ECT Reformed or Dispensational Theology?

[Danoh]

John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 11:12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 11:13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

In one of his various books "about" the late John Gerstner (Reformed Theology) related his belief that time in Scripture unfolds via a series of overlapping dispensations.

He also related his view that Dispensational Theology fails to see that Israel's had been a genuine kingdom offer...but one that had merely been a part of said continually unfolding, overlapping, series of dispensations one day culminating in God's kingdom at last.

In that book, he was writing against Acts 2 Dispensationalism.

From my perspective, he had obviously failed to see that Acts 2 Dispensationalism has basically ever remained a kind of a hybrid comprised of various understandings common to Reformed Theology, and those understandings that came to be known as Dispensational Theology.

The other day, STP jokingly referred to me as an Acts 2er.

In a sense, he was right.

Because what came to be known as Acts 9 Dispensationalism aka Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, or MAD, ends up in some ways, an unavoidable hybrid of understandings that those two schools (Reformed and Acts 2) unavoidably share.

In the sense that all views cannot but overlap in some parts - lol - as with Gerstner's erroneous "overlapping dispensations" model.

You name the school of Theology - all have points where they overlap with one another on one thing or another.

The thing that differs between them all, where they do differ?

Where each departs from a consistent approach.

I continue to find all that an ever fascinating study in perception and its' approaches.

 

[daqq]

John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 11:12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 11:13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

In one of his various books "about" the late John Gerstner (Reformed Theology) related his belief that time in Scripture unfolds via a series of overlapping dispensations.

He also related his view that Dispensational Theology fails to see that Israel's had been a genuine kingdom offer...but one that had merely been a part of said continually unfolding, overlapping, series of dispensations one day culminating in God's kingdom at last.

In that book, he was writing against Acts 2 Dispensationalism.

From my perspective, he had obviously failed to see that Acts 2 Dispensationalism has basically ever remained a kind of a hybrid comprised of various understamdings common to Reformed Theology, and those understandings that came to be known as Dispensational Theology.

The other day, STP jokingly referred to me as an Acts 2er.

In a sense, he was right.

Because what came to be known as Acts 9 Dispensationalism aka Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, or MAD, ends up in some ways, an unavoidable hybrid of understandings that those two schools (Reformed and Acts 2) unavoidably share.

In the sense that all views cannot but overlap in some parts - lol - as with Gerstner's erroneous "overlapping dispensations" model.

You name the school of Theology - all have points where they overlap with one another on one thing or another.

The thing that differs between them all, where they do differ?

Where each departs from a consistent approach.

I continue to find all that an ever fascinating study in perception and its' approaches.

In my understanding I do not have any of those problems. There is no overlapping but rather one continuous flow of scripture which all applies in one way or another to the all Israel of the Father. The words, statements, allegories, parables, proverbs, sayings, idioms, and teachings of Messiah are never going to pass away, (for example, as you know the passage well, Matthew 15:24), and those words were not and never will be "interrupted" or "suspended" for anyone no matter how such a one tries to carve up the record into dispensations or ages. One thing most seem to either not realize or forget is the fact that all of the written scripture, which most would now claim as their canon, is every word of it having been written to Israel; the people of the Elohim Almighty of what is now called "the Bible". I'm not intending to throw off your thread with a giant argument or anything like that, Danoh, so I suppose this is just a mere two cents of my forty-two sense, and I understand if you would rather not include this in your discussion, (as I know my view is not held by many around these parts), but there you have for what it's worth. Gentiles enter into the body as the Uncircumcision but that is not where they are to stay, and rather, are headed for circumcision of the heart in the new supernal Way, (and thus they become of "the Circumcision", (of the heart)).

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
He also related his view that Dispensational Theology fails to see that Israel's had been a genuine kingdom offer


How long will essential unclarity prevail? The question is whether the kingdom was a civic authority located in Judea or the innovative force of the evangelism by the early church. The discussion must move forward by being clear where it needs to, not harboring unclarity in sentences like this one.

