Foundations of DF thought

[Hitch]

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

Please define and delineate from Srcipture the first five 'dispensations'. Show the agreed upon OT dividing points and two or more NT references to the specificly distinguished time in a way that relates to them ( the lack of exact names etc is granted) as dispensations as defined on page 5 of the SRB.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

OkT he first three?

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

I have this internal debate going on whether on not to spend the necessary time on this. From dealing with you in the past, I realize that it would be a watse of time anyway... However, to answer your question,http://www.biblicalanswers.com/book_12dispensations.htm

http://www.biblicalanswers.com/chart_12dispensations.htm...click on the above links.

--Jeremy

[Hitch]

I agree its a waste of time but it the foundation of your system and so far the entire defence consists of your posted links. If real evidence and structure of the dispensations is not produced and capable of withstanding examination then the structure built on
them is suspect.


It interesting that self proclaimed dispensationalists are so relunctant to put up what should be rock solid and Scriptural for public examination. Because the DFs sure dont mind claiming this or that belongs to this or that 'dispensation'.

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

When yxboom called your responses "asinine," I must agree wholeheartedly. You say,so far the entire defence consists of your posted linksThis statement is foolish. Every post I have responded to you with has contained Scripture with an explaination of each passage. I have never asked you before my previous post to refer to a link. I challenge you to provide one example from any of the many discussions to show otherwise. In fact, you are just the opposite. I challenge you to show me one time where you actually quote a passage, and give a complete and thorough explaination of that passage. Since you asked,OkT he first three?I assume you meant "OK, the first three?" Well, here you go...

Most Biblicists agree that man was created in a state of innocence. Adam and Eve did not know good from evil. The serpent told Eve, “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5).1 Therefore, because they were innocent, I believe it is right to call the first dispensation The Dispensation of Innocence.

The Dispensation of Innocence lasted until there was a significant change. That change happened when Adam and Eve sinned. This is shown in Genesis 3:6-8:

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden."

They now had a conscience. Because their conscience made them aware of their sin, we call this second method of dealing with man The Dispensation of Conscience. It appears that the conscience works in man in many different dispensations. I believe this dispensation continues in effect for those on the earth until the end of the millennium.

When God saw how evil man had become, He repented that He had made man and destroyed them in the flood according to Genesis 6:5-7:

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord repented2 that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I repent2 that I have made them.”

After the flood, God changed His method of dealing with man. He instituted capital punishment and gave man every living thing that moves for food in addition to the green plants (Gen 9:1-17). Most dispensational theologians refer to this as The Dispensation of Human Government. This method of dealing with man will last until Jesus Christ rules in the millennium. In the millennium, “He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron” (Rev 19:15).

--Jeremy

[Hitch]

Hitch,

When yxboom called your responses "asinine," I must agree wholeheartedly. You say,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so far the entire defence consists of your posted links
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is foolish. Every post I have responded to you with has contained Scripture with an explaination of each passage. I have never asked you before my previous post to refer to a link. I challenge you to provide one example from any of the many discussions to show otherwise. In fact, you are just the opposite. I challenge you to show me one time where you actually quote a passage, and give a complete and thorough explaination of that passage. Since you asked,
quote:


Did it ever occur to you that I was referencing the 'dispensations' now I'll type real slow so even you can get it.


NO DEFENCE OF THE DISPENSATIONS HAD BEEN POSTED. THIS THREAD WAS EMPTY.

So you wasted a whole whine, and you clowns call me asinine for requesting Scripture based answers. Yeah I noticed how you carefully left that part out Pastor.

Pardon me while I get something for my stomach.

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

Well, now you have a response to your question. Are you going to respond, or continue with your rantings? BTW, the challenge still stands...I challenge you to show me one time where you actually quote a passage, and give a complete and thorough explaination of that passage.--Jeremy

[Hitch]

The Dispensation of Innocence lasted until there was a significant change. That change happened when Adam and Eve sinned. This is shown in Genesis 3:6-8: Where in the NT, or in your case Paul's letters is this time noted and explained as a 'Dispensation' according to the definition found on page 5 of the SRB?

