Dispensational Discussion

Excerpt #4

The Adamic Covenant and The Dispensation of Conscience

When Adam ate of the forbidden tree at the bidding of his wife, they both acquired something they before thought desirable but soon turned out to be a curse; that is, knowledge. After Adam ate they both quickly learned the knowledge they obtained was quite different from what the Serpent represented it to be. It was not just "knowledge" for knowledge's sake, but the knowledge of EVIL. Contrary to many not all knowledge is beneficial. There are some things a person should not try to learn or seek after, and the greatest of these is a knowledge of evil (Rom. 16:19; 1 Co. 14:20). It is the knowledge of evil that condemned Adam and Eve to death, and it is the same that separates one child who is accountable for his actions from another who is not. In fact, it is the knowledge of evil or sin that condemns every man as a sinner, and every person born of Adam inherits the capacity for this knowledge. That the Serpent deceived Eve and led her to think all knowledge was desirable is immaterial. Adam knew exactly what God said; he made his choice for Eve knowing they both would die (1 Tim 2:14).
After he ate, Adam knew at least three things he didn't know before. He knew he had eaten of the forbidden tree and would die; he knew he had broken God's covenant; and he knew he was naked. This new knowledge caused him to feel fear and guilt for the first time and these in turn caused him to flee from God's presence. In spite of Adam's blatant sin, God did not abandon him. Though the Edenic Covenant was now broken, God did not cast aside His new creation. By His foreknowledge and grace He made another covenant with Adam, and unlike the first one this covenant was unconditional and is still in effect today. It is called the Adamic Covenant.

Knowing the end from the beginning and the whole scheme of events He would allow to follow, God made such a far-ranging covenant with Adam, including all of his descendants, that it remains fully valid with its effects still felt today. This covenant testifies to all mankind the willing act of disobedience their father Adam performed in a garden so long ago. This covenant, given to Adam and Eve before they were expelled from the presence of the Tree of Life, is composed of several curses and a promise. The curses affect all three parties involved in the sin.

1. The Serpent, which was the fleshy tool of Satan, was cursed to crawl upon the ground and eat dust (Gen. 3:14). This curse remains in effect through the Millennium (Isa. 65:25).
2. a. As for the woman, she was to have multiplied conception. One reason for this is because the earth will be harder to fill with people with the entrance of death.
b. She also was to bear children in sorrow. She is going to have more children but will have to bear them in sorrow because she is bringing another "sinner" into the world.
c. Thirdly, the woman will have a desire for her husband and will be in subjection to him (Gen. 3:16).
3. As for the man, first of all the ground that so freely gave forth its fruit was cursed. Man must now till the ground in sorrow and sweat and endure weeds that will choke and weaken his crops. Then, after a life of labor and toil, he must pay for his sin in the garden and physically die, returning to the earth he worked (Gen. 3:17-19).

Man has spent the last six millennia trying to undo everyone of these curses (with drugs, chemicals, technology, etc.) with only superficial success, but, of course, the curse he is most desperately trying to stop is death. Ever since Adam man has sought ways to overcome death or at least delay it for even a short period (Satan knows this well, Job 2:4), but eventually death wins out. The death rate remains 100%. God cannot be beaten, what He has cursed is cursed. These curses will not be completely lifted until the renovation of the earth by fire after the Millennium.

Among these sorrowful curses, however, God has thrown in a precious promise (Gen. 3:15). Its purpose was to show mankind what kind of God the Lord is and to show him He will provide a means of deliverance that can ultimately release him from the curses. The promise (which was actually addressed to the Serpent) was the "seed" of the woman (Christ) would bruise the head of the Serpent (a mortal blow) while the seed of the Serpent (the Beast) will bruise the woman's seed's heel. To Adam (and to those many centuries after him) this likely meant that a future "seed," born of a woman, would somehow redeem them and destroy the Serpent in the process, releasing them from his bondage. This is apparently all that was revealed to Adam about a future redeemer. There is nothing mentioned about a "cross" or a "new birth," all he knew was somebody was promised to come. Anyway, by God's grace Adam now had a hope to look forward to, even though he remained joined to sin and death.
Although the Dispensation of Conscience, began with the Adamic Covenant, it does not last as long as the covenant. It is replaced by another dispensation when Noah departs the ark; long before the end of the Millennium. Here is an important lesson: even though a covenant usually introduces a particular dispensation, the covenant and dispensation do not have to end together. A covenant can still be in effect long after its original dispensation has been replaced. Unconditional covenants can overlap each other or be in effect simultaneously, but by strict definition dispensations can not. This should become clearer as we go along.

