PDA

View Full Version : Is This Still Dispensationalism?



Adelphos
10-28-2009, 08:29 PM
D.M. Lloyd-Jones makes this statement concerning Dispensationalism in his book, Christian Unity, which is the the fourth book in his series on Ephesisans...

"I emphasize this matter because there is a teaching known as Dispensationalism, which tells us that God sent the Lord Jesus Christ into the world to set up the Kingdom of God, but that when He found that the Jews rejected His Son and His teaching, and would not receive the Kingdom, He then decided upon the way of salvation through the Cross and the setting up of the Church. The Church, say the Dispensationalists, is an after-thought, a parenthesis; it was not a part of the original plan, and is but a temporary phase until the Kingdom will again be preached to the Jews and introduced." p 149

I am not interested in the accuracy of the doctrine, per se, but rather I would like to know if those who consider themselves Dispensationalists would agree that this is an accurate description of Dispensationalism in general.

In other words, if you consider yourself to be a Dispensationalist, is the above basically an accurate description of your theological position?

Soxfan23
10-28-2009, 11:44 PM
I'm NOT a dispensationalist, but the quote seems woefully inaccurate and nothing short of a straw-man argument. I know of no living dispensationalist who would agree with such a quote (e.g. Darrell Bock). It would be interesting to see what Hoehner says about the passage in his Ephesians commentary since he is (was) a dispensationalist (he passed away in the spring).

Most argument I hear about dispensationalism today describes dispensationalism of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Sure, those guys saw doom & gloom eschatology in every verse, sure they had a strange obsession with historical Israel, and sure they saw the forming of the modern nation-state as a fulfillment of prophecy. I know of no more living (respectable) scholar who would say this.....none.

Adelphos
10-28-2009, 11:58 PM
I'm NOT a dispensationalist, but the quote seems woefully inaccurate and nothing short of a straw-man argument. I know of no living dispensationalist who would agree with such a quote...

That's what I was thinking too. And that's why I asked the question, because I'm not sure anyone who claims to be Dispensationalist today would agree with that quote, and the basic definition still seems to be as hard as jelly to nail down.

jimofbentley
10-29-2009, 12:47 AM
I was raised in what would probably have been termed a "dispensationalist" church (I think our pastors called us: Independent, Fundamental, Bible-believing, Baptists), but this particular idea was never taught or suggested.

I have heard it from other quarters, but never linked with the idea of dispensationalism. This doesn't mean that it wasn't by some, it just never was in my experience or in the groups I have associated with.

bobvenem
10-29-2009, 09:09 AM
Any Dispensationalist who did espouse this view would have to deal with the conclusion that God adjusts His eternal plan on the fly. Personally, I have never heard a Dispensationalist refer to "the Church" (and, by implication, salvation through the Cross) as an afterthought. Some have worded their statements in such a way that multiple ways of salvation could be inferred, but that is refuted by most.

Joshua Luna
10-29-2009, 01:25 PM
"I emphasize this matter because there is a teaching known as Dispensationalism, which tells us that God sent the Lord Jesus Christ into the world to set up the Kingdom of God, but that when He found that the Jews rejected His Son and His teaching, and would not receive the Kingdom, He then decided upon the way of salvation through the Cross and the setting up of the Church. The Church, say the Dispensationalists, is an after-thought, a parenthesis; it was not a part of the original plan, and is but a temporary phase until the Kingdom will again be preached to the Jews and introduced." p 149

I am not a dispensationalist, but I have read a bit of literature from the various camps that lay claim to some form of dispensationalism. From a high level you won't find many (any?) dispensational teachers teaching many ways of salvation (although I have known non-academic dispensationalists who do believe there are two dispensations of salvation, one of works and one of grace, and are pretty firmly set that in the Old Testament people were saved by works--although I cannot find a single serious dispensational author who takes this position) so right there you can spot an issue with the summary. Calling the Church age a "parenthesis" is common, but not in the sense of an "after-thought." Most dispensational systems see the ages as overt aspects of a plan, where each age responds to the progression in revelation given to them. The Church age is a specific "intrusion of the Kingdom of God" that has a termination point on earth, i.e. a parenthesis. The last bit about an end to the Church age being phased out is quite commonly taught, specifically that at a pre-mil rapture the Church parenthesis terminates on earth and the age of the Law is brought into effect on earth which comes with it a refocus on the people of physical Israel.