H

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

I find it amusing that you demand that I answer your questions in other threads, when you repeatedly refuse to answer my questions. For instance,I challenge you to show me one time where you actually quote a passage, and give a complete and thorough explaination of that passage.You have yet to attempt to do this. Next, instead of responding to the passages I have quoted, you say,Where in the NT, or in your case Paul's letters is this time noted and explained as a 'Dispensation' according to the definition found on page 5 of the SRB?You respond to a question with a question... BTW, what is "page 5 of the SRB?"

--Jeremy

[Hitch]

Please define and delineate from Srcipture the first five 'dispensations'. Show the agreed upon OT dividing points and two or more NT references to the specificly distinguished time in a way that relates to them ( the lack of exact names etc is granted) as dispensations as defined on page 5 of the SRB.


Page is a numbered leaf of paper as is found in a book

5 is one greater than four one less than six

SRB is Scofield Reference Bible

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

In my original post, I said,The Dispensation of Innocence lasted until there was a significant change. That change happened when Adam and Eve sinned. This is shown in Genesis 3:6-8:To which you respond,Where in the NT, or in your case Paul's letters is this time noted and explained as a 'Dispensation' according to the definition found on page 5 of the SRB?What makes you think that a dispensatin is only valid if it is described or spoken of in the NT? Then, after calling me a child, you say,Page is a numbered leaf of paper as is found in a book

5 is one greater than four one less than sixAnd you call me childish... HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Due to the parameters you have set, I am finished on this thread. Instead of responding to the earlier post which gives an overview of the first three dispensations, you demand that I give you a system of dispensations that somehow agree with Scofield. Guess what Hitch? I disgree with Scofield... I think Scofield is dead wrong. Scofield is an Acts 2 dispensationalist, and I disagree with his definition of what a dispensation is.

If I were to tell you what I think, you wouldn't respond anyway. If I didn't reference Scofield's definition of what a dispensation is, and say I disagree with it, you would go and cry again to the moderators that I am "getting off topic." If your topic is so narrow that I must use and repeat what Scofield has said, then I am finished here. If you truly are interested in what the Acts 9 Dispensationalist believes, feel free to ask. In order to continue this thread, you must show from Scripture why you diagree with my post of the first three dispensations.

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Acts9, I believe in Covenant Theology. The covenants of the Bible are clearly portrayed. I believe that God has worked in terms of these covenants, not with some unmentioned dispensations.


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I can't speak for you personally, but can speak for covenant theologians in general... Covenant theologians are dispensationalists too. They teach that from the time of creation to the fall is the dispenastion of law, and from the fall to the eternal state is the dispensation of grace.

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Joel,

I can't speak for you personally, but can speak for covenant theologians in general... Covenant theologians are dispensationalists too. They teach that from the time of creation to the fall is the dispenastion of law, and from the fall to the eternal state is the dispensation of grace.

--Jeremy


I think you are mistaken. Covenant theologians are not dispensationalists. God does not work with something never mentioned called a dispensation. He works with covenants. Before the fall, there was a covenant of works. Man was required to have perfect obedience. After the Fall, there is the covenant of grace, the promise of which was stated in Genesis 3:15--the promise of the Seed of the Woman. So, not dispensations, but covenants.

Joel

[Hitch]

02-22-2003 @ 03:29 AM
Act9_12Out:

Hitch,

In my original post, I said,To which you respond,What makes you think that a dispensatin is only valid if it is described or spoken of in the NT? Then, after calling me a child, you say,And you call me childish... HAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you have any apostolic support or not?

Due to the parameters you have set, I am finished on this thread. Instead of responding to the earlier post which gives an overview of the first three dispensations, you demand that I give you a system of dispensations that somehow agree with Scofield. Guess what Hitch? I disgree with Scofield... I think Scofield is dead wrong. Scofield is an Acts 2 dispensationalist, and I disagree with his definition of what a dispensation is. The parameters are clearly set forth in the header its amazing you missed that.