The Dispensation of Conscience is so named because during this period man had nothing to guide him but his conscience. God did not give any specific commands to anyone during this dispensation. There were no "thou shalts" or "thou shalt nots;" God just left man to his own heart to guide him. Needless to say, man utterly failed in following his conscience. For the most part he hardened it and became extremely wicked. This wickedness was the cause of the flood (Gen. 6).

Some may ask here, "How could God hold them accountable for being wicked when He gave them no specific laws to keep?" The answer is man has an unwritten law written in his heart or conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). Though this law is vague compared to a written or verbal law, it will still convict a person of guilt when he contemplates evil. For instance, when Cain slew his brother Abel, he did not break any written law against murder because none was yet given, but he did break the law God had written in his heart and was therefore guilty. Like his father, Cain had a knowledge of good and evil, and he willingly chose evil. Every accountable person even today, no matter where he is, knows murder, adultery, stealing, and the like are wrong whether he has heard of the word of God or not. These laws are embedded into every man's conscience, but the conscience imparts no power to keep man from breaking it.

Man's responsibility in the Dispensation of Conscience (and to those in every other dispensation who have had no contact with the Scriptures) was to simply follow his conscience. If one listens carefully to his conscience, it will convict him of sin and lead him to God for salvation (Cornelius, for example, Acts 10). But if he doesn't listen to it and hardens it, all he has to look forward to is judgment. Since the people from Adam to Noah ignored their conscience and followed wickedness, God was forced to bring judgment—the flood. Man fails again.

 
What about the Dispensation of Chocolate Gravy?
 
rsc2a said:
What about the Dispensation of Chocolate Gravy?

It was replaced by the Dispensation of Tootsie Pops.
 
I find several of the dispensations to be based on speculation.
Remove these invented pins, and the wheels fall off.

Show me a Covenant, where Adam pledged anything to God.

Even to Noah, the sign was one way.

Why does it seem that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, etc., all sacrificed the same way?

Doesnt this present a problem to some?

Some, it seems, flit in and out of dispy teachings, where it suits them.
Others see all who believe in the millennial reign, as dispy.

I think a lot of people say that they are dispy, but their approach is more purely Scriptural.  They may line up with most dispy teaching, as would most of believers, but organically reject made up or invisible divisions.

I would not call my self a dispy, but let me delve into millennial prophecy, and all the dispies "amen".

Let me delve into Tribulation prophecy, and suddenly the Reformed Covenanters are with me, as well as some amillenials.

I'd just as soon drop the flawed systems, and discuss Scripture with the brethren.  We all have a lot in common, until we start quoting men instead of God. 

We can debate these systems til we're blue in the face, they can't be fully reasoned out, because they seek to explain every nook and cranny, some of which we cannot yet see.

Anishinaabe

 
prophet said:
I find several of the dispensations to be based on speculation.
Remove these invented pins, and the wheels fall off.

Show me a Covenant, where Adam pledged anything to God.

Even to Noah, the sign was one way.

Why does it seem that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, etc., all sacrificed the same way?

Doesnt this present a problem to some?

Some, it seems, flit in and out of dispy teachings, where it suits them.
Others see all who believe in the millennial reign, as dispy.

I think a lot of people say that they are dispy, but their approach is more purely Scriptural.  They may line up with most dispy teaching, as would most of believers, but organically reject made up or invisible divisions.

I would not call my self a dispy, but let me delve into millennial prophecy, and all the dispies "amen".

Let me delve into Tribulation prophecy, and suddenly the Reformed Covenanters are with me, as well as some amillenials.

I'd just as soon drop the flawed systems, and discuss Scripture with the brethren.  We all have a lot in common, until we start quoting men instead of God. 

We can debate these systems til we're blue in the face, they can't be fully reasoned out, because they seek to explain every nook and cranny, some of which we cannot yet see.

Anishinaabe

I appreciate that.  This happens to be one of the most "detailed" articles which I have read.  While I still don't consider myself a dispensationalist (and have just recently studied the topic) I do find some things to cause one to think.