There are so many varieties of dispensationalism it is hard to nail down ( is there 2, 4, or 7 eras for example?), but the above summary by the author interjects too much where there is no clear consensus from dispensationalists.

Adelphos
10-29-2009, 01:47 PM
There are so many varieties of dispensationalism it is hard to nail down ( is there 2, 4, or 7 eras for example?), but the above summary by the author interjects too much where there is no clear consensus from dispensationalists.

That's why I really asked the question. From everything I can gather, there is no real stable definition for Dispensationalist.

ISalzman
10-29-2009, 02:27 PM
That's why I really asked the question. From everything I can gather, there is no real stable definition for Dispensationalist.

I would heartily recommend Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism. And, for a volume on Progressive Dispensationalism, the book by Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising. I believe it's called 'Progressive Dispensationalism,' but I may be wrong about the title. No dispensationalist would teach two ways of salvation. That is nothing more than a denigrative smear and a straw man caricature. Dispensationalism essentially recognizes that there have been and are different administrations of God's program on earth. The Church didn't always exist. It was birthed on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. While some non-dispensationalists, doubtless, argue for the church's existence in the OT, Jesus himself said in Matthew 16, "Upon this rock, I will (i.e., future) build my church." At any rate, "In the Essentials, unity; in the non-Essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

Adelphos
10-29-2009, 02:59 PM
I would heartily recommend Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism. And, for a volume on Progressive Dispensationalism, the book by Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising. I believe it's called 'Progressive Dispensationalism,' but I may be wrong about the title. No dispensationalist would teach two ways of salvation. That is nothing more than a denigrative smear and a straw man caricature. Dispensationalism essentially recognizes that there have been and are different administrations of God's program on earth. The Church didn't always exist. It was birthed on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. While some, doubtless, argue for the church's existence in the OT, Jesus himself said in Matthew 16, "Upon this rock, I will (i.e., future) build my church." At any rate, "In the Essentials, unity; in the non-Essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

Without me having to read their books, do they hold the doctrine that the church age will end and Israel will revert to a covenant of works?

almather
10-29-2009, 03:35 PM
I would answer, yes, I think some do (or did) hold to this point, not only of the church being a parentheses but of Christ offering himself as king to Israel, but upon their refusal, the cross was the next option. It seems like as a child I can remember hearing this taught. Also, I have not read sensationalist theology or commentators, so I am not saying that I think it was taught at that level. This would have been local pastors or lay leaders from whom I might have heard this.

Al

ISalzman
10-29-2009, 04:20 PM
Without me having to read their books, do they hold the doctrine that the church age will end and Israel will revert to a covenant of works?

That the church age will end, yes. But on the matter of Israel's future, Dispensationalism holds that Israel will only experience salvation in the same way that any of the rest of us enter into it - through faith in the atoning blood sacrifice of the Messiah. Even the prophet Zechariah prophesied as much. Zech 12:10, "...They will look unto Me, whom thay have pierced, and they will mourn..." Several verses later, Zechariah asserts (13:1), "In that day, a fountain of cleansing from sin and impurity will be opened for them." Attendant with Israel's recognition of Jesus as the true and promised Messiah, the nation will be saved (cf. Romans 11:25ff).

Incidentally, people who believe that Israel was ever under a covenant of works for salvation misread the Pentateuch. The faith theme (Glaubens Thematik) is rife and plain throughout. Works and Law never saved; faith did (cf. Gen 15:6). And faith still does, of course! God's methods have never changed (cf. Lev. 17:11).

Adelphos
10-29-2009, 04:28 PM
Incidentally, people who believe that Israel was ever under a covenant of works for salvation misread the Pentateuch. The faith theme (Glaubens Thematic) is rife and plain throughout. Works and Law never saved; faith did (cf. Gen 15:6). And faith still does, of course! God's methods have never changed (cf. Lev. 17:11).

That's why I'm tring to pin down the defintion. I've heard that Dispensationalists deny this, even though the Scriptures are plain that from Genesis to Revelation salvation is always by faith.

In short, I don't think there really is an accurate definition that can be applied to a Dispensationalist, which is the main reason I started this thread, because Lloyd-Jones' statement just sounded a bit over the top to me.

In the long rung, you have to pin down each specific doctrine rather than just tag someone with the label.