Since you 'disagree wirth Scofield' its interesting the the 'dispensations' you did list match his down to the names used.


If I were to tell you what I think, you wouldn't respond anyway. If I didn't reference Scofield's definition of what a dispensation is, and say I disagree with it, you would go and cry again to the moderators that I am "getting off topic." If your topic is so narrow that I must use and repeat what Scofield has said, then I am finished here. If you truly are interested in what the Acts 9 Dispensationalist believes, feel free to ask. In order to continue this thread, you must show from Scripture why you diagree with my post of the first three dispensations.

--Jeremy Actually you have responed exactly as expected. Down to refuesing to produce a single verse from the NT in support of the 'dispensations' and to the inclusion of demands. Obvioulsy 'dispensationalist' are more alike than different. Scofield also set out his 'dispensations' ( and at least the first three of yours as well) by simply saying thus and so distinguishes a dispensation, and of course he was never able to cite NT authority iether.


,What makes you think that a dispensatin is only valid if it is described or spoken of in the NT Well since there is no OT passage that states thus and so is a 'dispensation' that leaves only the NT. Your reliance os some profound 'change' is weak and unfounded as well. There were a great many profound changes that no one cites as a 'dispensation'. So its obvious that without OT or NT support the 'dispensatiuons' as defined by the SRB or anyother source are 100% arbitrary and imaginative.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

02-22-2003 @ 07:02 AM
Act9_12Out:

Joel,

I can't speak for you personally, but can speak for covenant theologians in general... Covenant theologians are dispensationalists too. They teach that from the time of creation to the fall is the dispenastion of law, and from the fall to the eternal state is the dispensation of grace.

--Jeremy Perhaps you would care to cite your source? As I have never even heard of this until today.

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

You saidPerhaps you would care to cite your source? As I have never even heard of this until today.Actually, I have a couple. The first is from a covenant theologian, Louis Berkhof.

*Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 1941) p. 293
"On the basis of all that has been said, it is preferable to follow the traditional lines by distinguishing just two dispensations or administrations, namely, that of the Old, and the New Testament, and to subdivide the former into several periods or stages in the revelation of the covenant of grace."

Charles Hodge, another covenant theologian, recognizes four dispensations.
*Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 1940) p. 373

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Not dispensations as meant by dispensationalists, though.


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

How would you know? Do you know what dispensationalists believe? Did you read the above references in their context? The above blanket statement attempts to belittle the entire discussion... Just as Covenant Theologians disagree as to the different covenants (number, type, etc...) Dispensationalists also disagree as to the dispensations, definition of dispensation, number of dispensations, and most importantly where the body started. Your statement neither proves nor disproves anything...

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

How would you know? Do you know what dispensationalists believe? Did you read the above references in their context? The above blanket statement attempts to belittle the entire discussion... Just as Covenant Theologians disagree as to the different covenants (number, type, etc...) Dispensationalists also disagree as to the dispensations, definition of dispensation, number of dispensations, and most importantly where the body started. Your statement neither proves nor disproves anything...

--Jeremy

Maybe not dispensations as defined by you as an X9er, but I know what is as defined by X2ers. I have read Berkhofs whole section there. I have also read Charles Hodges whole section there.


Joel

[Hitch]

02-27-2003 @ 04:23 PM
Act9_12Out:

Hitch,

You saidActually, I have a couple. The first is from a covenant theologian, Louis Berkhof.

*Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 1941) p. 293
"On the basis of all that has been said, it is preferable to follow the traditional lines by distinguishing just two dispensations or administrations, namely, that of the Old, and the New Testament, and to subdivide the former into several periods or stages in the revelation of the covenant of grace."

Charles Hodge, another covenant theologian, recognizes four dispensations.
*Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 1940) p. 373

--Jeremy I can't speak for you personally, but can speak for covenant theologians in general... Covenant theologians are dispensationalists too. They teach that from the time of creation to the fall is the dispenastion of law, and from the fall to the eternal state is the dispensation of grace.