While I appreciate each individual saying, "I hate dispensationalism........." or "I embrace dispensationalism......" I would like to see us discuss each excerpt and point out the problems and the truths.  I have posted 4 excerpts and there has been very little of this.  There is much more broad criticism.  Let's discuss the different excepts.
 
RAIDER said:
prophet said:
I find several of the dispensations to be based on speculation.
Remove these invented pins, and the wheels fall off.

Show me a Covenant, where Adam pledged anything to God.

Even to Noah, the sign was one way.

Why does it seem that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, etc., all sacrificed the same way?

Doesnt this present a problem to some?

Some, it seems, flit in and out of dispy teachings, where it suits them.
Others see all who believe in the millennial reign, as dispy.

I think a lot of people say that they are dispy, but their approach is more purely Scriptural.  They may line up with most dispy teaching, as would most of believers, but organically reject made up or invisible divisions.

I would not call my self a dispy, but let me delve into millennial prophecy, and all the dispies "amen".

Let me delve into Tribulation prophecy, and suddenly the Reformed Covenanters are with me, as well as some amillenials.

I'd just as soon drop the flawed systems, and discuss Scripture with the brethren.  We all have a lot in common, until we start quoting men instead of God. 

We can debate these systems til we're blue in the face, they can't be fully reasoned out, because they seek to explain every nook and cranny, some of which we cannot yet see.

Anishinaabe

I appreciate that.  This happens to be one of the most "detailed" articles which I have read.  While I still don't consider myself a dispensationalist (and have just recently studied the topic) I do find some things to cause one to think.

While I appreciate each individual saying, "I hate dispensationalism........." or "I embrace dispensationalism......" I would like to see us discuss each excerpt and point out the problems and the truths.  I have posted 4 excerpts and there has been very little of this.  There is much more broad criticism.  Let's discuss the different excepts.
Agreed.  I dabbled a little in this post, with discussion of the last 2.
I'll try to behave myself, and stick to the Scriptural discussion....but it won't work.
                          ;)

Anishinaabe

 
Agreed.  I dabbled a little in this post, with discussion of the last 2.
I'll try to behave myself, and stick to the Scriptural discussion....but it won't work.
                          ;)

Anishinaabe
[/quote]

That's fine.  It's funny how you can ask a couple of questions about a topic and you get branded a hyper-dispensationalist.  If nothing else, it has given me reason to look closer at Scripture.  While I don't agree with everything this guy has to say (you will see more in future posts) it creates great discussion.
 
RAIDER said:
Excerpt #2

The Covenants and The Dispensations

Over the centuries believers have developed several methods of studying the Bible. Some study it systematically by topic, others use an inductive or deductive method to arrive at conclusions, still others divide the Bible into "stages" or sections to make it more manageable, many study guides outline studies by book, chapter, or topic, and yet others study it dispensationally. Although there is merit in all of these methods, studying the Bible dispensationally with the covenants marking the divisions is the easiest and surest way one can see the various systems God has placed in the Scriptures and get a sufficient understanding of what He is doing. The Bible's divisions do not neatly divide between books, chapters, or subjective "stages," so the best method to get the overall picture of God's program is to study the Bible using its own terms of "covenant" and "dispensation," letting them mark the divisions.
Defining the Terms
A covenant is generally defined as a mutual agreement between two parties. In the Scriptures some covenants are unconditional and continue regardless of the conduct of man, while others are conditioned on obedience. Each covenant God makes with man (with few exceptions) marks the beginning of a new dispensation. The dispensation carries on the doctrines God established with the covenant.
Another word for covenant in the Bible is "testament," thus the 27 books known as the New Testament proclaim the new covenant God has made with man through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Technically, much of the first four books of the New Testament (the gospels) refer to events that occurred under the old covenant of the Law, but the atonement Christ made with his death and resurrection as revealed in the gospels made possible the new covenant of grace in effect today.

A dispensation is usually defined as a "period of time" in which God works with and in His people in a particular way, but this is only partially true. Calling a dispensation primarily a period of time will not bear up under close scrutiny of the Scriptures. In the Bible the term "dispensation" refers to a manner, method, or particular arrangement of dealing with people God has chosen to dispense during a period of time, not the time period itself. Usually the length of time is not emphasized or even mentioned, it is the doctrines God has established to be valid during that time that distinguishes one dispensation from another. In short, a dispensation is a certain mode of testing God has dispensed to man, while a covenant is a contract or promise between God and man.

