How Many Dispensations Are There In The New Testament Period?

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

Jesus Christ is not the result of a contingent plan.

I never claimed that He was.

you continued

God knew all along that man would sin, so He, in His eternal grace, chose to become a man.

That is completely unfounded and makes God the architect of an exceedingly sinful world. God is implacably opposed to sin. He does not want or desire for men to sin ever. Scriptuire tells us that God’s eternal purpose is the Body of Christ, and the Body of Christ does not require sin in order to function as God wants it to.

you claimed

God cannot, as God, limit himself. It is as impossible as making black equal to white.

Then you must hold to the Neo-Platonism of the Greeks and deny that Jesus Christ is God, since God definitely limited Himself (“humbled Himself” Phil 2:8) when He became man.

you claimed

You seem to think that freedom is equal to ignorance; that we need to not know the future, to be afraid and risk things in order to be free.

If God knows for certain that you will eat a cheese omelet for breakfast tomorrow morning, then you are not free to eat anything other than that cheese omelette that God knows you will be eating. However, if God knows the future as partly unsettled and open, then He knows that you can choose from a variety of options for breakfast. Perhaps you will eat a cheese omelette, or steak and eggs, or some Blueberry Morning or another cereal available in your house. This way God is free to interact and influence what people choose to do according to His purposes (like sending an angel to make sure a baby is named John or Jesus, for example).

you claim

That is not true freedom. For there many things that I would have done differently if I knew the future. This means that my past actions did not completely align with my will. Thus, I was a slave to ignorance.

THe major difference is that God knows the entire past, present and future as it actually is at any moment. You do not know the past, present or future as they truly exist. You know a few things concerning each, but nowhere near all of it.

you go on

God, knowing all things, chose in a perfect manner. Perfect freedom and perfect knowledge are one; if God did not have perfect knowledge, then he could not be free.

If God knew that at a specific moment He would create the universe, he would have to do so, or otherwise that would mean His knowledge of the future would be in error and that would leave God no choice but to create that specific universe at that moment. Its falacious to claim that God can choose anything if the future exists as completely settled realities. God’s knowledge of the future is complete, and that knowledge consists of partly settled and partly unsettled realities according to Scripture.

you asked

So, why do the Scriptures show God regretting and repenting?

Because He actually does repent in response to men’s actions. Its one of God’s attributes - God is gracious and merciful and as a result is willing to repent from doing harm (Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:13).

you explained unconvincingly

Because they were written from the viewpoint of men, not God.

So, the Scripture do not tess us the truth about God, only what appears to be the truth from our perspective? What evidence do you have to show that this is the case? Did God tell you through some special revelation? Is this philosophical belief you hold really worth the cost of throwing out of the Bible the many passages that show God repenting and regretting and experiencing emotions?

you go on

Of course someone writing from the earth would say that the Sun moves, even though it is the earth that moves. To make God more comprehensible to us, He chose to reveal Himself through those words. Yet, they are not to be taken literally.

How do you come to that conclusion? So, what is really happening when it says that God repented if He is not repenting of what He said He would do earlier? If you can’t tell me what God is really doing and what is really occuring, then you have no basis to claim that “to make God more comprehensible to us, He chose to reveal Himself through those words”. Words which do NOT tell us what God is really like according to you.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

For a good summary of the traditional nature of God, there is this thread on CAF, as well as this page.

Read some of it and am not too impressed by the arguments.

you go on

The latter page is especially helpful since it shows logically that God is necessarily eternal, perfect, timeless, immutable, etc. Certainly you could deny several of the premises, but how many could you deny before denying God?

Well, the idea that God is “eternal” is contradicted on every page by Scripture since He is revealed as interacting in give-and-take relationships with His creation. Also, the idea of eternalness has nothing to do with immutability of being unable to change as the site claims. Not changing is referred to as immutability. God is immutable in His character and that’s as far as immutability goes. I affirm that God is everlasting, as the Scripture portrays him, not as eternally timeless.

you claimed

It’s also extremely silly to say that God’s knowledge of the future limits Him in some way.

No its not.

you asked

Didn’t he create all things, including time?

God created all things, but “time” is not a thing. When you refer to time as a thing you are reifying time.

you asked

Then why would he be limited by it? Or do you believe that time is a part of God’s nature?

Time is not an entity and, therefore, is unable to “limit” anyone or anything. To exist and to have your existence endure (a description of “time”) is not a limitation. To not exist, and be truly timeless since there was never a moment that you were, would be worse than limiting.

you asked

If I know something, am I limited by it, or liberated?

If you know for certain that in 4 hours you are going to be shot and killed, then you are definitely limited in your options. Since it is certain then you must be shot and killed at that exact moment. Now, if the future you know exists in part as possibilities, then you can be able to choose to act in such a way as to not be shot to death through escape or bargaining or some other possibilities being exercised to your benefit.

you claimed

Knowledge is liberating, and God knows all because He knows Himself.

