- Joined
- May 27, 2023
- Messages
- 6,942
- Reaction score
- 5,499
- Points
- 138
- Faith
- Christian/Reformed
- Country
- US
- Politics
- conservative
I have isolated no scripture from its context, ( not itself). If I give singular scriptures or passages it is because I have considered the context, its surrounding context and not only that context, but the whole counsel of God on redemption, and not only that, brought the impact of a complete hermeneutical onto it. Including the historical, interpreting according to the type of literature it is, and its relationship to history, both past, present and the future that is given in Scripture. Having done that I find that the small set of scriptures does indeed say what I am showing it to say. So what scripture did I isolate? It is easy to simply make that accusation and give no example of my having done so, or showing that my having done so changed the meaning.Which is what happens when you isolate scripture from itself, something you say you do not do.
What dictionary definitions are you referring to?Dictionary definitions are not bogus presuppositions.
No He wasn't. He answered their last question first. And don't forget (perhaps you never knew) that there is often more than one fulfillment of a prophecy, as time marches on. And anyway, I said Rev. wasn't chronological. If you didn't think it was, you would realize that up to a certain point--the release of Satan to deceive the nations---(maybe before, I would have to study the book again)--- the what is, and the what was, instead of seeing it all as what will be. It is summary of the entire story of Jesus as it played out in history, from the perspective of the spiritual realm. Inserted in it in places are events that have not happened yet. Don't forget, it is not a puzzle book where we have to make all the pieces fit know exactly what they look like. It is a LETTER written to seven specific churches and for a specific reason. And just like every other epistle in the Bible, they had specific historical purpose for the recipients, and at the same time have purpose, and information, and truths, that are just as pertinent to everyone who has ever read them or ever will read them.I don't have to. Jesus, who you can take it up with, was being chronological, as the disciples questions were chronological. Take it up with Him. Tell Him what you say He wasn't. Perhaps He'll let you know what He meant.
What is the distinction you say they are making? I remember Paul and Peter saying that God made no distinction. Peter when Cornelius was saved in the same way as the Jewish believers, and Paul when he said God made of the two one, tearing down the wall of division. So why are you rebuilding the wall?Romans is pretty clear the distinction between Israel and the church. Peter and James were pretty clear the distinction between Israel and the church at the council in Acts.
No. I am using your rhetoric. Covenant theology recognizes that God dealt with people in different ways over time. That is not the issue. The issue is that is not the framework of redemption, but its process. They are the historical events in redemption.So there were seven ages?
God isn't relating to man through those dispensations, He is relating to man in those dispensations, through covenant. Redemption has "dispensations" because it is the way in which God is acting in history as He moves redemption towards the goal line. The dispensations that dispensationalism has marked out are roadways so so speak, they are not redemption, and they are not isolated from one another but all part of the covenant of redemption. God always relates in a personal wa with mankind through covenant. Not dispensations.From what I read and what I learned in college about dispensationalism, a dispensation speaks to a different economy of God, that is, how God relates to man.
It's nonsense is what it is. And I am not saying they are ages. I am considering two ages. The two spoken of byJesus and Paul. This age and the one to come. They are not dispensations as D'ism defines dispensations. This age is a time period that began with Jesus' first advent. The age to come is the eternal age when Jesus returns and all things are restored, and the death of death. Rev 21 iow.What are the seven dispensations, which you are saying is an age. "Poiret divided history into seven dispensations: early childhood (ended in the Flood), childhood (ended in Moses's ministry), boyhood (ended in Malachi), youth (ended in Christ), manhood (most of the Church era), old age ("human decay", meaning the last hour of the Church), and the restoration of all things (the Millennium, including a literal earthly reign of Christ with Israel restored)" I'm pretty sure that it isn't an age, but "a system of order, government, or organization of a nation, community, etc., especially as existing at a particular time."
But in this statement above you have Poiret saying the restoration of all things ins the mIllennium, including a literal earthly reign of Christ with Israel restored. Is that what you believe? Because in another post you said the millennium is not the restoration of all things. That it is after the millennial reign. With that in mind, now address what I wrote instead of deflecting with red herrings:
If an age is considered a dispensation, which of course it is--duh--again, Jesus and the apostles mention this age, and the age to come which is the consummation. According to dispensationalism itself, the millennial kingdom they put forth is an age or dispensation. A millennial kingdom as described, would not be this age, and if the age to come is the consummation, neither would it be the age to come. Plus, if restored temporal Israel is the Kingdom of God, then God has two kingdoms. One for the church at the consummation, and one for Israel in the millennium, that is not eternal, but temporal.