The term "dispensation" is found four times in the Scriptures (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10, 3:2; Col. 1:25), and each passage makes it clear that God is dispensing something. In Eph. 3:2 it is "grace" itself that is dispensed, not a period of time called the "grace of God." God revealed through Paul how He was dispensing His grace to all men by making a free salvation available to them in Jesus Christ. This is contrasted with the Dispensation of the Law where God gave mainly law (though grace can be readily found in every dispensation). Under the Law obedience was demanded, obey the laws and live; break them and die (Gal. 3:10-13). In this Church Age of Grace, however, it is not obey the law but only receive Christ to be saved. In a nutshell, God simply uses covenants and dispensations to deal with man in different manners under different circumstances to teach and show him things about himself and his Creator.
A Testament is only called a "covenant" because of the much publishing of dispies.

The legal term, which it is, confines its definition to be the declaration of one's Will, concerning personal property.
Again, the term describes a oneway
conversation, not an agreement between parties.

Swallowing this Camel leads to choking on subsequent gnats.

Anishinaabe

 
RAIDER said:

That's fine.  It's funny how you can ask a couple of questions about a topic and you get branded a hyper-dispensationalist.  If nothing else, it has given me reason to look closer at Scripture.  While I don't agree with everything this guy has to say (you will see more in future posts) it creates great discussion.


Some hand out hugs or brands, depending on the amount of time it has been since they dosed.

Anishinaabe
 
admin said:
prophet said:
...the term describes a oneway
conversation, not an agreement between parties. Anishinaabe

Aren't you overstating this a bit? Even Covenant theologians recognize that a covenant is not just a one-way issue. A covenant certainly is an agreement.

Fundamentally, dispys and covenants agree on what covenants are. They differ as to whom and for how long the covenants apply.

A covenant in which "God Himself" swears by none greater than "Himself".... essentially becomes "what"??? Is it really a "two way street". Now granted.... I'm not saying there are no conditions... but one certainly outweighs the other.

Either way.... There is no difference between the word "covenant" and the word "testament" in the KJV. They have a single source. 
 
RAIDER said:
Agreed.  I dabbled a little in this post, with discussion of the last 2.
I'll try to behave myself, and stick to the Scriptural discussion....but it won't work.
                          ;)

Anishinaabe

That's fine.  It's funny how you can ask a couple of questions about a topic and you get branded a hyper-dispensationalist.  If nothing else, it has given me reason to look closer at Scripture.  While I don't agree with everything this guy has to say (you will see more in future posts) it creates great discussion.
[/quote]

Its utter nonsense.
 
RAIDER said:
This is apparently all that was revealed to Adam about a future redeemer. There is nothing mentioned about a "cross" or a "new birth," all he knew was somebody was promised to come. Anyway, by God's grace Adam now had a hope to look forward to, even though he remained joined to sin and death.

Lies.... Nothing but lies. You can regurgitate words all you want. They are based on half truths and deception.

Why do you refuse to deal with what I have written? Are you having difficulty directly answer questions?

Jud 1:14  And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15  To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

1. Just where do you think Enoch learned of God?

2. Enoch plainly calls this "Redeemer"... "LORD". Do you know what that means? It means more than just "somebody". Its is the very same argument our own Master made in Luke 20:44

Luke 20:44  David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

3. Enoch said that the "Lord" would return with "ten thousands of His Saints". Do you know what that word "saint" means? Do you "think" those "saints" of old knew what it meant to be a "saint"?

These saints would "return". You see a clear reference to the resurrection of mankind. Or do I need to remind you that God is a God of the LIVING... and NOT THE DEAD.

4. Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

You see a clear reference to the "bruised" servant. This servant would be from the seed of the women. This servant would be "bruised" or suffer at the hands of the "seed" of the serpent.

Does that sound like anything to you?

5. Abel brings an offering to God. God approves of his offering? Where do you think Abel gets that idea from? Did he just pull out of a hat? Or maybe his rearend?

Don't tell me you can't put one and one together. Its an insult to claim what you've claimed about the knowledge of faithful men of yesteryear.