Having options is liberating. Knowing for certain that you must bring about the murder of millions of Jews and over 50 million American babies is imprisonment and powerlessness and a true nightmare.

you said

I’ve looked for texts by Calcidius, the so-called open theist of the 4th century. The only one I’ve found so far was a Latin translation of Plato’s Timaeus, of all things!

Yes, thats where his comments are found and why he is referred to as holding to presentism, which is the affirmation that God exists in the present with us. Not in the past or the future afar off and unavailable. Open Theism can be called a form of presentism and a form of free-will theism. Of course, just saying that we possess a will implies that it is something that we can exercise, and is in some sense free. So I like to say that we have a will and that we exercise it.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I say 3, Acts 9, Acts 15, Acts28.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian asked

Can God be said to become better or worse?

No.

If God can limit Himself, then can He also commit suicide?

The Son died on the cross willingly. So, it appears that God has come close to suicide through that act, but he did not commit suicide since those who crucified him did so willingly and not to help Christ to end His life. I will agree with what Markus Barth said - A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die. So, it appears that your God may retire or die since He has fixed every detail beforehand according to your view, right?

If God is within time, does that make time uncreated? Is God limited by time?

Time is not a creation. God has always existed and there never was a moment when God was not, so “time” cannot be a limit.

Is Jesus Christ fully God and fully Man, without any confounding of the natures?

Most probably, yes. Christ did set aside some divine attributes that were contingent upon having a world to relate to. Of course, these are not God’s core attributes.

The core attributes of God according to those who hold to the Settled View are

• Omniscience
• Omnipresence
• Omnipotence
• Impassibility
• Immutability

For those like myself who hold to the Open View, the core attributes of God are

• Living
• Personal
• Relational
• Good
• Loving

My pal Bob Enyart does an excellent job of critiquing both sets of core attributes in this debate he participated in recently titled Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future?

you asked

Is mankind saved by works in some eras, and by grace in other eras?

Sort of. Grace is always involved. Specific works have been required. Like building an ark. Circumcising your son on the 8th day. Keeping the Sabbath. During the present administration we are saved by grace through faith.

What is predestination?

Predestination is anything that someone predetermines to occur beforehand and then brings that about. This can include specific things and general things. For example, God predestined that Paul would serve Him in some way one day (Gal 1:15-16). Another example is the Body of Christ, which is a group. God predestined that those who are in the Body of Christ, those who are “in Him…should be holy and without blame before Him” (Eph 1:4). This is to be true for this group, not for specificly chosen individuals. Simliar to this is God’s choosing or corporate election and predestination of Israel (Rom 9-11).

you asked

How can Christ’s death apply to people in the present and in the past if God is not eternal?

Those who died prior to Christ’s work on the cross had to wait for the work of redemption to be done before “paradise” could be opened. They waited in a place called “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22). Christ went and preached to them when He descended into Hell (Eph 4:9-10; 1 Pet 3:19).

you claimed

Finally, there’s an interesting discussion on open theism here

I checked it out and found that its not interesting. If I get involved and comment it can become interesting. The dude who posted his comments there does not understand the open view well at all as evidenced by his giving Is 46:10 and Mal 3:6 as proof texts for the settled view, which they most certainly are not. God does not change in a bad way, He will not go back on His promise that He made is what Mal 3:6 is saying. And the word translated “change” means a bad kind of change as in “double-mindedness” as it is translated in other passages. Is 46:10 shows that God decalres when the beginning is and when the ending is. Says nothing of His knowledge of the future or what sort of future God knows. Also, the claim that openness comes from process philosophy is inaccurate. Sanders and the others had heard of it but never got into it prior to formulating the open view.

you said

and St. Thomas’ classic defense of God’s knowledge of future contingents here.

This explanation is faulty because Aquinas holds to eternality believing that God experiences all of history simultaneously. Take this assumption out of the thought process and insert the Scriptural portrait of the everlasting God and it changes things. One of the best articles you can read on this subject is Nicholas Wolterstorff’s excellent article God Everlasting.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

## I’m changing my vote - to two dispensations, not one. I forgot the OT ##

The Old Testament did not occur in the New Testament Period. That is the period that this question is limited to.

 

[spauline]

I’d like to butt in. I am Catholic and will therefore accept St. Augustine’s Old Dispensation/New Dispensation outline as valid on one level.

