The Holy Spirit and the Rapture

[blessedwife318]

Please point those out. We will see if your charge is true.


God bless.

First I just want to say that I hope the search features gets fixed soon. Ok but I did find the most recent time you spit a sentence of mine apart and there was no response that I saw when i called you on it. Now I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt since this was also during the time when post were disappearing right and left so your apology to me may have disappeared.

In the post Trib argument tread
DHK said this

What he [Darby] did is put these things all together. We build on those who have gone before us. Revelation is progressive. He didn't find anything new. He simply put things together that others believed before him.

To which I responded:

Again if that is true that all Darby did was put "these things together" you should be able to show a clear historical trend of Dispensational teaching.

And then you responded with this in post 78

What he did is put these things all together. We build on those who have gone before us. Revelation is progressive. He didn't find anything new. He simply put things together that others believed before him. And yet he is castigated for this, and unfairly so. OR calls him a heretic full of false doctrine, and the cause of the downfall or heresies of many. He is not in any place to say such things.

Again if that is true

If it is true?

Don't you know whether or not revelation is progressive or not?

Let's not gloss over that point and jump straight to "putting facts together."

The clear implication that I didn't know if progressive revelation is true or not even though my sentence has nothing to do with progressive revelation but is all about claim of Darby just putting together Dispensationalism form those that had gone before.

 

[Darrell C]

Hebrews 1:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


(...and now here I am having to offer up the same arguments and points because you...will not address the Scripture.)

But I Did indeed address this scripture as you now quote when I did address it. ....

You did, and I also pointed out you said "There is no difference."

Iconoclast said: ↑
In posts 11to19. Both of you got it wrong....nothing has changed....you still have it all wrong.

The link to the original statement is in post #79 of this thread.

But there was a change, that is obvious to most students of the Word:


Hebrews 7:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.


Now...address this point and Scripture.

I don't want to hear you didn't say nothing changed, it's right there. No back-pedaling for you, my friend.

so do not keep repeating this falsehood.

Iconoclast said: ↑
In posts 11to19. Both of you got it wrong....nothing has changed....you still have it all wrong.


Iconoclast said: ↑
In posts 11to19. Both of you got it wrong....nothing has changed....you still have it all wrong.


Iconoclast said: ↑
In posts 11to19. Both of you got it wrong....nothing has changed....you still have it all wrong.


Iconoclast said: ↑
In posts 11to19. Both of you got it wrong....nothing has changed....you still have it all wrong.


I will repeat it until you own up to it.

That is why no one answers you that much because you do this which is quite dishonest.

Funny, but I seem not to have a shortage of antagonists.

And perhaps you should check into a few threads where the members are having a real discussion on the topic of the thread.

Might be an enlightening experience for you.

(This is one of the few you have actually addressed and you said...)
So...you have me not addressing, and addressing the scripture at the same time....lol.

You still don't address my response, Iconoclast.

Your response to Hebrews 1:1-2 was responded to.

And there are so many points and Scripture's you have failed to address in relation to your response to the few that you hardly have a leg to stand on. That you feel you have addressed all of them is sad.

How about everything in this thread I addressed to you concerning the Rapture?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

First I just want to say that I hope the search features gets fixed soon. Ok but I did find the most recent time you spit a sentence of mine apart and there was no response that I saw when i called you on it. Now I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt since this was also during the time when post were disappearing right and left so your apology to me may have disappeared.

In the post Trib argument tread
DHK said this

To which I responded:

And then you responded with this in post 78



The clear implication that I didn't know if progressive revelation is true or not even though my sentence has nothing to do with progressive revelation but is all about claim of Darby just putting together Dispensationalism form those that had gone before.

First, I have never (never added in edit) once spit a sentence of yours apart, so quit bearing false witness.



Secondly, it made the point "We know it's true!" lol

But, the doctrine you seek to defend...doesn't acknowledge progressive revelation, and neither do you in your defense of it.

You show me where Israel was eternally redeemed in the Old Testament. I have shown you where Christ obtained eternal redemption for us.

That is on the Cross. That is the very point that I and DHK have striven with you guys about in a couple of threads.

How about responding to my response in "the redemption of Israel"?

(lack of emphasis yours)

Okay, got another?


God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

First, I have once spit a sentence of yours apart, so quit bearing false witness.



Secondly, it made the point "We know it's true!" lol

But, the doctrine you seek to defend...doesn't acknowledge progressive revelation, and neither do you in your defense of it.