 
[quote author=admin]We understand the nature of covenants better when we study the ANE Suzerain treaties.[/quote]

Kind of like the creation accounts and Noah's flood. ;) :D

 
A Testament is not an agreement, it is a declaration of a Will.

There can be a new Covenant, without the death of the Covenanter.

But....

Heb 9:16-17
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead:otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.


Anishinaabe

 
prophet said:
But....

Heb 9:16-17

You do realize you're trying to draw a distinction without a difference, right? The Greek word diatheke is the ordinary word for "covenant." It's translated both ways.
 
Ransom said:
prophet said:
But....

Heb 9:16-17

You do realize you're trying to draw a distinction without a difference, right? The Greek word diatheke is the ordinary word for "covenant." It's translated both ways.
You got a better idea for dragging this thread out?

Anishinaabe

 
admin said:
christundivided said:
A covenant in which "God Himself" swears by none greater than "Himself".... essentially becomes "what"??? Is it really a "two way street". Now granted.... I'm not saying there are no conditions... but one certainly outweighs the other.

Either way.... There is no difference between the word "covenant" and the word "testament" in the KJV. They have a single source.

I am not sure of the point you and prophet are trying to make.

The idea of a covenant, as far as I have read, is always defined as an agreement. This is not a point of disagreement by both Covenants and Dispensationalists. We understand the nature of covenants better when we study the ANE Suzerain treaties.

Covenants are always expressed as being an agreement "between" and "with."

“I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.” (Ge 9:9–17)

I believe we are talking past one another. I'm speaking more to the authority and power needed to fulfill a covenant.

I'll give my overall view of theology and "covenants".

When God told Abraham....

Gen 22:16  And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD

He was alluding to an eternal covenant made between the "Trinity" before the world was ever formed..... in which "God" purposed to make man in His own image and after His own likeness.

Tit 1:2  In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

This is exactly what Christ was referencing when talked of "the glory" to be found in the God fulfilling His preordained "promise" to Himself... and... mankind.

Joh_17:5  And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

At least that is my penny.... :)






 
christundivided said:
RAIDER said:
This is apparently all that was revealed to Adam about a future redeemer. There is nothing mentioned about a "cross" or a "new birth," all he knew was somebody was promised to come. Anyway, by God's grace Adam now had a hope to look forward to, even though he remained joined to sin and death.

Lies.... Nothing but lies. You can regurgitate words all you want. They are based on half truths and deception.

Why do you refuse to deal with what I have written? Are you having difficulty directly answer questions?

Jud 1:14  And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15  To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

1. Just where do you think Enoch learned of God?

2. Enoch plainly calls this "Redeemer"... "LORD". Do you know what that means? It means more than just "somebody". Its is the very same argument our own Master made in Luke 20:44

Luke 20:44  David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

3. Enoch said that the "Lord" would return with "ten thousands of His Saints". Do you know what that word "saint" means? Do you "think" those "saints" of old knew what it meant to be a "saint"?

These saints would "return". You see a clear reference to the resurrection of mankind. Or do I need to remind you that God is a God of the LIVING... and NOT THE DEAD.

4. Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

You see a clear reference to the "bruised" servant. This servant would be from the seed of the women. This servant would be "bruised" or suffer at the hands of the "seed" of the serpent.

Does that sound like anything to you?

5. Abel brings an offering to God. God approves of his offering? Where do you think Abel gets that idea from? Did he just pull out of a hat? Or maybe his rearend?

Don't tell me you can't put one and one together. Its an insult to claim what you've claimed about the knowledge of faithful men of yesteryear.

I don't think anyone is saying that Christ was not prophesied about in the OT.  No one is saying that God's people were not looking for the Messiah to come.  Enoch spoke of Christ coming with his saints to execute judgment.  The Lord is the Redeemer.  Genesis 3:15 is a great Messianic prophesy.  Able knew to offer a blood sacrifice.

I agree with everything you posted.  Now, back to our discussion of dispensations (which also agrees with everything you posted).
 