However, I would go on to suggest another way, under polyvalence, to look at the issue of dispensations, and that is as follows:

I think there’s a simple pattern that moves across OT history and also possibly NT history that consists of an Alternating Resistance / Redemption Sequence, which can be explained as follows: each segment, or “dispensation,” of the sequence simply involves what is suggested above: first, a major sinful Resistance to God or His Plan, followed by, secondly, a major Redemption of the Resistance. For example, if we look at the OT history, I think the Catholic and Protestant would agree that, from the Fall to the First Coming of Christ, we have basically five epochs, or dispensations, when considering this modeling of the situation, as follows (note, red involves the sinful Resistance part of the epoch, and green involves the** Redemption** of it):

I. The Fall and Pre-Flood Corruption** / The Flood and Covenant with Noah**
II. The Tower of Babel** / The Confounding of Languages and Calling of Abraham**
III. The Egyptian Enslavement of the Jews / The Exodus and Initial Jewish Kingdom
IV. The Intermediate Jewish Falling Away / The Babylonian Exile and Restoration of Old Covenant
V. The OT Antichrist, Antiochus** / **The First Coming of Christ

As far as the NT era goes, I suppose that that the Church could accept that we have traversed, so far, 1 and ½ of these dispensations, as follows:

**VI. Pagan Rome & Barbarians Persecute / Catholic Christendom of Middle Ages

VII. Loss of Catholic Christendom (Gradually-Developed Minor Apostasy) / ?

---

******However, note the question mark at the end of epoch VII. That is, it seems that Catholicism is debating how the rest of Church history will complete itself. Of course, the choices are between a strict ***amillennial ***outlook, and an outlook that can accept, in addition to amill, a ***postmillennial ***scenario as well. That is, the question concerns what will become of the current predicament, i.e., is this current minor apostasy that controls most of the European Civs or their derivatives the beginning of the Great Apostasy of Antichrist, or will it be healed and lead to a secondary conversion of the world?

Continued…

 

[spauline]

…continued

In other words, if we will be pessimistically exclusively amill, then epoch VII above is the last, and the history ends as follows:

VI. Pagan Rome & Barbarians Persecute / Catholic Christendom of Middle Ages
VII. Loss of Catholic Christendom (Great Apostasy & NT Antichrist) / Second Coming and New Creation
**
******On the other hand, if we embrace the postmill scenario, the history completes as follows:

VI. Pagan Rome & Barbarians Persecute** / Catholic Christendom of Middle Ages**
VII. Loss of Catholic Christendom (Minor Apostasy) / Restoration of Catholic Christendom, Age of Peace
VIII. Great Apostasy & NT Antichrist / Second Coming and New Creation

In other words, if we take the strictly amillennial outlook, the New Testament era will be two “resistance/redemption” dispensations, whereas with postmill, there are three. I take the postmill view for many reasons. For one, the Days of Creation are extended from seven to eight in doctrinal development, just as the Beasts heads are extended from seven to eight in the Apocalypse (Rev. 17:9-11). Also, the Days of Creation appropriately model the alternating sequence of sin/redemption, that is, darkness “evening came”] followed by **light **“morning followed”]. For more explanation, you can read this:

Historicism and the Seven Days / Heads

Or my general blog for a fuller discussion:

Why I am Postmill

This eschatology, then, is somewhere between the very general Catholic OLD/NEW outlook, and the too-technical fundamentalist dispensationalism.

GB,

Scott

 

[The_Augustinian]

Since this thread has seemed to have in great part lost its original path and gone this way and that, I am going to stop posting to it. In this, my last post, I would like to make several concluding points.

Mid-Acts dispensationalist seems to try to solve the supposed discrepancy between St. Paul and St. James. Recognizing the passages supporting salvation through good works, but wanting to preserve their unique antinomian theology, they get to work. Other Protestants would explain the discrepancy away through some other means, but these people try to cut the Gordian knot altogether by implying that these two theologians were opererating within totally separate sorteriological systems. The plain meaning of scripture, church history, and common sense all go against it. The notion that Jesus Christ revealed a new covenant to St. Paul is nowhere indicated in the scriptures. Even the Judaizers, which are cited by such dispensationalists as being examples of the so-called “Circumcision Believers” are in the context of the scriptural narrative really a heretical influx of Pharasaical converts and therefore do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the apostles. Also, other than the purely disciplinary proscriptions of the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles do not instruct believers to follow the Law of Moses.

It cannot be denied that there was a radical shift in the Church after St. Paul’s journeys. Gentiles in the Church now vastly outnumbered the Jews. However, never was there any fundamental change in the Church after Jesus Christ instituted His covenant on earth.

Of course, it is possible that legalistic intrusions could have crept into the Church, according to mid-Acts believers. However, there is no record of such corruption, especially in a Church where heresy is seen as a great sin. Only the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses would believe that the Church would be so easily corrupted right after St. John breathed his last. Of course, since it is impossible to prove a negative, we can’t know that it didn’t happen, but I find it unlikely, especially since Christ promised that the Church would not fall to the gates of Hell, and after the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

To this day, that Holy Spirit works, not merely through Christ’s Vicar on earth, but also through the thousands upon thousands of saints, who have wrought miracles and seen signs and prophecied. After all, the only real proof of the Catholic Faith is the testimony of the saints. And this testimony is of greater persuasion to me than any vain theologizing.

