I don't really care what YOU think he may or may not know, it's up to him to communicate it, unless of course you guys are tag team trolls?
ECT Dispensationalism Defined
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
I don't really care what YOU think he may or may not know, it's up to him to communicate it, unless of course you guys are tag team trolls?
Could be, I lose interest after about 5 words of nothing.
Oh, BTW, do you know what languages he is bilingual in?
"Overall narrative" - not - simply "narrative." Some examples of this phrase - "overall narrative:"
https://books.google.com/books?id=4...=the Apostle Paul's overall narrative&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=W...onepage&q=Matthew's overall narrative&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...onepage&q=Matthew's overall narrative&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=J...onepage&q=Matthew's overall narrative&f=false
And please, put me on our ignore list...
No, Tel, the overall narrative the various posts I posted conveyed as one narrative was the issue that simply being expert in the Greek alone was not enough to render the intended sense of a passage.
But you are an incompetant; you continue to read your notions into other's words, no matter how long you have been proven wrong on this forum as to this very, idiotic habit of yours.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
One sentence:
A dispenationalist divides the course of history into a number of distinct epochs—epochs in which God works out a particular phase of his overall plan—wherein each epoch represents a “dispensation” or a particular phase in which there are distinctive ways in which God exerts His government over the world and tests human obedience and disobedience.
Dispensationalists are those people who, in addition to a generally evangelical theology, hold to the bulk of distinctives characteristic of the prophetic systems of J. N. Darby and C. I. Scofield. Representative theologians of dispensationalism include Lewis Sperry Chafer, Arno C. Gaebelein, Charles C. Ryrie, Charles L. Feinberg, J. Dwight Pentecost, and John F. Walvoord.
As you can see by posts at TOL, dispensationalists (including those listed above) have, here and there, some significant theological differences. What they have in common is primarily a particular view of the parallel-but-separate roles and destinies of Israel and the church. Along with this view goes a particular hermeneutical stance, in which careful separation is made between what is addressed to Israel and what is addressed to the church. What is addressed to Israel is “earthly” in character and is to be interpreted “literally.”
But the word “dispensationalist” is not really an good term for labeling the these folks. Why? Virtually all branches of the church, and all ages of the church, have believed that there are distinctive epochs or “dispensations” in God’s government of the world–though sometimes the consciousness of such distinctions has grown dim. The recognition of distinctions between different epochs is by no means unique to dispensationalists. To avoid confusion, those not in agreement with dispensationalism often use the word "administration" versus "dispensation".
For a solid review of the topic (from which the above is adapted):
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Dispensationalists-Vern-S-Poythress/dp/0875523749/
Or read it online here:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/
What is the end result of dispensationlism versus the plain covenantalism of Scripture?
This:
http://www.faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm
AMR
A glaring hole in your writers is their off-based belief that the system they reason things through is the same as reasoning a thing through in light of Scripture's overall narrative.
Acts 2 Dispensationalism ended up at that same mistake, thus, its many inconsistencies. Thus, how those of them who ended up even worse off - "Progressive" Dispensationalism - ended up there.
These men came up with and or bought into an already established manner of reasoning through a thing they came to believe is Scripture's own; which they then developed their particular theology through.
After awhile, theirs is "what did the church fathers say?"
This is as rampant in Gerstner and his fellows as it is in Ryrie and his, for example.
It is also evident in O'Hair's struggle to break from either of those and get back to a means of looking at a thing through the Scripture.
Only, there are great moments in his writings where he manages to escape his own subjectivity. Others, where he is back once more scratching his head. To his credit, he always admitted such was the case where it was. He was very rare in his consistency in that.
Something somewhat similar to that is evidenced in Martin Luther's own struggle to get back to the Word for his answers. Where he succeeded, he ended up at a sense of Romans 5 much closer to the Apostle Paul's own intended sense, for example.
Then, just as quickly, he'd end up back in all that tradition he never really succeeded getting past as to how to approach the Scripture much more objectively.
My own sense of that comes, not only out of my own continuing struggles with this objectivity issue, but out of a deliberately conscious pursuit on my part, for what principles objective approach itself comprises, that I might follow them much more often than simply stumbling into its moment.
Very few will ask "where is this in Scripture?" and or "What is actually going on in these passages; how might I get out of my own way, and how might I know I have succeeded at doing so?"
Its a never ending discovery of more of that...
Rather, someone you have to put up with! You have no choice!
All you "newbies" from up north are the same. You must be deprived of oxygen?
Why not place yourself on ignore? I assure you, you won't be missed!
Cross Reference
New member
Question for all: Can it be agreed, regardless of which side of this issue you stand, that God's reason for creating man is have a vast family of sons?
And I am not looking for any answer that equivocates so, please don't.
And I am not looking for any answer that equivocates so, please don't.
Last edited:
Yes, so do I when reading his posts.
His posts have no narrative structure.
His posts lack a literary element of framework which therefore precludes a catalyst for developing a resolution. This lack of literary technique in his posts leads to multiple perspectives, or even worse, it leads to Danoh himself becoming the protagonist of his very own posts. Moreover, the restricted narration, or lack there of, not only leads to multiple levels of interpretation, but also the bemoaning of the ideologue for his inequity towards theological, sociological, political, psychological, physiological, epistemological, historical, and geographical facts, without interpolating ethical consequences. :chuckle:
IOW, his Dispensationalism is a mess.
It seems nothing good come out of this kind of theology, IMO. Just like Calvinism. It just adds to messy Christianity even more.
sad.
iamaberean
New member
Danoh,
In 'Religion forum', I am going to post my experience with God and ask that others to share also. I think you will find that God does a lot for us and has ways of talking to us.
Funny you should quote Roy Zuck, a premillennial Acts 2 dispensationalist!
Your attempt at a joke there reminds me of a slow wit I know. Just throws out words that only appear to belong together in the hope he will be viewed as smarter than he is actually able to be.... only, he does not know better, due to a learning disability... whereas you, ought to.
Then again, yours is the learning disability that is "church history." The disability that results when all those books you and yours have read, and continue to, are allowed to become one's lens.
That right there is your whole "school" of forever impaired fools - the school of ever reaching over to "see what Dr. So and so has to say..."
Not an iota of originality in you and yours - ever the same old parroting.
You are such a slow wit. You one size fit all into Darby, ever oblivious to how many times you have been thrown by some new thing to you regarding Mid-Acts despite how well-informed you have deluded yourself into believing you are.
You and yours... ever only able to talk the subjectivity all your books have taught you to think a thing through.
Its why you always rant against Darby from that one size fits all lens of yours. Your books based "learning" having long ago severely impaired what little ability at looking at a thing objectively you may have had.
Regrettably, this post will have taxed your attention span...
So you're saying we are all dispensationalists.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
As usual you are confused. A dispensationalist does not divide the course of history into a number of distinct epochs.
Instead, he divides them into a number of distinct stewardships.
You do not even understand the most basic things about dispensationalism but yet you have somehow tricked your mind into believing that you are an expert on dispensationalism.
At least you are good for a laugh every now and then!
Last edited: