Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: The Twelve Dispensations - By Bob Hill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Can I have a ballpark figure here?

    Is three pages too long?
    Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,
    Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
    Pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.


    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Evangelion
      Sorry, my mistake.

      I'll re-post it as a two-part mini-series.

      Much better, thank you!
      Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
      TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

      Comment


      • #33
        No worries, Knight.

        Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,
        Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
        Pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.


        Comment


        • #34
          Evan,

          That's what I'm talking about when I refer to "defining your dispensations." I'm not talking about the meaning of the word itself, but the scope of each "dispensation" as defined by the dispensationalist.
          Just as with any doctrine which man tries to formulate from the revelation of the Word, it is to be expected that there would be differences of opinion on the subject of dispensations. Dispensationalists are no more agreed on the number and the divisions of the dispensations than christians are on the doctrines of election, baptism and the second coming of Christ. Some men call themselves either non- or - anti- dispensationalists,(you perhaps) arguing that lack of agreement is proof of the falseity of the doctrine. To say the least, this is a rather immature position to take. The lack of agreement should be a challenge to more diligent study. No one man, with the exception of Jesus Christ, has had all the truth. An open minded, unprejudiced study should bring believers closer to unity in this field. It is no mark of spirituality to call one self anti-anything that is in Scripture, simply to avoid differences or controversy.

          What did Mr. Hill say that was so wrong? His quote you gave me is pretty accurate. The burden is on you to disprove it. So quit duckin it.

          Mr. Hill's quote.
          We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.
          So please don't imply that we teach that we teach different ways of being saved. That would not be accurate.

          So you believe in a different message for a different age. Fine. Since I had already agreed that is precisely what dispensationalists teach, I am at a loss to know why you're going over old ground now.
          Great, let's move on to the meat of the subject then instead of you favorite pastime of making a play of wording.


          Well now, it appears that there is some measure of confusion in the Dispensationalist camp.
          Not at all.

          For example, while you have argued that there was only one message, another Dispensationalist tells me:
          The simple fact is that while Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism generally, along with Modernism and Roman Catholicism, have considered Paul merely as one of the Apostles, entrusted with the same message the Twelve were sent to proclaim, the Scriptures clearly teach that this is not so. Paul's message and ministry were distinct and separate from theirs; to him was committed the doctrine and the program for a new dispensation, a new creation, the Church, never before even contemplated, except in the mind and heart of God.
          Again, back to an earlier statement I made:

          Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Dispensationalists do teach that man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.
          I have yet to meet one dispensationalists that disagrees with that statement. In your folly. you try to use this as some sort of division. Very bad and sad on your part. Again trying to make a play of words.

          About Samaria on the next post.
          The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

          Comment


          • #35
            drbrumley -

            Just as with any doctrine which man tries to formulate from the revelation of the Word, it is to be expected that there would be differences of opinion on the subject of dispensations. Dispensationalists are no more agreed on the number and the divisions of the dispensations than christians are on the doctrines of election, baptism and the second coming of Christ.
            Fine. So I'll thank you to stop talking about "what Dispensationalists believe" as if there's some sort of universal standard.

            Some men call themselves either non- or - anti- dispensationalists,(you perhaps) arguing that lack of agreement is proof of the falseity of the doctrine.
            *snip*

            Straw man. I am not arguing that the lack of agreement is proof of the "falseity of the doctrine [sic]." I am arguing that you cannot talk about "what Dispensationalists believe" as if there's some sort of universal standard.

            What did Mr. Hill say that was so wrong?
            You had said that there was no change in God's method of salvation.

            Thus:
            • Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations

            My quote from Mr Hill stands in direct contradiction to your statement.

            His quote you gave me is pretty accurate. The burden is on you to disprove it. So quit duckin it.
            If anyone's "duckin it" [sic]", it's you. I have presented you with a contradiction between your statement, and Mr Hill's. To date, this contradiction has not been resolved.

            Mr. Hill's quote.

            quote:
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            [b][color=red]We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            So please don't imply that we teach that we teach different ways of being saved. That would not be accurate.
            Are you even reading this stuff? Look, I'll spell it out:
            • Mr Hill says that there was a change in the method of salvation.
            • This means that I have a Dispensationalist here who is talking about different ways of being saved. (One of which is no longer in effect.)
            • That is precisely what I had said, and precisely what you had denied.
            • I never claimed that Dispensationalists teach that there are different ways for modern Christians to be saved, if that's what you're thinking.

            Please take the time to read my posts properly. I take the time to read your posts properly, and the least you can do is return the courtesy.

            In your folly. you try to use this as some sort of division.
            You have already agreed that there is division within the Dispensationalist camp. You don't call it "division" - you call it "difference of opinion" - but the net result is the same.

            Very bad and sad on your part.
            Don't blame me if you guys can't agree on the essentials.

            Again trying to make a play of words.
            Nothing of the sort.

            About Samaria on the next post.
            Good.
            Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,
            Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
            Pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.