The Augustinian

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Gottle of Geer:

Destroy any one attribute, & all vanish, because God is but one thing, Himself, so all His attributes are one, and are no other than His Nature. To deny that God is omniscient, is to say He is no god. He is all that He is, or He is not at all. ##

Scripture reveals to us that “God is love”. Because God is love, He is willing to condescend so that He can relate with us, His creation. This explains why and how God can limit His knowledge, power and presence which occured through the incarnation. God limited Himself in specific ways to that He could love us and we could in response love Him.

God shows through His actions that the power of love is more important than the love of power.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

Since this thread has seemed to have in great part lost its original path and gone this way and that, I am going to stop posting to it.

You’re the one who took it in that direction. You have only yourself to blame.

you claimed

Mid-Acts dispensationalist seems to try to solve the supposed discrepancy between St. Paul and St. James.

Its not a “supposed discrepancy”. Its an obvious difference.

you go on

Recognizing the passages supporting salvation through good works, but wanting to preserve their unique antinomian theology, they get to work.

We definitely do the work of Bible study and theology and philosophy that needs to be done for the sake of the Body of Christ. Its an extremely honorable task. Paul wrote to Timothy

1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

you go on

Other Protestants would explain the discrepancy away through some other means

They try to, but they fail miserably. Also, they do not acknowledge the reality of logical contradictions. This is no surprise since they believe that God is “timeless” or does not experience time or sequence, yet at the same time acts in history and enters into relationship with His creation. They also believe that God can preordain every single thing a person does and that person still be guilty of their doing what God preordained (even though God would have no real choice in the matter since He must do what he knows He will do in the future).

you continue

but these people try to cut the Gordian knot altogether by implying that these two theologians were opererating within totally separate sorteriological systems.

First of all, they are not just two theologians. They are apostles that God worked with and even inspired to write what they wrote. So, their theology came from God, they did not make it up or develop it from deduction or the like.

Secondly, they are not two totally separate soteriological systems. They have much in common, such as God’s grace making salvation available and the requirement of faith in order to appropriate salvation. The BIG DIFFERENCE is that one requires specific works to be done in order to result in justification and the other requires faith only for justification. These truths are stated in no uncertain terms.

you continue

The plain meaning of scripture, church history, and common sense all go against it.

No they don’t. Especially the “plain meaning” of Scripture. The “plain meaning” of Scripture shows that the gospel Christ committed to Paul required faith only for salvation and the gospel Christ committed to Peter required faith and works for salvation.

And “common sense” has nothing to do with what God reveals and when God reveals. You can not acquire the knowledge of what God has done throughout history through “common sense”.

you said

The notion that Jesus Christ revealed a new covenant to St. Paul is nowhere indicated in the scriptures.

That is correct! But, then again, I never claimed or implied anywhere that God revealed a “new covenant” to Paul!! Now, why would you make such a statement? I conclude it is because you lack any evidence from Scripture which would support your view and disprove my view.

you claim

Even the Judaizers, which are cited by such dispensationalists as being examples of the so-called “Circumcision Believers” are in the context of the scriptural narrative really a heretical influx of Pharasaical converts and therefore do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the apostles.

Totally unfounded. That claim is easily shown to be false from the words and reactions of the apostles (especially Peter) that came about from God showing them that He was NOW accepting Gentiles. This passage alone would suffice to show that Peter and the others in Jerusalem followed the law and required circumcision as Jesus taught during His earthly ministry (Matt 5:17-20; Matt 10:5-6).

Acts 10:28 "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

There are more passages in Acts that I have referenced and you have never dealt with specificly. Of course, why would you attempt to take on a specific passage or passages that are so straightforward and then try and show that it doesn’t mean what it says? Why would you claim that Peter was in error all that time after being taught and descipled by Christ for 3 years? Do you really want to say that Christ did such a poor job of descipling Peter?*

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you claimed

Also, other than the purely disciplinary proscriptions of the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles do not instruct believers to follow the Law of Moses.

Well, DUH!! Of course they did not demand that the Gentiles obey the Law as a requirement for salvation. They knew through what Paul told them (Gal 2:2) and through God’s revelation (the vision of unclean animals and the salvation of Cornelius’ house in Acts 10) that God had instituted a new set of “house rules” (Eph 3:2) which did not require that works be done in order to be accepted by God as had previously been the case. Their letter to the Gentiles tells us nothing of what the Circumcision Believers themselves were required to believe.

you said

It cannot be denied that there was a radical shift in the Church after St. Paul’s journeys.

Indeed.

Gentiles in the Church now vastly outnumbered the Jews.

Yes. That is a result of God starting a new administration/dispensation and communicating this reality through Paul’s ministry.

you claimed

However, never was there any fundamental change in the Church after Jesus Christ instituted His covenant on earth.