--Jeremy


Where is your above quoted delinieation?

Hitch

[Hitch]

How would you know? Do you know what dispensationalists believe? Did you read the above references in their context? The above blanket statement attempts to belittle the entire discussion... Just as Covenant Theologians disagree as to the different covenants (number, type, etc...) Dispensationalists also disagree as to the dispensations, definition of dispensation, number of dispensations, and most importantly where the body started. Your statement neither proves nor disproves anything... Well joel now you know whay I was so specific.... the definition pertainent to this thread is found on page 5 of the SRB. It is by far the most wildely held and taught definition of 'dispensation' in the world. So Joel is quite right.


Which brings us back to page one;













Please define and delineate from Srcipture the first five 'dispensations'. Show the agreed upon OT dividing points and two or more NT references to the specificly distinguished time in a way that relates to them ( the lack of exact names etc is granted) as dispensations as defined on page 5 of the SRB.

Take care

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

You said,It is by far the most wildely held and taught definition of 'dispensation' in the world.Would you please cite your source for this statement? Again, since you have put on your blinders and made this topic so narrow, I'm unable to address your original topic since I disagree with the your premise.

--Jeremy

[Hitch]

Its in the header, its been in the header since this thread was opend and it been repeated several times....

Please define and delineate from Srcipture the first five 'dispensations'. Show the agreed upon OT dividing points and two or more NT references to the specificly distinguished time in a way that relates to them ( the lack of exact names etc is granted) as dispensations as defined on page 5 of the SRB.

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

You don't read very well do you? I asked,Would you please cite your source for this statement?The original statement made by you referring to Scofield's definition of what a dispensation is was,It is by far the most wildely held and taught definition of 'dispensation' in the world.Says who? Every dispensationalist I know rejects Scofield's definition of "dispensation." Since you have set the parameters, and demand that we limit ourselves to Scofield's definition, I am unable to respond to your question...

--Jeremy

[Hitch]

Says the 10 thousand living alumni of DTS and the majority of the more than 2 thousand churches pastored by DTS grads. Most of the faithful listeners of JV McGee and most who studied under the 'Systematic Theolgy' of Chafer from 1924 -50. And we havent even touched on Grace Theological nor the hundreds of 'Bible Schools' that adopted the SRB. In comparision,if memory serves Bob Hill lists two or three churches at his web site and I believe Themie is X9 as well but a different variant.

I set the parameter becasue the SRB is well known and has been published for nearly 100 years. Therefore ,by nature, making an objective standard. (I would guess that there are more SRB type DFs in Jerry Falwells church than comprise the entire body of your variety worldwide)

Your solution is simple, click the 'new thread' box and present your own definition(s) and dispensations.

take care

Hitch

[Xmansmommy]

Originally Posted by Hitch....
Your solution is simple, click the 'new thread' box and present your own definition(s) and dispensations.
Yes Jeremy, so Hitch can say things like....
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=25914#post25914
I'm sure Hitch is aware that most Acts 9 Dispensationalists don't agree with everything written in the Scofield Bible. And Scofield certainly isn't here to defend his belief on dispensations. Perhaps that's why this thread is limited!?!? Just as I read somewhere else on TW (and I forget now where) that all covenant theologians don't agree on every issue, neither do Mid Acts Dispensationalists. But then again we are all studying and learning and are at different levels of understanding. Thank God that we are told to study to show ourselves approved unto God, not man! :xmm:

[Lizard]

03-04-2003 @ 11:46 AM
Hitch:

Says the 10 thousand living alumni of DTS and the majority of the more than 2 thousand churches pastored by DTS grads. Most of the faithful listeners of JV McGee and most who studied under the 'Systematic Theolgy' of Chafer from 1924 -50. And we havent even touched on Grace Theological nor the hundreds of 'Bible Schools' that adopted the SRB. In comparision,if memory serves Bob Hill lists two or three churches at his web site and I believe Themie is X9 as well but a different variant.