You show me where Israel was eternally redeemed in the Old Testament. I have shown you where Christ obtained eternal redemption for us.

That is on the Cross. That is the very point that I and DHK have striven with you guys about in a couple of threads.

How about responding to my response in "the redemption of Israel"?

(lack of emphasis yours)

Okay, got another?


God bless.

Yup just as I expected. I gave you a clear example of you twisting my words and splitting my sentence apart and you still don't respond to what actually was said.. But the public record does speak for itself. The context makes it clear what I was saying. Also in that same thread, you attributed a DHK quote to me and then made some snide comment about it. I never saw you apologize to DHK for that one either, but again it may be in a lost post.

 

[Darrell C]

(And let's not forget your commentary on 1 Corinthians 10, where nothing is different there either, lol. But when asked if you were baptized into Moses you seem to go silent, and despite multiple attempts to point out your error simply by getting you to answer a simple question.)

I am not going to answer you false statements as I have posted.

"I have spoken" might work for the King of England, maybe even for the King of Rock and Roll, but it simply isn't going to work for you.

Your posting did not imply, but spoke directly to "nothing changing" in regards to the dispensations of God, and the simple fact is...

...it has changed.

Israel was Baptized into Moses, meaning their identification was with Moses...

...not Christ.

We are baptized into Christ, and that began at Pentecost when the Spirit was sent by the Baptizer...Christ Himself.

(Your commentary can only lead to one conclusion if your denial of distinct dispensations is correct...you were baptized into Moses too, because, after all...God isn't speaking differently in this Age, right?)
No...it is not right.

Agreed. Now if you can just see how that correlates to the distinction between the Covenants before Christ and the New Covenant,

As I said, all Covenants can be said to fall under the Redemptive Plan of God, and if you want to call that the Covenant of Redemption...I don't have a problem with that.

But what I have a problem with is trying to defend an erroneous aspect of certain Systems of Theology which cannot make that distinction, and worse, like you...want to argue the opposite of the truth.

You were not Baptized into Moses, Iconoclast...you were Baptized into Christ.

The fathers were not Baptized into Christ...they were baptized into Moses.

The fathers did not enter into Rest...you have.

God is speaking differently, He is speaking through His Son, where as He once spoke through Prophets.

That He would speak through His Son was prophesied...


Deuteronomy 18:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;


And the writer of Hebrews makes the distinction between the promise/prophecy and...the reality.

When did God raise up that Prophet from the midst of Israel? When did Israel hearken unto Him?

The answer is...when Christ came. Not before. That is the heart of this issue, that's what it was in the other thread, and now you have derailed this thread over it as well.

And a good part of it is because you guys cannot stand to have your eschatology shown to be erroneous, therefore you have to shut down every Rapture thread by derailing it, because none of you can debate it.

In fact this rivals the monster STRAWMAN D H K constructs.
This is the problem again.

What straw-man?

This is just how you operate. Vague references to Scripture and your antagonist's remarks.

You make a fragmented and disturbed assumption, not close to what I actually said....

Disturbing, yes, but that is a consequence for you, not something that is in the posts.

then you chide me not playing along with this.....

And it does no good. I've done everything I can to get you to enter into discussion. Chided. Goaded. Stayed neutral.

Nothing works.


Luke 7:32

King James Version (KJV)

32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

It can only be known through the revelation provided by God, that is why the Bible is divided into Two Testaments.

Of course the Redemptive Plan of God has relationship with all Covenants, lol.

Quote the Scripture and commentary...then address it. You won't, though, and we both know why. Not trying to perpetuate the animosity between us, lol, just trying to point something out. Which is what I have done in most of our conversations, which cannot be called conversation, because you talk at people, not with them. Until you let your antagonist's side into your conversations, Iconoclast, you will continue to run in circles.


Continued...

Do you think I was not sincere in what I say here?

I was.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Yup just as I expected. I gave you a clear example of you twisting my words and splitting my sentence apart and you still don't respond to what actually was said.. But the public record does speak for itself. The context makes it clear what I was saying. Also in that same thread, you attributed a DHK quote to me and then made some snide comment about it. I never saw you apologize to DHK for that one either, but again it may be in a lost post.

Look, if you want to take it as a misrepresentation of your statement, that fine. While I will not apologize for the point sought to be made I will apologize that it hurt your feelings, or pride, or whatever it is that was hurt, because it is never my intention to hurt feelings. I am not above using teaching techniques that usually offend the erroneous person, lol.