Excerpt #5

The Noahic Covenant and The Dispensation of Human Government

When Noah left the ark after the flood, God made His third covenant with man; the Noahic Covenant (Gen. 8:20-9:17). Like the previous this covenant is also unconditional and lasts until the renovation of the earth by fire (2 Pet. 3:10). In many ways God is starting over with man. Having destroyed everyone except Noah and his family because of extreme wickedness, God sought to replenish the earth through Noah because Noah found grace in His eyes (Gen. 6:8). Like the others before, this covenant contains promises TO man and responsibilities required OF man. The promises were:
1. God would not curse the ground anymore or smite every living thing (Gen. 8:20).
2. He would not flood the earth again and destroy it (Gen. 9:11).
3. The seasons and day and night will not cease (Gen. 8:22).
4. He would set the sign of a (rain)bow in the clouds as a token of His covenant (Gen. 9:12).

These promises are valid and continue regardless of man's conduct, but God also had some requirements for man to follow:
 
1. He was to again multiply and replenish the earth (Gen. 9:1,7).
2. They were not to eat blood from any source (Gen. 9:4).
3. They were to exercise capital punishment upon man and beast (Gen. 9:5).

God also made two other statements related to this covenant:

1. Animals would fear and dread man (Gen. 9:2).
2. Animals were now available for food (Gen. 9:3).

Through the great object lesson of the flood, God showed humanity His hatred of sin. Though man often takes sin lightly, God proved He does not and will always ultimately punish iniquity. Also seen in this is God's long-suffering nature. The Lord will sometimes delay punishment to allow space for repentance. This is clear from the grace found in the above promises to Noah. God knows that because of the fall of Adam, every man is born inherently wicked. Because of this He will not smite the earth again in the same manner since He has made His will clearly known about sin with the flood. In the future He will destroy the Antichrist and all his followers at the second advent, but he will not destroy the earth itself until his great scheme of things concerning it is over, and then only with fire.

Much of man's obligations under this covenant are still in effect today and will continue until the elements melt with fervent heat (2 Pet. 3:10). The command against the eating of blood is also found in the New Testament (Acts 15:29) and capital punishment is still God's will even if many today ignore it (Rom. 13:4). Remember, the subject of capital punishment was first brought up by God. There is no record it was ever practiced before God made the command to Noah. It is solely His idea and shows the sanctity of human life and the consequences of taking it with malice. Under the law God gave more details concerning its implementation.
 
RAIDER said:
christundivided said:
RAIDER said:
This is apparently all that was revealed to Adam about a future redeemer. There is nothing mentioned about a "cross" or a "new birth," all he knew was somebody was promised to come. Anyway, by God's grace Adam now had a hope to look forward to, even though he remained joined to sin and death.

Lies.... Nothing but lies. You can regurgitate words all you want. They are based on half truths and deception.

Why do you refuse to deal with what I have written? Are you having difficulty directly answer questions?

Jud 1:14  And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15  To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

1. Just where do you think Enoch learned of God?

2. Enoch plainly calls this "Redeemer"... "LORD". Do you know what that means? It means more than just "somebody". Its is the very same argument our own Master made in Luke 20:44

Luke 20:44  David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

3. Enoch said that the "Lord" would return with "ten thousands of His Saints". Do you know what that word "saint" means? Do you "think" those "saints" of old knew what it meant to be a "saint"?

These saints would "return". You see a clear reference to the resurrection of mankind. Or do I need to remind you that God is a God of the LIVING... and NOT THE DEAD.

4. Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

You see a clear reference to the "bruised" servant. This servant would be from the seed of the women. This servant would be "bruised" or suffer at the hands of the "seed" of the serpent.

Does that sound like anything to you?

5. Abel brings an offering to God. God approves of his offering? Where do you think Abel gets that idea from? Did he just pull out of a hat? Or maybe his rearend?

Don't tell me you can't put one and one together. Its an insult to claim what you've claimed about the knowledge of faithful men of yesteryear.

I don't think anyone is saying that Christ was not prophesied about in the OT.  No one is saying that God's people were not looking for the Messiah to come.  Enoch spoke of Christ coming with his saints to execute judgment.  The Lord is the Redeemer.  Genesis 3:15 is a great Messianic prophesy.  Able knew to offer a blood sacrifice.

I agree with everything you posted.  Now, back to our discussion of dispensations (which also agrees with everything you posted).

No it doesn't. You have never heard one dispensationalist say anything I've said about the Gospel of the Grace of God in the OT. Not one. Prove it buddy.... Post it. Provide evidence. Just don't  regurgitate what your idol has to say about it.
 
Back
Top