So, the acceptance of Gentiles without requiring them to become proselyte Jews, i.e. become circumcised and obey the Mosaic Law, is not a fundamental change? To reveal a new gospel, which Christ did to Paul (Gal 2:7), which puts Jew and Gentile on equal ground before God and does not require good works to be performed for justification is not a fundamental change? If changing the “house rules” and the method of salvation isn’t a fundamental change then what is?

you ponder

Of course, it is possible that legalistic intrusions could have crept into the Church, according to mid-Acts believers.

They have and continue to creep into the the Body of Christ. Its a constant battle.

you claimed

However, there is no record of such corruption, especially in a Church where heresy is seen as a great sin.

There is too a record! Scroll up and read what Ignatius said about Syria. He said the following

Pray ye for the Church which is in Syria, whence I am led bound to Rome, being the last of the faithful who are there, even as I have been thought worthy to be chosen to show forth the honour of God.

and read what Paul said to those in in Acts 20

Acts 20:27-31 "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

you claimed

Only the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses would believe that the Church would be so easily corrupted right after St. John breathed his last.

Oh, I see. When you have no arguments attempt to discredit my view through guilt by association. Yeah, that’s a really good argument

you claimed

Of course, since it is impossible to prove a negative, we can’t know that it didn’t happen

Paul knew it would happen and warned men of its happening for three years. That’s enough for me.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you continue

but I find it unlikely, especially since Christ promised that the Church would not fall to the gates of Hell

That is not what Christ said. He said “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”. Gates do not attack anyone. Think about it. Gates are built and just sit there to protect what is inside from those outside. Christ was saying that redeemed Israel would be able to beat down the gates of hell and bring about “the times of refreshing” (Acts 3:21) that had been foretold for Israel. This statement shows that God would give the apostles and desciples and redeemed Israel sufficient power to destroy Hell. Hell’s gates would not be able to withstand redeemed Israel’s Holy Spirit empowered onslaught.

you continue

and after the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

What does the event of Pentecost have to do with any of this? It was not God’s fault that Plan B, which is redeeming Israel, failed. It was due to Israel’s lack of belief that God decided to cut them off and bring about the Body of Christ apart from Israel’s agency. Salvation has come to the world through Israel’s fall, not through Israel’s prophesied rise.

you claimed

To this day, that Holy Spirit works, not merely through Christ’s Vicar on earth, but also through the thousands upon thousands of saints, who have wrought miracles and seen signs and prophecied.

Thousands of miracles and signs eh? What, 2,000 miracles over the last 1900 years? Miracles are extremely infrequent for those in the Body of Christ. The reason for this is because miracles do not bring about faith. To observe this fact, just go through all the miracles listed in the Bible and see what sort of response each miracle gets. Its very typically rebellion and unbelief.

you claimed

After all, the only real proof of the Catholic Faith is the testimony of the saints. And this testimony is of greater persuasion to me than any vain theologizing.

The Augustinian

So, you reject what God has revealed to us in God-breathed Scripture because a few so-called saints (of which I am one) testify that the so-called “catholic faith” (whatever they meant by that) is correct? Is that what you are telling me?

What about the Eastern Orthodox “saints” who testify that Eastern Orthodoxy is correct and that Romanism is not? Is Christ divided? How about the Anglican “saints”?

This saint testifies that the Acts 9 position and the Open View of God is correct and that these views are in the greatest agreement with Scripture, Experience, Reason and Tradition as a whole.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

…continued

In other words, if we will be pessimistically exclusively amill, then epoch VII above is the last, and the history ends as follows:

**VI. **Pagan Rome & Barbarians Persecute / Catholic Christendom of Middle Ages
VII. Loss of Catholic Christendom (Great Apostasy & NT Antichrist) / Second Coming and New Creation

---

****On the other hand, if we embrace the postmill scenario, the history completes as follows:

VI. Pagan Rome & Barbarians Persecute** / Catholic Christendom of Middle Ages**
VII. Loss of Catholic Christendom (Minor Apostasy) / Restoration of Catholic Christendom, Age of Peace
VIII. Great Apostasy & NT Antichrist / Second Coming and New Creation

In other words, if we take the strictly amillennial outlook, the New Testament era will be two “resistance/redemption” dispensations, whereas with postmill, there are three. I take the postmill view for many reasons. For one, the Days of Creation are extended from seven to eight in doctrinal development, just as the Beasts heads are extended from seven to eight in the Apocalypse (Rev. 17:9-11). Also, the Days of Creation appropriately model the alternating sequence of sin/redemption, that is, darkness “evening came”] followed by **light **“morning followed”]. For more explanation, you can read this:

Historicism and the Seven Days / Heads

Or my general blog for a fuller discussion:

Why I am Postmill

This eschatology, then, is somewhere between the very general Catholic OLD/NEW outlook, and the too-technical fundamentalist dispensationalism.