I will attempt once more to clarify the point to you: you say "if this is true" when you know good and well it is true, yet you are still debating the heart of the issue, which is...

...dispensations.

The fact that revelation is progressive denies the view you are supporting. You have fought against dispensations and even when you know something is true you construct a false argument implementing implications in syllogistic fashion. The syllogism here is

Major premise: Revelation is progressive (if this is true)

Minor premise: You should be able to see these in the History of the Church.

Conclusion: There cannot be a dispensational teaching because Church History does not contain it.


I say it again...

...if this true?

It is because it is true that we know there are differing dispensations in the Word of God and in the History of Redemption.

Don't you get it?

Don't you understand that you are trying to defeat DHK by implementing a major point of his own argument/s into yours, and thinking...you're making a point?

No point is made. It is a travesty of reasonable argument.

Now, do you have another example of me wresting your words due to parsing?

And do me a favor...include a link.

That would end up looking something like this:

So you don’t think any Jew’s are saved by the Blood of Christ?!?! I would love to see you show that one from the Scripture. Especially since Paul, and Peter, and John, and James were Jews. So do tell how they were saved apart from the Blood of Christ.



Yes I do understand that. Of course they still needed Atonement, the Book of Hebrews makes that clear. But then again you are the one the just said a few lines up that no Jew was eternally redeemed through the Blood of Christ.
 

And do me another favor...take it back to the thread it belongs in. You have your choice of two threads. The one the issue came up in the first place, or the thread you created which you never bothered to respond to my response of the OP. Take your pick.

If you want to discuss the Holy Spirit and the Rapture...you can start by addressing a post relevant to that. I think I have one in there for you, but if not you can address any points made already.


God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

Look, if you want to take it as a misrepresentation of your statement, that fine. While I will not apologize for the point sought to be made I will apologize that it hurt your feelings, or pride, or whatever it is that was hurt, because it is never my intention to hurt feelings. I am not above using teaching techniques that usually offend the erroneous person, lol.

I will attempt once more to clarify the point to you: you say "if this is true" when you know good and well it is true, yet you are still debating the heart of the issue, which is...

...dispensations.

The fact that revelation is progressive denies the view you are supporting. You have fought against dispensations and even when you know something is true you construct a false argument implementing implications in syllogistic fashion. The syllogism here is

Major premise: Revelation is progressive (if this is true)

Minor premise: You should be able to see these in the History of the Church.

Conclusion: There cannot be a dispensational teaching because Church History does not contain it.


I say it again...

...if this true?

It is because it is true that we know there are differing dispensations in the Word of God and in the History of Redemption.

Don't you get it?

Don't you understand that you are trying to defeat DHK by implementing a major point of his own argument/s into yours, and thinking...you're making a point?

No point is made. It is a travesty of reasonable argument.

Now, do you have another example of me wresting your words due to parsing?

And do me a favor...include a link.

That would end up looking something like this:



And do me another favor...take it back to the thread it belongs in. You have your choice of two threads. The one the issue came up in the first place, or the thread you created which you never bothered to respond to my response of the OP. Take your pick.

If you want to discuss the Holy Spirit and the Rapture...you can start by addressing a post relevant to that. I think I have one in there for you, but if not you can address any points made already.


God bless.

My skin is way to thick for my feelings to get hurt. Thank you for your continuing to prove mine and Icon's point about twisting what is said.

Where have I ever denied progressive revelation. I'll wait for that quote. And no the above " if that is true that all Darby did was put "these things together" you should be able to show a clear historical trend of Dispensational teaching. "
does not count. I figured I would put the entire sentence up just so people can see the context of the if that's true part.

 

[Darrell C]

My skin is way to thick for my feelings to get hurt. Thank you for your continuing to prove mine and Icon's point about twisting what is said.

Where have I ever denied progressive revelation. I'll wait for that quote. And no the above " if that is true that all Darby did was put "these things together" you should be able to show a clear historical trend of Dispensational teaching. "
does not count. I figured I would put the entire sentence up just so people can see the context of the if that's true part.

You deny it with an argument such as you presented.

I just explained that in detail.

And no the above " if that is true that all Darby did was put "these things together" you should be able to show a clear historical trend of Dispensational teaching. "
does not count.

Why not?

You are saying that in order for a Dispensational view to be true, then we should have a clear historical trend of Dispensational Teaching.

We do, and we call that in itself...progressive revelation.

What did God reveal to Adam and Eve?

What did God reveal to Noah?

