What Dispensationalism Provides?

[Jim1999]

Those gathered were challenging Jesus about the law of stoning,and they were ready indeed whether Roman law permitted it or not in this meeting.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[OldRegular]

I didn't learn any of this from a Scofield Bible! Why do you say that? You have false assumptions about me. I didn't even know what a Scofield Bible was until the late 90s.

I've come to accept the pre-trib view based on a number of scriptures, some of which have been explained on this thread and the other thread by more articulate people than I (in this area).

Marcia

I do not want to offend you, a sister in Christ. If you came to the pre-trib position based on Scripture you should be able to present them and explain why.:love2:

 

[OldRegular]

My point is also that it is never a permissible hermeneutic to interpret scripture through any systematic theology. That is always eisegesis.

I agree with what you say and don't doubt that I am guilty of this on occasion. I am sure some would say all the time.

I see this also as the major problem with dispensationalism. They have bought into a doctrine and in attempting to defend it through Scripture they dig themselves into a deeper hole. Fortunately some have realized this and we have the progressive dispensational movement.

If you have ever discussed the gospel with a hyper dispensationalist you can see how deep they have to dig.

 

[Jim1999]

The hyper dispensationalist wold get out his Bullinger texts and Larkin sketches to prove beyond doubt the facts of dispenationalism and the varying aspects of redemption through the 7 dispensations.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[canadyjd]

Does someone know if the Jews were allowed to stone people while under Roman law?

Steven was stoned to death while the Jews were under Roman law.

peace to youraying:

 

[Jim1999]

Marcia, under Roman Law the Jews were forbidden to put anyone to death. They were. however, a devious lot and did things despite or behind Roman law. For example, temples were often enclosed by a huge stone fence and they did devious things there. (Josephus)

Sorry, I forgot where I was and just stumbled upon this thread. Getting old and forgetful you understand.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[gb93433]

Anytime you tell how two verse relate to each other you are doing systematic theology.

That can be done without harmonization but rather explaining what the passages in light of their historical context mean. Many times verses do not harmonize. For example: one cannot press the way Paul speaks of salvation and interpret the way Peter speaks about salavation. Paul speaks of it in past, present, and future. Whereas Peter in 1 Peter speaks of it in the future tense. To press Peter and Paul on top of James would really make salvation very confusing.

There’s nothing in those verses that has anything to do with dispensationalism.

It lies within a dispensation, which affects its interpretation if you see it from a dispensationalist point of view.

I don’t call any of that wrong. They studied where they studied. Again, the problem was not dispensationalism, but someone teaching you that if you memorized dispensationalism all your questions would be answered.

That is the part of dispensationalism which fell on the heels of German rationalism. From what I am reading I get the impression that your view of systematic theology changes and is relative. I see truth as an absolute and it does not change. If anything changes then it is a changing standard and really is not a standard at all. Standards are consistent and can always be trusted. "My standard" of theology is not to be trusted but should be under examination by others and stacked against scripture.

That is the reason why I have some problems with young men writing books on theology and people claiming them as scholars. Their theology has not been tried on the chopping block of life and scrutinized by others.

I agree. But that’s off topic here. The truth is, however, that we all bring information to the text. We interpret obscure verses in light of clear verses, and that is by definition systematic theology. So you can’t escape systematic theology.

I believe you can escape sytematic theology if you focus on the historical context and then interpret in light of the historical context. I take the position that many problems are generated through reading our personal thoughts into a text and not having a full understanding of the historical context.

If we interpret obscure verses in light of those which are clear it may also lead to an incorrect interpretation because not every context is the same. I see that frequently among those who do not know how to use a concordance properly.

Dispensationalism interprets Scripture in its historical context. That is why we insist that the OT is still relevant and that it means what it says.

While I am glad you believe that, I did not see that among the dispensationalists who would be about 80 to 90 years of age today. Their focus was on understanding dispensationalism rather than the historical context. The younger dispensationalists are much closer to what I believe.

That’s because we are always learning. You have likely changed your position on some things. That means your personal systematic theology has changed. Before you claim you don’t have a systematic theology, remember what systematic theology is—it is the correlation of Scripture.

Yes I have changed my position on things but it has never been because of reading or knowing a systematic theology. It has always come because of learning the historical context. While I can explain a Jew's view of God and a Greek's view of God I cannot synthesize them into a systematic theology of God. While I can say that God does not create evil or I could say that God creates evil and in both cases be right. I cannot use that systematic theology to explain Is. 45:7, Amos 3:6 and Lam. 3:38.