Joshua Luna
10-29-2009, 04:36 PM
I would heartily recommend Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism. And, for a volume on Progressive Dispensationalism, the book by Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising. I believe it's called 'Progressive Dispensationalism,' but I may be wrong about the title.

Good recommendations to get an overview of some of the more developed dispensational theologies. Continuity and Discontinuity (http://www.amazon.com/Continuity-Discontinuity-Perspectives-Relationship-Testaments/dp/0891074686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256843732&sr=8-1) while not strictly dispensational another good read to see the interaction between this group and those who gravitate toward "covenant theology." Walton's, "The Covenent," while not strictly dispensational tends to agree strongly with Progressive Dispensationalism. I believe Walvoord has also written a bit related to the general topic.


No dispensationalist would teach two ways of salvation. That is nothing more than a denigrative smear and a straw man caricature.

Sadly, I have visited too many Churches who teach dispensationalism (notibly a handful or so Baptist ones in particular) that have taught exactly this. As I mentioned it is pretty difficult to find an academic who teaches this position, but it isn't uncommon to have a disconnect between the "ivory tower" theology and how it is interpreted and preached at a congregational level.


Dispensationalism essentially recognizes that there have been and are different administrations of God's program on earth. The Church didn't always exist. It was birthed on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. While some, doubtless, argue for the church's existence in the OT, Jesus himself said in Matthew 16, "Upon this rock, I will (i.e., future) build my church." At any rate, "In the Essentials, unity; in the non-Essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

Interestingly the exact timing of the Church age one of those items that dispensationalists themselves disagree about.

All this to say, maybe when addressing such a large group with various theological nuances, a response to a dispensationalist should be addressed to a specific author's position?

ISalzman
10-29-2009, 05:01 PM
Interestingly the exact timing of the Church age one of those items that dispensationalists themselves disagree about.

All this to say, maybe when addressing such a large group with various theological nuances, a response to a dispensationalist should be addressed to a specific author's position?

Woops, my mistake. I just noticed it in reading my own words quoted in your post. I wish I had seen this sooner because I would have edited my words. In fact, I will try to do that after I finish this post. When I said above that some, doubtless, hold to the existence of the church in the Old Testament, I wasn't referring to dispensationalists. I know of no dispensationalists that actually take that view. But I realize my words can very easily be understood as talking about dispensationalists. No. Please let me correct myself. The traditional (and only) dispensational position re the starting point of the church was that it happened at Pentecost in Acts 2.

ISalzman
10-29-2009, 05:12 PM
That's why I'm tring to pin down the defintion. I've heard that Dispensationalists deny this, even though the Scriptures are plain that from Genesis to Revelation salvation is always by faith.

In short, I don't think there really is an accurate definition that can be applied to a Dispensationalist, which is the main reason I started this thread, because Lloyd-Jones' statement just sounded a bit over the top to me.

In the long rung, you have to pin down each specific doctrine rather than just tag someone with the label.

The schools that I've attended in my life (undergraduate and graduate) would be considered good dispensational institutions and I can honestly say that I have never heard any dispensational prof or read any dispensational author that has ever argued for that. Again, I think that dispensationalism just gets a bad name and most descriptions/definitions of it by detractors have generally constructed straw man presentations of it. I'll never forget reading a comment in Arthur Pink one day who wrote about what he called "the poison of dispensationalism."

Adelphos
10-29-2009, 05:28 PM
I'll never forget reading a comment in Arthur Pink one day who wrote about what he called "the poison of dispensationalism."

I have Pink's complete works, and I just looked it up. He has quite a lot to say about dispensationalism. In fact, he devtotes an enitre book to it, entitled, "The Application Of The Scriptures, A Study Of Dispensationalism."

I think I'll give it a persual. It could be that the older proponents of the doctrine held different views than today because Pink and Lloyd-Jones seem to be characterizing a different fundamental than what is apparently held today.

In any case, I think my question has been answered, i.e., as I said before, you have to pin down the specific doctrine rather than just labeling somebody with the tag.

Adelphos
10-29-2009, 05:55 PM
Actually, it becomes very clear that Pink and Lloyd-Jones are referring to a completely different type of Dispensationalism than what is generally represented by that term today. Both Pink and Lloyd-Jones were generally very careful in their writings, and this is an example of the brand of Dispensationalism that Pink was taking issue with...