What did God reveal to Abraham?

What did God reveal to Moses?

What did God reveal to David?

What did God reveal to Israel?

And finally...

...what has God revealed to the Church?

We can see a clear history of Dispensational Teaching on the only source of valid truth we have...the Word of God.

And by the way, for any that might read this, I have returned Iconoclast's derailment back to an appropriate thread.

You can see the rest of the response/s to him in The Redemption of Israel.

(capitalization mine)




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

My skin is way to thick for my feelings to get hurt. Thank you for your continuing to prove mine and Icon's point about twisting what is said.

Where have I ever denied progressive revelation. I'll wait for that quote. And no the above " if that is true that all Darby did was put "these things together" you should be able to show a clear historical trend of Dispensational teaching. "
does not count. I figured I would put the entire sentence up just so people can see the context of the if that's true part.

By the way, please tell your husband I am extending an invitation for him to join in, and wish he would do so, because debating with females makes me a little uncomfortable, lol. Especially when it seems as though my responses are taken as attacks. It's just hard to tell people they are in error and not expect feelings to get hurt, and discussion to get heated.

Sincerely...DC

 

[DHK]

My skin is way to thick for my feelings to get hurt. Thank you for your continuing to prove mine and Icon's point about twisting what is said.

Where have I ever denied progressive revelation. I'll wait for that quote. And no the above " if that is true that all Darby did was put "these things together" you should be able to show a clear historical trend of Dispensational teaching. "
does not count. I figured I would put the entire sentence up just so people can see the context of the if that's true part.

I have shown you and others many times. If I do it again you will most likely scoff, deny or ridicule. So what is the use?
First, define a dispensation. I use the Bible:

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--God spoke in different ways at different times in history. That is exactly what is said in verse one. He spoke to Moses through a burning bush? Does he speak to you that way? No.
Verse two explains the way that he speaks to us through this time period, which is through His Son. His Son is revealed to us through His Word. The Word of God is our sole authority for faith and doctrine.
Heb.1:1,2 defines dispensations for us.

Did the Apostles believe in dispensations. Obviously. Paul used the word. The author of the book of Hebrews defined it. Almost all the ECF were pre-millennial in their doctrine--Chiliasts. Thus, if they believed in a Millennial Kingdom, they believed in an era before the Kingdom and no doubt after the Kingdom. One might add to that a period of time before the cross. What were these "periods of time" called? It doesn't matter what they called them. We call them dispensations. Therefore, in their thinking they were dispensational, whether you agree with that assessment or not.

Many others throughout history were pre-millennnial.
Perhaps one of the most pre-eminent is Isaac Watts, whose hymns we still sing today.
It is said that Scofield's dispensations so closely resemble those of Watts' that he may have gotten them from him.

What did Darby do? Did he just dream it up by himself. That is what OR teaches. He keeps up the fairy tale that Darby fell off his horse, hit his head, and while recovering in bed suddenly had this special revelation from God. He puts him in the light of a cult figure. His hatred is obvious.
No, what Darby did was to rely on the teachings of others. Revelation is progressive. The ECF believed in premillennialism. Many throughout history did, as did Watts. Darby simply put these things together.
The teachings were, in and of themselves, not novel.

 

[Darrell C]

What did Darby do? Did he just dream it up by himself. That is what OR teaches. He keeps up the fairy tale that Darby fell off his horse, hit his head, and while recovering in bed suddenly had this special revelation from God. He puts him in the light of a cult figure. His hatred is obvious.

Didn't Darby invent Rocky Road Ice Cream when he fell off the horse? Maybe I am confused. No wait, I remember, he invented whiskey when he fell off a wagon, that was it, I'm pretty sure.




God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

By the way, please tell your husband I am extending an invitation for him to join in, and wish he would do so, because debating with females makes me a little uncomfortable, lol. Especially when it seems as though my responses are taken as attacks. It's just hard to tell people they are in error and not expect feelings to get hurt, and discussion to get heated.

Sincerely...DC

You really don't want my husband on here. While my feelings about you range from amusement at your games to indifference to your posting. My husband on other hand does not have as charitable view of you. He does not take kindly to people attacking his wife and that is how he views many of your post toward me.

 

[Darrell C]

You really don't want my husband on here. While my feelings about you range from amusement at your games to indifference to your posting. My husband on other hand does not have as charitable view of you. He does not take kindly to people attacking his wife and that is how he views many of your post toward me.

