealings with mankind, which it calls "dispensations."

That is the basic definition that I have given, that Enns has given. The rest is simply an elaboration of how it developed after that: more description.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
DHK, That is false and, even worse and most sadly, you know it it is false.
The definition I have given is not false; you just don't accept it.
The word dispensation does not appear in the Old Testament.
Neither does: trinity, depravity, Christology, and host of other theological terms. I suppose you don't believe in those either.
DHK, You are taking liberties with Scripture that are not yours to take!
I see you parrot what someone else has already said.
Everytime you use trinity or depravity you take liberties with Scripture that are not yours to take. :rolleyes:
 

RLBosley

Active Member
Your sources are a joke.

Dispensationalism is a system of theology that has two primary distinctives. 1) A consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy. 2) A distinction between Israel and the church in God's program.
http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html

Although the above is true it ignores the basic definition of dispensationalism. It describes it but not defines it.

2.
Originally Posted by Desiring God
Dispensationalism
It can be hard to summarize dispensational theology as a whole because in recent years multiple forms of it have developed. In general, there are three main distinctives

--Not looking for a summary. There is no definition here.


3. Dispensationalism is a system of prophetic theology.

In short dispensationalists are those who believe in the pre-tribulational rapture of the church.

Dispensationalists emphasis the teaching of prophecy and the imminent, at any moment, return of Christ.
--This is patently false. Many dispensationalists are not pre-trib, and I think you know that.

Your other source is from theopedia, a ultra calvinistic source.
Originally Posted by Theopedia
Dispensationalism is a theological system that teaches biblical history is best understood in light of a number of successive administrations of God's dealings with mankind, which it calls "dispensations." It maintains fundamental distinctions between God's plans for national Israel and for the New Testament Church, and emphasizes prophecy of the end-times and a pre-tribulation rapture of the church prior to Christ's Second Coming.
--However, it has it partly right.

Dispensationalism is a theological system that teaches biblical history is best understood in light of a number of successive administrations of God's dealings with mankind, which it calls "dispensations."

That is the basic definition that I have given, that Enns has given. The rest is simply an elaboration of how it developed after that: more description.

Dude. Does your quote button work? This thing's a mess.

Regardless. "Got Questions?" gives a very good definition of dispensationalism. Again, it "is a system of theology" that stresses a literal interpretation of scripture and demands a distinction between Israel and the church. You disagree because it contradicts you. Considering Got Questions is dispensational that speaks volumes.

Same with the Desiring God article.

Since when is Theopedia "ultra-calvinistic"? What does that even mean for that matter? And really, what does it matter? There are dispy Calvinists you know.

You seem to miss a major theme among these sources. That dispensation not only stresses these so called "economies/administrations" of time, but also a fundamental distinction between Israel and the church.

Also, saying the idea that a system of different administrations or economies is the same as the general idea that God simply uses different means through time is laughable.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
The definition I have given is not false; you just don't accept it.

Neither does: trinity, depravity, Christology, and host of other theological terms. I suppose you don't believe in those either.

I see you parrot what someone else has already said.
Everytime you use trinity or depravity you take liberties with Scripture that are not yours to take.


DHK you are a real piece of work and that is putting it mildly.

The fact that the word "trinity" does not appear in Scripture is irrelevant in this discussion. The word dispensation does appear in the KJV New Testament. It is a translation of the Greek word which means administration of a household or stewardship. Yet you have made up your own definition thinking it justifies your inane attempt to debate on this Forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DHK you are a real piece of work and that is putting it mildly.

The fact that the word "trinity" does not appear in Scripture is irrelevant in this discussion. The word dispensation does appear in the KJV New Testament. It is a translation of the Greek word which means administration of a household or stewardship. Yet you have made up your own definition thinking it justifies your inane attempt to debate on this Forum.

did the New Covenant supercede the old one, or was it merely a continuation of it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top