"But there is further reason, and a pressing one today, why we should write upon our present subject, and that is to expose the modern and pernicious error of Dispensationalism... These mutilators of the Word tell us that all of the Old Testament from Genesis 12 onwards belongs entirely to Israel after the flesh, and that none of its precepts (as such) are binding upon those who are members of the Church which is the Body of Christ, nor may any of the promises found therein be legitimately appropriated by them... Not satisfied with their determined efforts to deprive us of the Old Testament, these would-be super-expositors dogmatically assert that the four Gospels are Jewish, and that the Epistles of James and Peter, John and Jude are designed for a "godly Jewish remnant" in a future "tribulation period," that nothing but the Pauline Epistles contain "Church truth"..." A. W. Pink, A Study Of Dispensationalism

This is clearly different than what is commonly held as Dispensationalism today.

So the characterizations of Pink and Lloyd-Jones were based upon an entirely different fundamental, i.e., it's apples and oranges.

Context, context, context.

BigJayOneill
10-29-2009, 09:12 PM
Without me having to read their books, do they hold the doctrine that the church age will end and Israel will revert to a covenant of works?


I would suggest that Israel never operated within in a simple covenant of works. The economy of salvation has always been justification through faith. ;) One's good deeds (works) demonstrates/ reflects, or is the fruit of, his or her loving relationship with G-d.

ISalzman
10-29-2009, 09:38 PM
I would suggest that Israel never operated within in a simple covenant of works. The economy of salvation has always been justification through faith. ;) One's good deeds (works) demonstrates/ reflects, or is the fruit of, his or her loving relationship with G-d.

Well spoken, Big Jay (if I can call you that!). I preached a sermon on your Hebrew verse a few weeks ago. Great verse.

The good old Hartford Whalers. What a bittersweet situation. Loved them in Hartford. They've done even better in Raleigh-Durham. I wouldn't mind the good folks in Hartford getting another team though. It was a very difficult thing for them when Peter Karmanos moved the team. The fans in Hartford definitely deserved better.

Adelphos
10-29-2009, 09:53 PM
Well spoken, Big Jay (if I can call you that!). I preached a sermon on your Hebrew verse a few weeks ago. Great verse.

That's the verse Spurgeon was saved on...

http://lamblion.net/Quotations/Q_Testimonies/spurgeon_testimony.htm

And is the only way to be saved, from Adam to the last man.

ISalzman
10-29-2009, 10:10 PM
That's the verse Spurgeon was saved on...



Yeah, Warren Weirsbe noted that in his commentary on the verse.

Adelphos
10-29-2009, 10:12 PM
Will you rise like a lion in the morning sun...

I just gotta get me three of these fellas... :p...

http://www.lamblion.net/image_dump/three_lion_cubs.jpg

Mark Eddy
10-29-2009, 10:57 PM
No dispensationalist would teach two ways of salvation. That is nothing more than a denigrative smear and a straw man caricature.
I do not know if some pastors around here call themselves dispensationalists or not, but there are definitely some who teach that God has different ways of salvation for Jews and non-Jews. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, in which I am a pastor, has an active mission to Jews who do not yet believe in Jesus as their God and Messiah. We receive opposition from other denominations who consider this anti-Semitic. But if "there is no other name under heaven...by which we must be saved," than the name of Jesus, then how else will Jews be saved than by faith in Jesus? The issue in the Acts 15 Jerusalem council was whether non-Jews could be saved by Jesus (Peter, James, Barnabas, and the other Jews knew that they could be saved through such faith). But somehow a large body of Christians today seem to believe that it is a bad thing to convert Jews to faith in Jesus. So, either they believe in two different ways of salvation, one for Jews and one for "the church" (or whatever they want to call it). Or else, they are anti-Semites, willing to allow Jews (and Muslims?) to perish. Or maybe they are just illogical.