GB,

Scott

That’s some interesting insight you’ve provided spauline. Thanx a lot for sharing

The only concern I have about that sort of explanation is that it goes beyond the New Testament Period that I have in mind here. I mean the period of time that the New Testament covers, not including prophetic content. Or in other words, when the authors of the New Testament leave off, how many dispensations are there during the time those gospels and epistles were written? I do believe there are a few dispensations in the future that did not occur sometime between John’s ministry until the dispensation of the grace of God was given to Paul for the Body of Christ.

To see my take on this check out the following chart here biblicalanswers.com/chart_12dispensations.htm I believe in 12 dispensations overall, and 3 in the New Testament Period. In the New Testament there is the Dispensation of the Kingdom Proclaimed, Kingdom Offered and of Grace.

Let me know what you think about this dispensational scheme

AN article explaining in more detail is found here biblicalanswers.com/book_12dispensations.htm

 

[spauline]

TheOpenTheist:

That’s some interesting insight you’ve provided spauline. Thanx a lot for sharing

…

Dear OpenTheist,

thank you for the compliment! It is well appreciated.

Yes, I actually did look at your page with the dispensations, but, unfortunately, I would have to say that as a Catholic, my response would basically be what The Augustinian has given. I haven’t had the time to read the whole thread, but I am sure that Augustinian has addressed several of the issues that we as Catholics cannot accept from the Fundamentalist dispensational view.

We believe that God has always used the same principles in dealing with men. What has varied has been the Revelation given and perhaps certain disciplinary measures (for example, it was a sin for an OT Jew to violate any of the dietary or ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law, but Christ has now instituted a New Law, summarized in the spirit of the Decalogue and Sermon on the Mount. Hence, we no longer keep all the “external” laws of the Old Law but must still keep the essence of the Ten Commandments, as interpreted and applied by the RCC, although Catholics also have a displine of their own (like Friday penance))

In other words, God has and always will (until the end of time) expect the same thing from men, regardless of when or where they live:

To seek moral and religious truth as their ultimate goal and, to live it to their best abilities, seeking help from the divine, however dimly understood the divine may be.

Hence, whether you are a Jew, a pagan, or a Christian, or anything else, you must seek and obey the light that has been given to you from God. Hence, we cannot accept there are different Gospels being taught by Christ, St. Paul, St. John, or St. James. The Gospel of God is one and the same, and its Covenant is found, only in its fullness, in the Catholic Church. If someone seeks the truth about religion above all else but, through no fault of their own, do not find the full Gospel of Christ of the RCC but only certain elements of it, Christ can still save them. But the fact remains that God wills all to be Catholic, hence the Catholic obligation of evangelization.

Christ is the Savior of all men, even those* who* lived before Him! The Eternal Son exists outside time and so can reach forward and apply His Infinite Merits to men of the OT history, whether Jew or Gentile, who sought the truth above all else and remained faithful to it with God’s Help.

My point was rather that, in addition to what TheAugustinian has said, I think we can discern sub-ages within the two Great Ages (the Old and the New), but I would still emphasize that, regardless of what “sub”-age any man lived in, he still was required to do the same thing from God: seek Him, His Truth, and His Help to obey above all else.

Hope that’s clear!

May God Bless you, Open Theist.

Scott

 

[TheOpenTheist]

spauline said

Yes, I actually did look at your page with the dispensations, but, unfortunately, I would have to say that as a Catholic, my response would basically be what The Augustinian has given. I haven’t had the time to read the whole thread, but I am sure that Augustinian has addressed several of the issues that we as Catholics cannot accept from the Fundamentalist dispensational view.

Aren’t you a Fundamentalist? You affirm The Fundamentals, correct? And didn’t you just list a dispensational view in your last two posts? If so, then how can you not also say that you hold to a “Fundamentalist dispensational” view??

you said

We believe that God has always used the same principles in dealing with men. What has varied has been the Revelation given and perhaps certain disciplinary measures

How significant do you believe the differences in these disciplinary measures and revelation is? For example, the requirement to circumcise. How important is it to realize and teach that circumcision is no longer required as it once was?

you continue

(for example, it was a sin for an OT Jew to violate any of the dietary or ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law, but Christ has now instituted a New Law, summarized in the spirit of the Decalogue and Sermon on the Mount.

That’s not what Paul tells us. God inspired Paul to write that “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). And by letter Paul means the Law. Not “the letter of the Law” as opposed to “the spirit of the Law” as many people have perverted the passage to mean (beginning with Abraham Lincoln I believe). And in the very next sentence Paul refers to the Ten Commandments as “the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones”, making it impossible to mistake what he is specificly referring to.

2 Corinthians 3:7-9 But if the ministry of death, written [and] engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which [glory] was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation [had] glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

Furthermore, we are told that those in the Body of Christ are no longer under the law and guilty before God (Rom 3:19-26; Gal 5:18). The Law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, but now that we are accepted (Eph 1:6) and adopted (Gal 4:4-5), we no longer need a tutor (Gal 3:24-25). We have been given the free gift of God’s righteousness and can never again be condemned by the Law because “where there is no law, there is no transgression” (Rom 4:15).

