Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
In charge of what? The universe? Sustaining life? Maintaining order among the hosts of heaven? Naming of the animals? Procreating?
You need to be more clear with your questions.
You have said that you don’t.
If you don’t, I don’t really see much point in continuing the conversation. There is no basis of agreeing on simple facts presented in the Bible.
I don’t really care if you’re concerned with falling into some kind of trap. The facts of the bible are what they are, and one’s theology would have to be really flaky for them to have it blown up by simple biblical facts.
(2) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ Rom 3:24-26 4:24,25. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, Jn 1:12,13 3:36 Mt 21:37 22:24 Jn 15:22,25 Heb 1:2 1Jn 5:10-12. The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile Acts 4:27. The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church: See "Apostasy" See Scofield Note: "2Tim 3:1" 2Tim 3:1-8 and the resultant apocalyptic judgments.
Everything.
***Perhaps I’m missing something by your use of the phrase “separate period of time”. Are you speaking of something like an era or age? Like the Middle Ages? Or the Victorian Era?***
Bingo. He really needs to define his terms.
From just the Bible then, How many "dispensations" are there?
Obvious Scofield was one twisted dude.
I don’t have a Scofield reference Bible either (nor would I ever buy one). The quote can be found by googling it. It’s on both pro and con dispensational sites.
I went back to another site and found that this is the part that was missing: “(Rom. 3. 24-26; 4. 24, 25).”
Which, by the way, don’t support Scofield’s supposition.
Again, the question is about the “Period of Grace.” Do you agree with that statement (i.e. “The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ”)?
Looks like you beat me to it. Thanks.
No, I probably wouldn’t agree with it at this point. Like I’ve said, I’m not a Schofield scholar. Without some discussion with him, my first take on it is that I don’t like the use of the word “testing.”
Curious, then why call yourselves dispensationalists? What more appropriate label might you apply to distinguish it from other Christian doctrinal systems?
(I realize Dan won’t respond, so anyone can take a crack at it.)
Yeah, Dan looks like he is in a bad mood. I don’t have any discussion with him in perhaps a year and his first post to me is nasty.
Yep, I’m pretty sure Dan thinks you both are pinheads.
(In the lovable sense that O’Reilly uses it.)
Yep, I’m pretty sure Dan thinks you both are pinheads.
Dan and I have had our disagreements over the years on the subject of dispensationalism. He generally prefers not to engage me directly, which is a shame because he is one of the few knowledgeable, articulate dispies on FR.
I read Dan’s columns regularly on Team Pyro. He’s one of those true anomalies, a Calvinistic (albeit Baptistic) dispensationalist. "Seven dispensations" and "five solas", or "Calvidispiebaptogelical" is the way he puts it.
If by "pinhead" you mean a confessional, Reformed Christian, then I plead guilty.
“No, I probably wouldn’t agree with it at this point.”
Good. Yet it’s a dispensationalist view.
As I’ve said, I’d have to discuss with him what he means by “testing.”
A presidential administration is an administering whether there’s any “testing” of the population or not.
“no longer LEGAL OBEDIENCE as the condition of salvation”
Scofield is clearly saying that before Christ, before the “period of grace,” people were saved if they were obedient to the law.
So did obedience to the law ever save anybody, or was it always by faith?
You ignore Schofield and other dispensationalists saying elsewhere that salvation has always been by faith.
The law, however, was imposed as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ.
And the truth is that anyone who DID observe the law in all points would be saved.
That actually happened.
Once.
“You ignore Schofield and other dispensationalists saying elsewhere that salvation has always been by faith.”
Sorry but “no longer legal obedience as THE condition of salvation” can only be taken one way.
I’m sure most dispensationalists would not agree with that statement. But it was the Scofield Bible that made dispensationalism popular.
Since dispensationalism began with Darby in the 1830s, that means that for 1800 years all of the Christians who were guided by the Holy Spirit were all so completely wrong.
Rom 5:13-14 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.Notice here that sin is not imputed to the people that lived from Adam to Moses. They were not held responsible for their sins, yet they still died. It is death that indicated that they died in sin, (Adam’s sin) because the wages of sin is death. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. (Rom 5:20)
Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.That actually happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.