The Church didn't always exist. It was birthed on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. While some non-dispensationalists, doubtless, argue for the church's existence in the OT, Jesus himself said in Matthew 16, "Upon this rock, I will (i.e., future) build my church."
Speaking of illogical, here is one such statement. If I say, I will eat dinner, does that mean that I have never eater dinner before, or that I am not currently eating dinner when I make that statement? No. So simply using a future tense to say, "I shall build My church" does not mean that Jesus had not started building the church. The fact is that He had.
What is the church? What did St. Paul say in (1 Cor. 1:2 NAU)?:

"To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." He defines the church as "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus," which is further described as "all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." In Matt. 16 Peter had just confessed that Jesus is the Christ. He was not the first to call on the name of the Lord (That started way back in Gen. 4:26). In Rom. 10:13ff St. Paul equates the "calling on the name of the Lord" in the Old Testament with faith in Jesus as Lord in the NT. So the church has been around since Adam and Eve. The LXX used the word evkklhsi,a to translate the Hebrew lh'q' to refer to God's assembly of believers (e.g. Deut. 9:10). So any way you look at it, the church has been around long before the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus. The specificity of the faith has become greater, but the essence of the saving faith has not changed. There always has been only "one name...by which we must be saved," the Messiah, Yahweh Zedkenu, Immanuel, Jesus.

At any rate, "In the Essentials, unity; in the non-Essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
And what are "essentials"? Jesus commands us "teaching them to observe all things, whatever I have commanded you." It seems that BibleWorks can help us to learn all those essential things. If it isn't in the Bible, it isn't essential. If it is in the Bible, then we need to get it right.
Mark Eddy

BigJayOneill
10-29-2009, 11:07 PM
Well spoken, Big Jay (if I can call you that!). I preached a sermon on your Hebrew verse a few weeks ago. Great verse.

The good old Hartford Whalers. What a bittersweet situation. Loved them in Hartford. They've done even better in Raleigh-Durham. I wouldn't mind the good folks in Hartford getting another team though. It was a very difficult thing for them when Peter Karmanos moved the team. The fans in Hartford definitely deserved better.

I hope your message was well received and a great blessing!

There is still a lot of love for the Whale in CT and around the NHL. Your comments are appreciated :)! Old childhood loyalties die hard!

BigJayOneill
10-29-2009, 11:10 PM
I just gotta get me three of these fellas... :p...

http://www.lamblion.net/image_dump/three_lion_cubs.jpg


NICE! :D

Is that Salzman, Adelphos and BigJayOneill?

ISalzman
10-29-2009, 11:29 PM
NICE! :D

Is that Salzman, Adelphos and BigJayOneill?

Only at dinner time, I suspect! :)

Adelphos
10-29-2009, 11:31 PM
I don't know their names, but you better be nice to them, because they could grow up to be like this guy...

http://lamblion.net/image_dump/white_lion.jpg


And he just don't look too sociable... :cool:

Here's a new ad slogan for BibleWorks... "The Lion Of Biblical Software!" :cool:

ISalzman
10-29-2009, 11:39 PM
I hope your message was well received and a great blessing!

It was certainly a great blessing for me. And gauging the response, I believe the message was well received.


There is still a lot of love for the Whale in CT and around the NHL. Your comments are appreciated :)! Old childhood loyalties die hard!

I'm sure. I was not from Hartford, but I was a great supporter and rooter of theirs. They had some great young players (Ron Francis, Kevin Dineen, Sylvain Turgeon, Mike Liut, Ulf Samuelsson, Paul Lawless, etc.). They were fun to watch because of their speed and all of their offensive flair and ability. I remember the year they took Montreal to a seventh game in a playoff series, which was only decided in overtime. What a heartbreaker. Hartford was the much more fun team to watch. Oh well, perhaps Hartford will be revisited with an expansion team at some point in the future.

BigJayOneill
10-30-2009, 06:11 PM
I don't know their names, but you better be nice to them, because they could grow up to be like this guy...

http://lamblion.net/image_dump/white_lion.jpg


And he just don't look too sociable... :cool:

Here's a new ad slogan for BibleWorks... "The Lion Of Biblical Software!" :cool:

Ari, Ari! Ari!

:)

BigJayOneill
10-30-2009, 06:19 PM
It was certainly a great blessing for me. And gauging the response, I believe the message was well received.


I'm sure. I was not from Hartford, but I was a great supporter and rooter of theirs. They had some great young players (Ron Francis, Kevin Dineen, Sylvain Turgeon, Mike Liut, Ulf Samuelsson, Paul Lawless, etc.). They were fun to watch because of their speed and all of their offensive flair and ability. I remember the year they took Montreal to a seventh game in a playoff series, which was only decided in overtime. What a heartbreaker. Hartford was the much more fun team to watch. Oh well, perhaps Hartford will be revisited with an expansion team at some point in the future.