Actually I would like him to come on. He is the spiritual head of the household, and I would be curious as to his own views.

Then he can judge if I am attacking him.

And I would ask...do both of you feel you have been justified in your own behavior? You might back up to our first discussions and re-evaluate.

So again, you can extend the invitation, it was sincere.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Now, anyone have anything to contribute to the OP?

Or has this thread been derailed beyond repair?

God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Since you were the one unable to address the point made it is not I that is unable to understand the Scriptures.
Let me put it in a way you can understand.
Concerning metaphors, allegories, and the allegorical method of interpretation in general

You have shown that you do not understand these figures of speech so why would I look to you for an explanation?

It was unknown until Origen, a heretic, invented it.

No one has ever quoted from Origen on BB that I know of, yet you bring him up. You want to appeal to ECF's when it fits your ideas, but flee from any that do not.

It was Augustine, one of the fathers of Catholicism, that popularized it.

Which person have you ever quoted from that was not a RC?

Cults like the J.W.'s use it to deny basic fundamental doctrines like the resurrection of Christ.

I have seen that, and I have seen some very literal cult interpretations also.

Origen lived in the fourth century. For the three centuries before that time the Bible was always taken literally by all the ECF. The allegorical method of interpretation was unknown until it was introduced by a heretic.

I do not put much stock in the ECF's ...they were mostly confused from what I see.

Concerning the two witnesses of Revelation 11, what God has said, I believe.

everyone believes these verses...every believer.

Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

--There are two men who prophesy for 3 and 1/2 years. They are dressed as many of the OT prophets were, in sackcloth. They are men. They preach. They have a particular dress

So you think they are literal men...from the past.....let me guess, like Moses and Elijah ???
. Just a wild guess...lol

Rev 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
--God warns the Gentiles not to lay a hand on these two men; not to kill them. They are human. They can be killed. They can be "hurt."

So these men can be killed.....they are men......and yet let me ask you;
Do you think literal fire comes out of their mouths?
fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

Rev 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
--In spite of God's warning the Antichrist kills them anyway.

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city,
--There will be such evil at that time that they will just let their bodies lie in the street. There is no allegory, no metaphor here. This is exactly what God says will happen.

So all described events are literal in Revelation????

 

[blessedwife318]

Actually I would like him to come on. He is the spiritual head of the household, and I would be curious as to his own views.

Then he can judge if I am attacking him.

And I would ask...do both of you feel you have been justified in your own behavior? You might back up to our first discussions and re-evaluate.

So again, you can extend the invitation, it was sincere.


God bless.

He has read most of your post to me, and has read my responses to them. I would say he is in a good position to judge your post toward me. As for my post toward you, he would say that any problem he may or may not have with them would stay between the two of us. I did extend the invitation it was declined.
ETA he also does not have a huge interest in eschatology so he would never wade into those debates.

 

[Darrell C]

He has read most of your post to me, and has read my responses to them. I would say he is in a good position to judge your post toward me. As for my post toward you, he would say that any problem he may or may not have with them would stay between the two of us. I did extend the invitation it was declined.
ETA he also does not have a huge interest in eschatology so he would never wade into those debates.

Okay.

I've said all I have to say on the matter.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK,

I have shown you and others many times. If I do it again you will most likely scoff, deny or ridicule. So what is the use?

you present things and link things that are not true.

First, define a dispensation. I use the Bible:

What you try to do is take a once used biblical word.....and wrest it to try and mean something else. We called you on it...
The word Dispensation.......is not the same as "the teaching of dispensationalism"...no matter how many times you try and do this.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--God spoke in different ways at different times in history. That is exactly what is said in verse one.

different ways, burning bush, donkey, signs, wonders, prophets, parables, providence, allegory, narrative, Hebrew parallelism....etc...nothing to do with
DISPENSATIONALISM

He spoke to Moses through a burning bush? Does he speak to you that way? No.
Verse two explains the way that he speaks to us through this time period, which is through His Son. His Son is revealed to us through His Word. The Word of God is our sole authority for faith and doctrine.

NO...he spoke .....IN SON....The Incarnation.....Jesus is the full final prophet.
God has always spoken to mankind and the nation of Israel thru the prophets....and Jesus is the full final prophet that they all spoke of.
You and DC would suggest heb 1 means otherwise but quite mistakenly.....;

33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

The servants are the Prophets sent to Israel, the FINAL Prophet is THE SON
Just like in 2chr36;
15 And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place:

16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

Heb.1:1,2 defines dispensations for us.