And it also bears pointing out that Christ taught His desciples to obey the entire Law during His earthly ministry, not just the moral parts of it.

Matthew 5:17-20 " Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the following verses Jesus goes on to explain how His desciples can obtain a greater righteousness than the Pharisees.

The only law that we are to fulfill is “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2), which is not a set of specific commandments that we must obey in order to be saved. Its a general loving attitude towards God and those in the Body that we demonstrate because “the love of Christ compels us” (2 Cor 5:14). Not the letter/the ministry of death engraved on stones/the ministry of condemnation.

you go on

Hence, we no longer keep all the “external” laws of the Old Law but must still keep the essence of the Ten Commandments, as interpreted and applied by the RCC, although Catholics also have a displine of their own (like Friday penance))

No, we must not keep any of the commandments, moral or ceremonial. The only law we are to keep is “the law of Christ”, which we do out of love and not for the sake of our salvation. No matter how badly we mess up fulfilling the law of Christ we will still be redeemed/saved (Eph 1:13-14).

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you claimed

In other words, God has and always will (until the end of time) expect the same thing from men, regardless of when or where they live:

To seek moral and religious truth as their ultimate goal and, to live it to their best abilities, seeking help from the divine, however dimly understood the divine may be.

Hence, whether you are a Jew, a pagan, or a Christian, or anything else, you must seek and obey the light that has been given to you from God.

That is true. I am not addressing the destiny of the unevangelized in these posts though. I am referring to those who are or may be members of the Body of Christ.

you state

Hence, we cannot accept there are different Gospels being taught by Christ, St. Paul, St. John, or St. James. The Gospel of God is one and the same, and its Covenant is found, only in its fullness, in the Catholic Church.

So tell me, spauline, are you asserting that the gospel or good news that God gave to Noah (Gen 6:13-22) is the same as the good news that God gave to Abraham (Gen 17:1-16)? And the same as the good news that God gave to Moses (Ex 3:6-8) and to David (2 Sam 7:8-16)? And the same good news that God gave to Paul, what Paul refers to as “my gospel…the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery” (Rom 16:25)?

you said

If someone seeks the truth about religion above all else but, through no fault of their own, do not find the full Gospel of Christ of the RCC but only certain elements of it, Christ can still save them.

I agree totally that those who seek God with all their heart will be saved despite any lack of specific revelation from God through the Body of Christ. It seems sadly, that most don’t.

you go on

But the fact remains that God wills all to be Catholic, hence the Catholic obligation of evangelization.

Thats what you believe, but nowhere found in Scripture. What we find is that it is God’s will that all be saved (1 Tim 2:4) and become a part of His Body (2 Cor 5:14-21) through faith (1 Cor 15:4; Rom 10:9-10). The catholic church can play a part in God’s will being brought about, but typically doesn’t in my experience. They’re too concerned about obeying a list of commandments that their parents and clergy foist upon them rather than doing good because of their love and thankfulness of Christ. In many cases the catholic church is a hinderance. I am working to help change this in my area.

you said

Christ is the Savior of all men, even those* who* lived before Him! The Eternal Son exists outside time and so can reach forward and apply His Infinite Merits to men of the OT history, whether Jew or Gentile, who sought the truth above all else and remained faithful to it with God’s Help.

This is incorrect. If God were “outside of time” as you claim then He could not have a relationship with us in any way, since we experience temporality or sequence. Anyways, time is not an entity, so it has no power to exert on God or anyone else. Time is just a consequence of existing. To be “timeless” or “outside of time” is to not exist. The Bible never paints a picture of God or our everlasting relationship with Him as being without duration. Call it a clue.

And God did not apply the merits of Christ’s work on the cross by taking what occured in the “future” and applying it to those who lived and died in “the past” before Christ accomplished that work. God held those saints in Abraham’s Bosom until the work of salvation had been accomplished and Christ descended to the lower parts of the earth (Eph 4:9-10) to preach to those spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:19). Only then could they enter into Paradise.

you said

My point was rather that, in addition to what TheAugustinian has said, I think we can discern sub-ages within the two Great Ages (the Old and the New), but I would still emphasize that, regardless of what “sub”-age any man lived in, he still was required to do the same thing from God: seek Him, His Truth, and His Help to obey above all else.

That’s generally true, but renders the differences in the gospels God gave throughout history as insignificant, which they are certainly not. And I must add, that it does not seem like a good idear to refer to periods of history as ages because Paul refers to this age as “the present evil age” (Gal 1:4). We are currently in the present evil age, and God is administering His grace to those who believe the gospel that Paul was comitted with, through wat is called the “house rules/administration/dispensation of the grace of God” (Eph 3:2). This is one important reason why its important to refer to things using the words found in Scripture.

Hope that’s clear!