Ah man, 1986 Playoffs! Claude Lemieux!

Yes, I loved the Whalers! You mention some great names! We follow the Lightning here in Tampa, but it is not the same! (And the Bolts won the Cup in 2004!)

Being from Jersey, you must remember Pat Verbeek!

bobvenem
10-30-2009, 08:02 PM
In the long rung, you have to pin down each specific doctrine rather than just tag someone with the label.

Scott, this nails the entire issue. Dispensationalism, properly understood, is a theological system which affects all of the doctrines of Scripture. As with any theological system its proponents seek both consistency and coherence in their teachings.

Unfortunately, as with any system, that consistency and coherence is affected by the diligence and faithfulness of the men doing the studying.

Adelphos
10-30-2009, 08:17 PM
Scott, this nails the entire issue.

Yeah, except for one single exception...

Anyone who doesn't like lions is a rank, no-good, low-down, dirty, stinkin' heretic, no matter how sound they may be on other doctrines! :)

bobvenem
10-30-2009, 08:19 PM
Well, then, I'd better get in lion.

Adelphos
10-30-2009, 08:32 PM
Well, then, I'd better get in lion.

LOL. I remember one time I was trying to help a trainer get an eight month old male lion into line so he could get in the trailer. I was down on my haunches in front of the lion and I put my hand on his shoulder and nudged him to get him in line.

I happened to have my other arm down solidly on the ground for support, which means not even a three hundred pound linebacker could have pushed me over because of the leverage advantage I had.

The eight month old male thought I was playing (because eight month old lions ALWAYS think you're playing), and he put one paw on my shoulder and effortlessly flattened me. Then he yawned and gave me that expectant look, like what game were we going to play next. :p

I can't wait to watch them eat straw like the ox. Isaiah 11:7

ISalzman
10-30-2009, 09:34 PM
Ah man, 1986 Playoffs! Claude Lemieux!

Yes, I loved the Whalers! You mention some great names! We follow the Lightning here in Tampa, but it is not the same! (And the Bolts won the Cup in 2004!)

Being from Jersey, you must remember Pat Verbeek!

I like the Bolts. I followed their cup run in 2004. Vincent Lecavalier is a great player. St Louis in no slouch either. And they've got that kid now (Steven Stamkos) who is coming into his own. I'm just sorry that they lost guys like Brad Richards, Vinny Prospal, and Dan Boyle.

And, yes, I remember Patty Verbeek. He played for the Whalers too, didn't he? I believe he hit 40 goals in a season on at least one occasion. By the way, my favorite team is the Pittsburgh Penguins.

ISalzman
10-30-2009, 09:40 PM
So the church has been around since Adam and Eve.


Ah yes, good old 'First Baptist of Eden,' no doubt! They had a terrible time deciding on a worship format though. Adam liked traditional, but Eve preferred a contemporary service (you know women!). At least Adam didn't have to put up with a cantankerous Deacon Board. Hey, Adam and Eve were all she wrote! They were the church!

Adelphos
10-31-2009, 12:09 AM
Ah yes, good old 'First Baptist of Eden,' no doubt! They had a terrible time deciding on a worship format though. Adam liked traditional, but Eve preferred a contemporary service (you know women!). At least Adam didn't have to put up with a cantankerous Deacon Board. Hey, Adam and Eve were all she wrote! They were the church!

Adam and Eve were redeemed by the same blood that Peter and Paul were redeemed by, and that's the main thing.

BigJayOneill
10-31-2009, 01:53 AM
Ah yes, good old 'First Baptist of Eden,' no doubt! They had a terrible time deciding on a worship format though. Adam liked traditional, but Eve preferred a contemporary service (you know women!). At least Adam didn't have to put up with a cantankerous Deacon Board. Hey, Adam and Eve were all she wrote! They were the church!

Oh yeah?

It looks to me like the Synagogue has been around since Day One (OK, Day Three!):

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός συναχθήτω τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν (Gen1:9 BGT) :p


Nevertheless, some within the early "Church" gathered within the synagogue. See James 2:2 ;).

ἐὰν γὰρ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν... / For if someone comes into your assembly...


"Adam and Eve were redeemed by the same blood that Peter and Paul were redeemed by, and that's the main thing."