No it does not...the word is not here.

it is in eph; here is Vine Nt dictionary;

Note: A "dispensation" is not a period or epoch (a common, but erroneous, use of the word), but a mode of dealing, an arrangement, or administration of affairs. Cp. oikonomos, "a steward," and oikonomeo, "to be a steward."
<1,,3622,oikonomia> primarily signifies "the management of a household or of household affairs" (oikos, "a house," nomos, "a law"); then the management or administration of the property of others, and so "a stewardship," Luke 16:2-4; elsewhere only in the Epistles of Paul, who applies it (a) to the responsibility entrusted to him of preaching the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9:17 (RV, "stewardship," AV, "dispensation"); (b) to the stewardship commited to him "to fulfill the Word of God," the fulfillment being the unfolding of the completion of the Divinely arranged and imparted cycle of truths which are consummated in the truth relating to the Church as the Body of Christ, Col. 1:25 (RV and AV, "dispensation"); so in Eph. 3:2, of the grace of God given him as a stewardship ("dispensation") in regard to the same "mystery;" (c) in Eph. 1:10; 3:9, it is used of the arrangement or administration by God, by which in "the fullness of the times" (or seasons) God will sum up all things in the heavens and on earth in Christ. In Eph. 3:9 some mss. have koinonia, "fellowship," for oikonomia, "dispensation." In 1 Tim. 1:4 oikonomia may mean either a stewardship in the sense of (a) above, or a "dispensation" in the sense of (c). The reading oikodomia, "edifying," in some mss., is not to be accepted. See STEWARDSHIP.

Did the Apostles believe in dispensations. Obviously. Paul used the word

.
and yet...not at all like you are trying to put forth...

The author of the book of Hebrews defined it.

No he did not....

Almost all the ECF were pre-millennial in their doctrine--Chiliasts

Not so....they thought Jesus would return after 1000 yrs...it is not the same.

. Thus, if they believed in a Millennial Kingdom, they believed in an era before the Kingdom and no doubt after the Kingdom

start a thread and show where you get these ideas from.....

.

One might add to that a period of time before the cross. What were these "periods of time" called? It doesn't matter what they called them. We call them dispensations.

watch out...here it comes!

Therefore, in their thinking they were dispensational,

...what?????

whether you agree with that assessment or not.

...No we don't...

Many others throughout history were pre-millennnial.
Perhaps one of the most pre-eminent is Isaac Watts, whose hymns we still sing today.
It is said that Scofield's dispensations so closely resemble those of Watts' that he may have gotten them from him.

What did Darby do? Did he just dream it up by himself. That is what OR teaches. He keeps up the fairy tale that Darby fell off his horse, hit his head, and while recovering in bed suddenly had this special revelation from God. He puts him in the light of a cult figure. His hatred is obvious.
No, what Darby did was to rely on the teachings of others. Revelation is progressive. The ECF believed in premillennialism. Many throughout history did, as did Watts. Darby simply put these things together.
The teachings were, in and of themselves, not novel.

any google search shows otherwise

 

[DHK]

DHK,


you present things and link things that are not true.

What you try to do is take a once used biblical word.....and wrest it to try and mean something else. We called you on it...
The word Dispensation.......is not the same as "the teaching of dispensationalism"...no matter how many times you try and do this.

No I don't. I present scripture. And I can back up what I say by other sources. All you do is condemn, deny, and complain.

Lewis Sperry Chafer in "Essential Works" says:

THE DISPENSATIONS

As to time, the Bible may be apportioned into well-defined periods. These periods are clearly separated and the recognition of their divisions with their divine purposes constitutes one of the important factors in true interpretation of the Scriptures. These divisions of time are termed dispensations, which word is somewhat different than the word age in that the word age is more general, being used of any brief division of time or generation of men, though the word age is rightly used as synonymous with the word dispensation.

 

[Iconoclast]

No I don't. I present scripture. And I can back up what I say by other sources. All you do is condemn, deny, and complain.

Lewis Sperry Chafer in "Essential Works" says:

You claimed a few weeks ago that you do not read works of men ,and had not read classic dispensationalists....now when push comes to shove you run to L.S.Chafer????

I do not mind using links....you should do more of it. This quote does not prove the teaching however. That is part of the classic dispensational definition and scheme.

Here is a chart that I still have, found this online:

It shows the "dispensational teaching
Mans responsibility-
Mans failure-
The judgment-
revmac probably has seen this one....I used to hand these out....lol