 

[Danoh]

In my understanding I do not have any of those problems. There is no overlapping but rather one continuous flow of scripture which all applies in one way or another to the all Israel of the Father. The words, statements, allegories, parables, proverbs, sayings, idioms, and teachings of Messiah are never going to pass away, (for example, as you know the passage well, Matthew 15:24), and those words were not and never will be "interrupted" or "suspended" for anyone no matter how such a one tries to carve up the record into dispensations or ages. One thing most seem to either not realize or forget is the fact that all of the written scripture, which most would now claim as their canon, is every word of it having been written to Israel; the people of the Elohim Almighty of what is now called "the Bible". I'm not intending to throw off your thread with a giant argument or anything like that, Danoh, so I suppose this is just a mere two cents of my forty-two sense, and I understand if you would rather not include this in your discussion, (as I know my view is not held by many around these parts), but there you have for what it's worth. Gentiles enter into the body as the Uncircumcision but that is not where they are to stay, and rather, are headed for circumcision of the heart in the new supernal Way, (and thus they become of "the Circumcision", (of the heart)).

Let it be obvious from the sense of the OP that your input is always welcome, daqq.

And somewhat similar to what you are saying, Gerstner (who I disagree with on some of the following) noted...

In dealing with prophecy one distinguishing mark of Dispensationalism is to see divisions
instead of unity. Classical Dispensationalist have seen a division between the Church and Israel,
the Day of the Lord and the Day of Christ, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistles etc. A central proof text for drawing such dramatic
distinction is 2 Timothy 2:15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. While it is not wrong to understand that God has different administrations in the divine economy, it is erroneous to view the periods of
time so sharply they divide one from the other rather than unfold Biblical revelation in a developmental form “just as the blossom unfolds from the bud of a flower” (JHG). The essential unity of the Bible is not to be lost. - John H. Gerstner, p. 112, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

D.Note: By Classical Dispensationalism, he is referring to Acts 2 Dispensationalism.

The very little he touches on as to Acts 9 Dispensationalism aka Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, or M.A.D, he confuses with Acts 28 Dispensationalism; basically lumping the two together, as most of his background do; because their background is basically the reasoning of men that such write endless books "about" based on books "about" said writers themselves basically got their own reasoning on Scripture from.

At least that's been my observation; men reasoning on one thing or another from within the reasoning of one system of Theology or another.

Systems born of such reasoning, themselves.

The result being that if a thing does not fit within said system, it is viewed as an anathema of some sort.

This is, why, for example, what little Gerstner noted about Mid-Acts, he was completely off about.

Because he obviously relied on the same parroted straw man arguments of his fellow teachers and book writers.

Personally, I continue to find it interesting to observe that dynamic within the writings of one system or another, and or within the assertions of one of its' people, or another.

The reasoning of such makes sense - from within their same kind of approach to thinking a thing through.

The result often being that when the particular system's manner of reasoning fits how one individual or another normally reasons on one thing or another in life in general, such will tend to conclude said system's manner of looking at things is valid.

Doesn't mean it actually is sensible; though...

Again, your input is always welcome, daqq.

 

[Lon]

John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 11:12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 11:13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

In one of his various books "about" the late John Gerstner (Reformed Theology) related his belief that time in Scripture unfolds via a series of overlapping dispensations.

He also related his view that Dispensational Theology fails to see that Israel's had been a genuine kingdom offer...but one that had merely been a part of said continually unfolding, overlapping, series of dispensations one day culminating in God's kingdom at last.

In that book, he was writing against Acts 2 Dispensationalism.

From my perspective, he had obviously failed to see that Acts 2 Dispensationalism has basically ever remained a kind of a hybrid comprised of various understamdings common to Reformed Theology, and those understandings that came to be known as Dispensational Theology.

The other day, STP jokingly referred to me as an Acts 2er.

In a sense, he was right.

Because what came to be known as Acts 9 Dispensationalism aka Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, or MAD, ends up in some ways, an unavoidable hybrid of understandings that those two schools (Reformed and Acts 2) unavoidably share.

In the sense that all views cannot but overlap in some parts - lol - as with Gerstner's erroneous "overlapping dispensations" model.

You name the school of Theology - all have points where they overlap with one another on one thing or another.

The thing that differs between them all, where they do differ?

Where each departs from a consistent approach.

I continue to find all that an ever fascinating study in perception and its' approaches.

For me, the difference: Same vs different.

I am looking for 'type' and/or consistency where the other is working on simplifying and relegating/dismissing (not by strawman, but by generalization/observation/practice).

So, we sort of have the same observations, but as I was discussing John 3 with another, it came up that for MAD John 3 is about a Jew being born again, and not about the new birth/new creation specifically in MAD because Jews and Gentiles are to remain separate in communication.