I hear you and mostly agree. However, I am not comfortable with the concept, proposed by some, that Adam and Eve (as well as other OT characters) believed/ placed their trust in Jesus (or a suffering Messiah as atonement for sin). I could be wrong, but, if history matters, it most likely that theological concepts progressed/were revealed/ became evident over time. I think that "OT believers", like us, placed their faith in the G-d that had acted within their particular point of human history. (The Exodus: the Gospel of Moses!)

Obviously, I reject the Law/ Works vs. Grace views of salvation history. (Sorry M.L.) The eternal Torah, which Jesus upheld, demonstrated (as well as personified) and applied within his teaching, is clearly a precious gift/ revelation of the Divine's grace! It's all grace!

BigJayOneill
10-31-2009, 02:05 AM
I like the Bolts. I followed their cup run in 2004. Vincent Lecavalier is a great player. St Louis in no slouch either. And they've got that kid now (Steven Stamkos) who is coming into his own. I'm just sorry that they lost guys like Brad Richards, Vinny Prospal, and Dan Boyle.

And, yes, I remember Patty Verbeek. He played for the Whalers too, didn't he? I believe he hit 40 goals in a season on at least one occasion. By the way, my favorite team is the Pittsburgh Penguins.

I think Patty V was a 40 goal, 200 PIM a season guy a couple of times.

BTW- How did the Ron Francis trade work out for your Pens back in 91? :cool:
Malkin, Sid , Staal, Fleury, good young D: looking good for years!

Stamkos has played very well, Vinny hasn't been a consistent impact player for at least 2 years. St. Louis, at 35, is still Tampa's hardest working player. Boyle was a huge loss. However, Hedman looks pretty good. Smith, our #1 goalie, lets in a bad goal everygame; I am not sold on him being a true #1. The Bolts might sneak into the 8th spot... to get killed by the Pens or Washington!

BigJayOneill
10-31-2009, 02:08 AM
LOL. I remember one time I was trying to help a trainer get an eight month old male lion into line so he could get in the trailer. I was down on my haunches in front of the lion and I put my hand on his shoulder and nudged him to get him in line.

I happened to have my other arm down solidly on the ground for support, which means not even a three hundred pound linebacker could have pushed me over because of the leverage advantage I had.

The eight month old male thought I was playing (because eight month old lions ALWAYS think you're playing), and he put one paw on my shoulder and effortlessly flattened me. Then he yawned and gave me that expectant look, like what game were we going to play next. :p

I can't wait to watch them eat straw like the ox. Isaiah 11:7

Great story! I agree, Isaiah 11:7 will be VERY cool!

Adelphos
10-31-2009, 11:35 AM
I hear you and mostly agree. However, I am not comfortable with the concept, proposed by some, that Adam and Eve (as well as other OT characters) believed/ placed their trust in Jesus (or a suffering Messiah as atonement for sin).

As usual, Scripture is always helpful in understanding these things. :p ...

"Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHICH WAS IN THEM did signify, WHEN IT TESTIFIED BEFOREHAND THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST, AND THE GLORY THAT SHOULD FOLLOW. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." 1 Peter 1:9-12

Adam and Eve clearly understood the significance of the Proto-Evangel, even though they clearly had no clue as to how it would be accomplished.

The manner in which redemption would be accomplished was hidden from all, including the devil and his angels. 1 Corinthians 2:8

Satan thought he had outmaneuvered Christ in Eden, but four thousand years later he suddenly found himself checkmated at Calvary.

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/blood_iv_theology.htm

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33

ISalzman
10-31-2009, 05:05 PM
Adam and Eve were redeemed by the same blood that Peter and Paul were redeemed by, and that's the main thing.

Presuming they were saved, yes.

ISalzman
10-31-2009, 05:22 PM
I think Patty V was a 40 goal, 200 PIM a season guy a couple of times.

BTW- How did the Ron Francis trade work out for your Pens back in 91? :cool:


Ron Francis was a great trade for the Pens. Can you imagine a team with four forwards the quality of Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Ron Francis, and Kevin Stevens? The Pens also ended up getting Ulf Samuelsson too. Paul Coffey, Rick Tocchet, and Bryan Trottier later. I guess it's not surprising they won two cups in those years.:)




Malkin, Sid , Staal, Fleury, good young D: looking good for years!