            Comment


            • #36
              Yeah, come on Bob, what are yoou doing man, youv'e just made a big statement and Evangelions taken it to pieces, come on man stand up for your self and what you believe.

              Comment


              • #37
                LOL Gently, Bentley... So, you enjoyed my little stoush with the Dispys, eh?

                I did too.
                Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,
                Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
                Pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.


                Comment


                • #38
                  IDF1,

                  Welcome to TheologyOnline. FYI, I am not as blessed with time as Evan is, so forgive me if I don't answer right away. I listen to Evan, and prayfully consider an answer to him. If that takes a week or two, then so be it.

                  Yeah, come on Bob, what are yoou doing man, youv'e just made a big statement and Evangelions taken it to pieces, come on man stand up for your self and what you believe.
                  I'm not Bob. LOL! And I don't speak for him either.

                  But we seem to have here is a huge misrepresentation of words. I quoted:

                  Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. Dispensationalists do teach that God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.
                  Please note the key phrase of my answer:

                  Man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways.

                  Like I said earlier, Jesus saves. It is by the blood of Christ that ALL men have been saved. Past, Present, and Future. But Isreal in the Old Testament times didn't know who the Messiah was. But they expected him, so they had a faith in the coming Messiah.

                  Now Evangelion likes to say this is what Bob Hill doesn't mean. This is exactly what Bob means. Maybe Bob should have said something more about this to clarify the position. And I hope he does. But I know this is exactly what he means. This is exactly what Bob says in his thesis:

                  Bob Hill quotes: Abraham was justified by his faith-work of offering up his son. That was God's method of salvation just as circumcision was necessary. The faith-work did not provide the righteousness. Only Jesus Christ's faithfulness could do that. That is shown in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians.
                  Or did you just miss that Evangelion. Or are you just pertending he didn't say that?

                  So the rest of your rant on your post has been answered and needs no more clarification.
                  Last edited by drbrumley; July 5th, 2002, 11:51 AM.
                  The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Well, again, Bob seems to have chosen his language with a cavaliar disregard for the very theological specifics he is supposed to be defining. It is one thing to say that man has been required to manifest his faith in different ways. It is quite another thing entirely, to say that God has decided to save man through a variety of methods. And yet, that is precisely what Bob has told us. Indeed, your citations merely prove my point - viz., that he has actually claimed both simultaneously!

                    So I don't want to hear any more about "What Dispys teach", as if there's some kind of hard-and-fast rules about what they teach and what they don't. It's simply a matter of personal choice.

                    As I said in the beginning, so I now say again - Dispensationalism is hardly an exact science.


                    PS. Bob appears to imply (if not assert), that circumcision was necessary for salvation. I hope he realises that this is totally false.
                    Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,
                    Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
                    Pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.


                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Oh yeah - and let's get another thing straight. I didn't write a "rant." If anything, that's what you did.

                      Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,
                      Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
                      Pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.


                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Evangelion,

                        Oh yeah - and let's get another thing straight. I didn't write a "rant." If anything, that's what you did.
                        ROFL! You say so.
                        The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Oh, wow. That was a "prayerfully considered post", and no mistake.

                          Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,
                          Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
                          Pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            To all who read this thread,

                            As you can see, Evangelion has been refuted and what does he do? Makes things up. Now Bob is cavier in his theology and says two different things simultaneously. Evan, your grasping for straws mate. If you want to have a healthy debate about what he wrote, thats fine. But if you want to smear the man, this debate is over. Good day.

                            The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              "Cavier"? Do you mean "caviar", perhaps"? (Or "cavalier", which is actually what I'd written...) BTW, just where was I "refuted", pray tell? I had said "Bob wrote (x)." You said "No he didn't, he wrote (y)!" I then pointed out that Bob had written both (x) and (y) - and now you get all sulky!?

                              Sheesh.

                              Look, I am not "smearing the man", I am simply pointing to something he wrote, and asking a few questions about it. If you don't want to discuss what he wrote, that's fine. Just skip Mr Hill and his lengthy dissertation, and move on to the Dispy-ism.
                              Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus,
                              Dominus Deus Sabaoth.
                              Pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua.


                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Evangelion,

                                I had said "Bob wrote (x)."
                                And x was:

                                We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.
                                You said "No he didn't, he wrote (y)!
                                And y was:

                                Abraham was justified by his faith-work of offering up his son. That was God's method of salvation just as circumcision was necessary. The faith-work did not provide the righteousness. Only Jesus Christ's faithfulness could do that. That is shown in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians.
                                I never denied he said x. But what you seem to fail to realize is y is an explaination of x. (I feel as if I'm in Algebra again)

                                Then comes this statement from you:

                                It is one thing to say that man has been required to manifest his faith in different ways. It is quite another thing entirely, to say that God has decided to save man through a variety of methods.
                                In which the response is:

                                Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. Dispensationalists do teach that God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.
                                Please note the Bold sentence.

                                If you cannot understand that, then I'm sorry and lets move on.

                                If anyone looking at this thread other than myself and Evangelion understands this or not, feel free to join in and give your take on it.
                                The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X