Another example of difference: I tend to read Hebrews as to "Hebrews" and so, I'm looking at the obvious 'difference' (dispensational then) but am myself looking for typology or better "universal applicable truths" because Covenant sees us 'grafted in' albeit with a difference for gentiles as well as agreeing with MAD that this is the time of all, and gentiles especially by numbers and only one gospel exists.

What I'm seeing with Jews: Not necessarily a different gospel, but one closely connected with their 'national' heritage. They had to follow rules, not so much for Salvation, but because God had a different agreement with them concerning their national promises and heritage. They still had to bring offerings, but had to stop sacrifices. They still had to pay tithes AND taxes to Rome, etc. I am a bit more stark in my Covenant understanding, likely because I've been steeped in Dispensational theology all my life. I don't always find typology or direct application that other Covenant theologians see. I do believe I'm grafted in, but I also see that gentiles aren't to be Judaizers and know Galatians is written to me, in particular (not as a Galatian, as a gentile). etc. etc. -Lon

 

[daqq]

Let it be obvious from the sense of the OP that your input is always welcome, daqq.

And somewhat similar to what you are saying, Gerstner (who I disagree with on some of the following) noted...



D.Note: By Classical Dispensationalism, he is referring to Acts 2 Dispensationalism.

The very little he touches on as to Acts 9 Dispensationalism aka Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, or M.A.D, he confuses with Acts 28 Dispensationalism; basically lumping the two together, as most of his background do; because their background is basically the reasoning of men that such write endless books "about" based on books "about" said writers themselves basically got their own reasoning on Scripture from.

At least that's been my observation; men reasoning on one thing or another from within the reasoning of one system of Theology or another.

Systems born of such reasoning, themselves.

The result being that if a thing does not fit within said system, it is viewed as an anathema of some sort.

This is, why, for example, what little Gerstner noted about Mid-Acts, he was completely off about.

Because he obviously relied on the same parroted straw man arguments of his fellow teachers and book writers.

Personally, I continue to find it interesting to observe that dynamic within the writings of one system or another, and or within the assertions of one of its' people, or another.

The reasoning of such makes sense - from within their same kind of approach to thinking a thing through.

The result often being that when the particular system's manner of reasoning fits how one individual or another normally reasons on one thing or another in life in general, such will tend to conclude said system's manner of looking at things is valid.

Doesn't mean it actually is sensible; though...

Again, your input is always welcome, daqq.

Hi and thanks Danoh,

Imagine this if only for the moment: if you whittle your "system" down to a body-temple analogy, and part yourself asunder into twelve "regions" of land, (for indeed the people are the land in the eyes of our Maker; and you are not your body but rather like a treasure in an earthen vessel), and so doing this you would immediately have "twelve thrones" which you yourself would be in charge of "while the HouseMaster is away as if in a far journey", (and when the Son of Man comes will He find faith in your land?). Now therefore you would have your own "dispensation" including those to whom you will dispense the truth within your own "dominion", your own little set of congregations like a city set on a hill, (the mountain of Elohim, for you are the light of the world), and your little mini-dispensation would therefore end with you, (unless you think you will be writing some scripture like Paul, lol). But if indeed you rise from the dead then your whole household will no doubt go with you, yea, they will even precede you, (for the dead and those unruly "members" of your household, which you have been forced to put asleep in Messiah, rise first). Moreover sin dwells in the flesh; therefore those in your members which you are admonished to mortify, those "dwellers" in the outerbounds-commons-profane area of your body temple: they are enemies for your sake, as concerning the Gospel, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers, (the flesh is deceived, blind, partially hardened, and yet ten tribes cast out into the badlands of the nations). If one can see such things in this allegorical metaphorical way then we are commanded to go and preach the Gospel in all of our land, (it is a body-temple analogy and allegory). You shall not have gone over all the cities and unwalled villages of Israel before the Son of Man be-come; for your land is the very land of Israel, (for you are purchased with a price and are no more your own), but you yourself are not a dweller in the erets-badlands outerbounds which is the commons-profane area of your body-temple, (the flesh), rather you dwell in the rich fertile adamah-soil of the heart, (as in the Parable of the Sower, (and other similar references to the supernal way such as in Rom 2:28-29). Now therefore this is not "replacement theology" is it? Whose land are you set in charge of? Whose land will you be taking away? You will not be taking away anyone else's land; for every man has his land, for the people are the Land, and what you will be sowing toward is that body which is heavenly, and spiritual, not made with hands. I may not be very good at explaining this, (and it aint easy), but if you can begin to see what I say here you will no doubt begin to see it in the scripture in places you never imagined, (if you are willing to see it no doubt the Master will guide you along because it is all over in His Testimony found in the Gospel accounts), and your walk with Elohim will never be the same.