Yes, thanks. They are fortunate to have that young core. I just wish they could add some more potent, scoring wingers. I do like Tyler Kennedy though and think that he could blossom into a regular 20-25 goal scorer.




Stamkos has played very well, Vinny hasn't been a consistent impact player for at least 2 years. St. Louis, at 35, is still Tampa's hardest working player. Boyle was a huge loss. However, Hedman looks pretty good. Smith, our #1 goalie, lets in a bad goal everygame; I am not sold on him being a true #1. The Bolts might sneak into the 8th spot... to get killed by the Pens or Washington!


Somehow I think Vinny still has more in the tank to give. Do you think he can rise to become an impact player again? I think he's just got so much talent. Maybe his passion has waned. I don't know. But he is so super skilled. An all-world talent when he is on his game. But I have to agree with you; he does seem to have had, what for him, are sub-par, recent seasons.

I think Hedman is going to be a good one. And for a long time too! Smith seemed to show a lot of promise when he first came up. A lot of people raved about him. I guess he hasn't lived up to expectations, huh? He's still young though. Who's his backup?

Ex-Pen Ryan Malone seems to be having a breakout year.

Adelphos
10-31-2009, 07:01 PM
Presuming they were saved, yes.

"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." Genesis 3:21

There is a popular televangelist/prosperity teacher who claims to have been taken to heaven, whether through temporary death or just in a vision I don't remember, but I heard him with my own ears describe his experience there, such as having conversations with God, Abraham, and so on.

I don't remember if he mentioned Adam and Eve or not, but it would be interesting to know if he saw them there.

Of course, the fact that half of what he said diametrically contradicted Scripture shouldn't bother anyone...

After all, he's on television.

ISalzman
10-31-2009, 07:26 PM
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." Genesis 3:21

There is a popular televangelist/prosperity teacher who claims to have been taken to heaven, whether through temporary death or just in a vision I don't remember, but I heard him with my own ears describe his experience there, such as having conversations with God, Abraham, and so on.

I don't remember if he mentioned Adam and Eve or not, but it would be interesting to know if he saw them there.

Of course, the fact that half of what he said diametrically contradicted Scripture shouldn't bother anyone...

After all, he's on television.

Yeah, right, we should all get our theology from television, huh? If it's on television, it's gotta be true/truth. ;) Oh, where's Swaggart these days? Oh, I'm terrible, aren't I?

BigJayOneill
11-01-2009, 09:43 PM
Ron Francis was a great trade for the Pens. Can you imagine a team with four forwards the quality of Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Ron Francis, and Kevin Stevens? The Pens also ended up getting Ulf Samuelsson too. Paul Coffey, Rick Tocchet, and Bryan Trottier later. I guess it's not surprising they won two cups in those years.:)





Yes, thanks. They are fortunate to have that young core. I just wish they could add some more potent, scoring wingers. I do like Tyler Kennedy though and think that he could blossom into a regular 20-25 goal scorer.



Somehow I think Vinny still has more in the tank to give. Do you think he can rise to become an impact player again? I think he's just got so much talent. Maybe his passion has waned. I don't know. But he is so super skilled. An all-world talent when he is on his game. But I have to agree with you; he does seem to have had, what for him, are sub-par, recent seasons.

I think Hedman is going to be a good one. And for a long time too! Smith seemed to show a lot of promise when he first came up. A lot of people raved about him. I guess he hasn't lived up to expectations, huh? He's still young though. Who's his backup?

Ex-Pen Ryan Malone seems to be having a breakout year.

Coach Tocchet just moved Vinnie down to the 3rd line! :D

Those Pens were awesome! BTW- Everything on TV, including pro wrestling, is true and trustworthy!

BigJayOneill
11-03-2009, 10:25 PM
As usual, Scripture is always helpful in understanding these things. :p ...

"Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHICH WAS IN THEM did signify, WHEN IT TESTIFIED BEFOREHAND THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST, AND THE GLORY THAT SHOULD FOLLOW. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." 1 Peter 1:9-12

Adam and Eve clearly understood the significance of the Proto-Evangel, even though they clearly had no clue as to how it would be accomplished.

The manner in which redemption would be accomplished was hidden from all, including the devil and his angels. 1 Corinthians 2:8

Satan thought he had outmaneuvered Christ in Eden, but four thousand years later he suddenly found himself checkmated at Calvary.

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/blood_iv_theology.htm

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33

Thanks for the insight.