This is not true only about dispensationalism. It’s alternatives have at least as much change as dispensationalism does.

That is the reason why we must allow the text to speak and not our internal systematic theology.

I think you suffer from a misunderstanding of what a systematic theology is. You have one … We all do.

As I get older I realize how many times "my" systematic theology has been poor and I have had to throw it out because I have learned more and more about the historical context. That is the reason why we must explain passages in light of their historical context rather than systematic theology.

Our systematic theology is like a computer--GIGO.

 

[gb93433]

The hyper dispensationalist wold get out his Bullinger texts and Larkin sketches to prove beyond doubt the facts of dispenationalism and the varying aspects of redemption through the 7 dispensations.

You call them "hyper". That is what I remember seeing among all dispensationalists I knew who graduated from BIOLA and DTS when I was in my early years of college.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia

I do not want to offend you, a sister in Christ. If you came to the pre-trib position based on Scripture you should be able to present them and explain why.:love2:

Why should I waste my time and invite spurious and degrading comments?

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, under Roman Law the Jews were forbidden to put anyone to death. They were. however, a devious lot and did things despite or behind Roman law. For example, temples were often enclosed by a huge stone fence and they did devious things there. (Josephus)

Sorry, I forgot where I was and just stumbled upon this thread. Getting old and forgetful you understand.

Cheers,

Jim

Okay, thanks for the info! :wavey:

 

[Marcia]

Steven was stoned to death while the Jews were under Roman law.

peace to youraying:

Good point!

 

[Amy.G]

They also tried to stone Jesus on several occasions, but He slipped away.

 

[Jim1999]

The Romans and Jews worked hand in hand because the Romans wanted the ultimate power, but the Jews were also strong and influential..This about the burial tomb of Jesus and who rolled the stone with 4 Roman guards at the watch and Jews looking on.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[OldRegular]

They also tried to stone Jesus on several occasions, but He slipped away.

They also tried to make Him king but He slipped away.

John 6:15. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

 

[Me4Him]

I appreciate all this (although not sure why you posted all this for me), but disagree with one point.

My post are intented for "many", not just one. :thumbs:

I have to say that the woman who committed adultery could not have been stoned because the Jews were unable to stone people when they were under Roman law at that time. I think we should not spiritualize this - this is just an incident showing Jesus' power to forgive and his knowledge of men (knowing some of the men there had probably committed adultery, too).

You won't find that in the scripture, but you will find this.

Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

NO Judge,
NO Condemnation,

NO LAW, enforced, at the present, ="GRACE".

 

[Marcia]

My post are intented for "many", not just one. :thumbs:




You won't find that in the scripture, but you will find this.

Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

NO Judge,
NO Condemnation,

NO LAW, enforced, at the present, ="GRACE".

True, but Jesus did address sin. He told the woman to "Go and sin no more."

Also, he made the men who brought her aware of their sin.

As for the law -- my OT professor said he thinks Jesus was writing the 10 commandments in the dirt, just as the "finger of God" wrote the 10 commandments in Exodus.

 

[Amy.G]

They also tried to make Him king but He slipped away.

John 6:15. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

That's right. He did not come to be that kind of king.

 

[Me4Him]

True, but Jesus did address sin. He told the woman to "Go and sin no more."

Also, he made the men who brought her aware of their sin.

As for the law -- my OT professor said he thinks Jesus was writing the 10 commandments in the dirt, just as the "finger of God" wrote the 10 commandments in Exodus.

The point is that under the law God gave to Moses, and Jesus was "obligated to keep", Jesus should have ordered her stoned, but he didn't.

She got a "Second chance", as we all do, "GRACE" annuls the "LAW".

It would be interesting to know for sure what he was writing.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

... As for the law -- my OT professor said he thinks Jesus was writing the 10 commandments in the dirt, just as the "finger of God" wrote the 10 commandments in Exodus.

What a fascinating thought.

:saint:

 

[DHK]

The point is that under the law God gave to Moses, and Jesus was "obligated to keep", Jesus should have ordered her stoned, but he didn't.

She got a "Second chance", as we all do, "GRACE" annuls the "LAW".

It would be interesting to know for sure what he was writing.

No Jesus was not "obligated" to keep the law.

Matthew 17:24-27 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

As King of kings, Jesus was not obligated to pay taxes. He explains that to Peter.

As the Supreme Law-giver, he is the one who makes the laws. He is not under the law; he is above or over the law. We need to understand that concept. He is God; the God-Man.