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.
Last edited by Danoh; April 20th, 2017 at 11:00 PM.
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.
All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com
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.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
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.
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
My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13
Is Calvinism okay? Yep
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
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.
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.
Last edited by daqq; April 21st, 2017 at 01:22 AM.
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
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.
All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com
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?
All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)