 

[Danoh]

I see what you are saying daqq.

Yours is not unlike Interplanner's Reformed views, by the way.

But I am a Literalist by choice through time in the Scripture.

Case in point, although This is My body and this is My blood, had been a figure of speech, it had nevertheless been not only a reference to a literal reality, but to a very specific one.

Big difference between a figure of speech as a reference to a very specific, literal reality, and the universal "one size fits all" contexts as a reality, that you are obviously seeing these things in.

Like I said, your sense of the figurative is not unlike Interplanner's.

 

[daqq]

I see what you are saying daqq.

Yours is not unlike Interplanner's Reformed views, by the way.

But I am a Literalist by choice through time in the Scripture.

Case in point, although This is My body and this is My blood, had been a figure of speech, it had nevertheless been not only a reference to a literal reality, but to a very specific one.

Big difference between a figure of speech as a reference to a very specific, literal reality, and the universal "one size fits all" contexts as a reality, that you are obviously seeing these things in.

Like I said, your sense of the figurative is not unlike Interplanner's.

Yeah, that is why we have always butted heads, eh? (more so at that previous forum where he used to come into the prophecy board and tell everyone they should not be studying prophecy, and that they had better things to be doing, then quote something from Ephesians or Galatians, lol). IP really has no idea about what I just said to you: it has nothing to do with Preterism. In fact there are times I wonder if the prince of the power of the air was ever cast out of him to begin with, (Eph 2:2-3, Lev 16:21-22, Dan 8:5, Luk 11:24-26, lol). See? No dispensational limitations: every Word of manna proceeding out of the mouth of Elohim; and until your heavens and earth pass, not one iota or one little horn shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled, (each in his or her own appointed times, and none shall be alone in his appointed times, times appointed of the Father, which only the Father knows: the day when a child becomes a son, Gal 4:1-2 KJV).

 

[oatmeal]

New rules were put in place after Adam and Eve sinned. Likewise the law was given. There was no written law until God gave it. Acts 2:1-4 is clearly the beginning of something new. What that was was learned over time. God had Paul write it down. Etc

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Danoh wrote:
He also related his view that Dispensational Theology fails to see that Israel's had been a genuine kingdom offer


How long will essential unclarity prevail? The question is whether the kingdom was a civic authority located in Judea or the innovative force of the evangelism by the early church. The discussion must move forward by being clear where it needs to, not harboring unclarity in sentences like this one.

When harboring foregone unclarities, it is of utmost purport to curtail our own misconceptions and hurl ourselves forward into the NHNE realities, else we shall all be purloined against our own petards.

 

[Interplanner]

Yeah, that is why we have always butted heads, eh? (more so at that previous forum where he used to come into the prophecy board and tell everyone they should not be studying prophecy, and that they had better things to be doing, then quote something from Ephesians or Galatians, lol). IP really has no idea about what I just said to you: it has nothing to do with Preterism. In fact there are times I wonder if the prince of the power of the air was ever cast out of him to begin with, (Eph 2:2-3, Lev 16:21-22, Dan 8:5, Luk 11:24-26, lol). See? No dispensational limitations: every Word of manna proceeding out of the mouth of Elohim; and until your heavens and earth pass, not one iota or one little horn shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled, (each in his or her own appointed times, and none shall be alone in his appointed times, times appointed of the Father, which only the Father knows: the day when a child becomes a son, Gal 4:1-2 KJV).

Christ did fulfill everything in the law, Rom 10:4. So that there is a way for all to be justified from their sins.

No group is more elusive about 'the plain meaning' that D'ists. If it does not fit their complicated system, it is not the 'plain meaning' and 'I'm don't believe the Bible' (which means I don't believe D'ism), etc.

 

[Interplanner]

Daqq,
interesting that you should remember me from the previous site. Do you know why I was taken off, and do you accept that people like the person from Denmark who took me off are on a 'Christian' site with most of the same obsession about 'Israel' as here?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Christ did fulfill everything in the law, Rom 10:4.

Not yet.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No group is more elusive about 'the plain meaning' that D'ists.

I don't know what this means. Are you a real writer and grammar scholar?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

same obsession about 'Israel' as here?

Believing God's prophecies concerning Israel is not obsession. It's belief.
Ask the LORD to help thy unbelief.