Its clearer! Looking forward to your response

 

[TheOpenTheist]

TheOpenTheist:

you claimed

That is true. I am not addressing the destiny of the unevangelized in these posts though. I am referring to those who are or may be members of the Body of Christ.

you state

So tell me, spauline, are you asserting that the gospel or good news that God gave to Noah (Gen 6:13-22) is the same as the good news that God gave to Abraham (Gen 17:1-16)? And the same as the good news that God gave to Moses (Ex 3:6-8) and to David (2 Sam 7:8-16)? And the same good news that God gave to Paul, what Paul refers to as “my gospel…the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery” (Rom 16:25)?

you said

I agree totally that those who seek God with all their heart will be saved despite any lack of specific revelation from God through the Body of Christ. It seems sadly, that most don’t.

you go on

Thats what you believe, but nowhere found in Scripture. What we find is that it is God’s will that all be saved (1 Tim 2:4) and become a part of His Body (2 Cor 5:14-21) through faith (1 Cor 15:4; Rom 10:9-10). The catholic church can play a part in God’s will being brought about, but typically doesn’t in my experience. They’re too concerned about obeying a list of commandments that their parents and clergy foist upon them rather than doing good because of their love and thankfulness of Christ. In many cases the catholic church is a hinderance. I am working to help change this in my area.

you said

This is incorrect. If God were “outside of time” as you claim then He could not have a relationship with us in any way, since we experience temporality or sequence. Anyways, time is not an entity, so it has no power to exert on God or anyone else. Time is just a consequence of existing. To be “timeless” or “outside of time” is to not exist. The Bible never paints a picture of God or our everlasting relationship with Him as being without duration. Call it a clue.

And God did not apply the merits of Christ’s work on the cross by taking what occured in the “future” and applying it to those who lived and died in “the past” before Christ accomplished that work. God held those saints in Abraham’s Bosom until the work of salvation had been accomplished and Christ descended to the lower parts of the earth (Eph 4:9-10) to preach to those spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:19). Only then could they enter into Paradise.

you said

That’s generally true, but renders the differences in the gospels God gave throughout history as insignificant, which they are certainly not. And I must add, that it does not seem like a good idear to refer to periods of history as ages because Paul refers to this age as “the present evil age” (Gal 1:4). We are currently in the present evil age, and God is administering His grace to those who believe the gospel that Paul was comitted with, through wat is called the “house rules/administration/dispensation of the grace of God” (Eph 3:2). This is one important reason why its important to refer to things using the words found in Scripture.

Hope that’s clear!

Its clearer! Looking forward to your response

 

[spauline]

Dear Open Theist,

I apologize that I just don’t have the time right now to fully address all your questions, as my father is in the hospital and I can’t even support myself economically, let alone him, and I am depending on him right now for a place to live, which will soon change.

I’ll have to respond later.

For now, at least I could briefly address the question of “Gospels.” I think we perceive different meanings for certain words: if your question about “Gospels” was replaced with the word “Covenants,” then I could mostly agree. That is, the Covenants given by God prior to the Coming of Christ were certainly not the same as the Covenant given by Christ. I’m sorry, I think you misunderstand Catholic terminology: when Catholics say “Gospel”, they mean usually exclusively the New Covenant institute by Our Savior Christ. OT Covenants, on the other hand, are not really considered “Gospels,” although that does not mean that they were not in some sense “Good News.” To be sure, many of the OT Covenants brought “Good News” to the people involved, but we would not technically call them “Gospels”. However, I think a Catholic could accept that, even in the OT Covenants, the Redemption of mankind was already beginning, for God was progressively Intervening in Salvation History to build toward the Ultimate Covenant of Christ with great acts of Redemption, redemption that drew all of its efficacy from the anticipated merits of Christ.

So my point, if you reread more closely, is that all of the spiritual goods offered by St. Paul, St. James, St. John, or any other Apostle, (note, all of these men are *NT *figures, not OT) are One and the Same Covenant: the New Covenant of Christ. That is, all of the NT is presenting only One Covenant, that of Christ, and the fullness of such resides, we believe, only with the RCC.

Also, about not being able to lose salvation, we cannot accept this on the principle of Love. Really, if the RCC had to pick one verse that summarizes the total essence of its religion, I would be willing to bet that the 1 John: “God is LOVE” would either be #1 or a real close runner up. Love is the principle that forms the foundation for all Catholic theology. But then, this is the basis for the possibility of losing one’s salvation, for even though we love God now, we have no absolute guarantee that we will love God later because God is not going to force us to remain with Him. *He *will never stop loving us, but *we *can stop loving Him because we’re free. And we cannot be in God’s Presence if we don’t love Him, for the vision of God would annihilate us if we didn’t love Him. That at least is a partial answer to your question about, “we can never mess things up enough to lose salvation.”

I will have to address other questions later.

I will pray that you grow in your love and knowledge of God.

In Him,
scott