I set the parameter becasue the SRB is well known and has been published for nearly 100 years. Therefore ,by nature, making an objective standard. (I would guess that there are more SRB type DFs in Jerry Falwells church than comprise the entire body of your variety worldwide)

Your solution is simple, click the 'new thread' box and present your own definition(s) and dispensations.

take care

Hitch

As the starter of this thread, you certainly have the right to set any parameter you want. However, based on my experience in the coaches quarters, (I specifically requested a SRB type DF to debate) you are going to be hard pressed to find a SRB type DF here at tweb who will defend their position.

I don't get it :huh:. SRB type DF is by far the most prevelent form of Dispensationalism, but for some reason, here at tweb, there are none, or at least none who are willing to come forward:nc: .

I wish you luck finding a SRB/DF, better luck than I have had. :argh:

[joelkaki]

I wish you luck finding a SRB/DF, better luck than I have had.

I think you mean providence. :smile:


Joel

[Hitch]

03-04-2003 @ 05:45 PM
Faramir:



As the starter of this thread, you certainly have the right to set any parameter you want. However, based on my experience in the coaches quarters, (I specifically requested a SRB type DF to debate) you are going to be hard pressed to find a SRB type DF here at tweb who will defend their position.

I don't get it :huh:. SRB type DF is by far the most prevelent form of Dispensationalism, but for some reason, here at tweb, there are none, or at least none who are willing to come forward:nc: .

I wish you luck finding a SRB/DF, better luck than I have had. :argh: I reckon this has two main parts Fam. One is the lack of the DFs main means of vicitory on forums. Which is frendly ownwership. The other is lack of willingness to defend the basic pillars of the system. I ve asked this same question all over the net and the cosnsitency of result is astounding. No DF wants any part of it. Of course in DF circles the quetion is taboo, one does not question the dispensations,,, the implications are too dangerous. This leads to the weakness revealed here. There is no ready defence a DF student can call up. So naturally they are not going to look for trouble on a forum that doesnt follow the 'rules'.

And this isnt anything new. Ignoring critics has been a mainstay of DF thinking sicne the days of Mauro and Allis. And this silence, which was what I expected, speaks loudly enough if a plausible defense existed it would have long ago been codified. I didnt want to continue until this basic question had been addressed.

And so all the distinctives of DF teaching will follow. There is nothing underneath but sand. It is completely hollow.

take care


Hitch

Xmom... that line you quoted,,, fyi an exclamation that I was first ,or nearly so, back when the forum reopended, but feel free to spin it any way you like.

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

Unfortunately, Dr. C.I. Scofield was an Acts 2 dispensationalist. He knows better now, I'm sure... The majority of pastors who attended DTS are also Acts 2. As to the SRB's definition of "dispensation," I think Scofield is wrong.The Scofield Reference Bible (New York; Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 5

A period of time during which man is tested in respect to some specific revelation of the will of God.It is unfortunate that Dr. Scofield began his definition as a period of time, for a dispensation is not a period of time. It is true that the word itself contains no thought of being a time of testing, but the words of Paul should bear some weight at this point, for he says,The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 4
4:2
Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.It should also be remembered that our Lord emphasized this same point in the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 12:42-48). The steward was not the owner of the household; he was a mere servant and the master would necessarily put him to some test to prove his trustworthiness. I prefer Charles Ryrie's definition of a dispensation.Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), p. 29

A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose.A dispensation is from God's viewpoint an economy; from man's, a responsibility; and in relation to progressive revelation, a stage in it. So Hitch, once you rightly recognize what a dispensation is, we can discuss the dispensations. If you are sincere about discussing the dispensations outside of the SRB, I'd be more than happy to devote the time...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Hitch]

A dispensation is from God's viewpoint an economy; from man's, a responsibility; and in relation to progressive revelation, a stage in it. So Hitch, once you rightly recognize what a dispensation is, we can discuss the dispensations. If you are sincere about discussing the dispensations outside of the SRB, I'd be more than happy to devote the time...

In Christ, --Jeremy



So why not open a thread?