ARCHIVE: The Twelve Dispensations - By Bob Hill

[drbrumley]

Evangelion,

Oh yeah - and let's get another thing straight. I didn't write a "rant." If anything, that's what you did.

ROFL! You say so.

 

[Evangelion]

Oh, wow. That was a "prayerfully considered post", and no mistake.

 

[drbrumley]

To all who read this thread,

As you can see, Evangelion has been refuted and what does he do? Makes things up. Now Bob is cavier in his theology and says two different things simultaneously. Evan, your grasping for straws mate. If you want to have a healthy debate about what he wrote, thats fine. But if you want to smear the man, this debate is over. Good day.

:down:

 

[Evangelion]

"Cavier"? Do you mean "caviar", perhaps"? (Or "cavalier", which is actually what I'd written...) BTW, just where was I "refuted", pray tell? I had said "Bob wrote (x)." You said "No he didn't, he wrote !" I then pointed out that Bob had written both (x) and - and now you get all sulky!?

Sheesh.

Look, I am not "smearing the man", I am simply pointing to something he wrote, and asking a few questions about it. If you don't want to discuss what he wrote, that's fine. Just skip Mr Hill and his lengthy dissertation, and move on to the Dispy-ism.

 

[drbrumley]

Evangelion,

I had said "Bob wrote (x)."

And x was:

We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with the second covenant God made with Abraham.

You said "No he didn't, he wrote !

And y was:

Abraham was justified by his faith-work of offering up his son. That was God's method of salvation just as circumcision was necessary. The faith-work did not provide the righteousness. Only Jesus Christ's faithfulness could do that. That is shown in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians.

I never denied he said x. But what you seem to fail to realize is y is an explaination of x. (I feel as if I'm in Algebra again)

Then comes this statement from you:

It is one thing to say that man has been required to manifest his faith in different ways. It is quite another thing entirely, to say that God has decided to save man through a variety of methods.

In which the response is:

Dispensationalists do not teach that God had different ways of saving people in different dispensations, and they surely do not teach that God has been experimenting in the various dispensations to see whether man might be able to save himself by one means or another. Man has been called upon to manifest his faith in different ways. Dispensationalists do teach that God did not tell Able, or Noah, or Abram, or Moses, or David to beleive the same message that Paul told the Phillippian jailer:"Beleive on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved." But all these men believed the message that God gave them and they were all saved on the basis of faith.

Please note the Bold sentence.

If you cannot understand that, then I'm sorry and lets move on.

If anyone looking at this thread other than myself and Evangelion understands this or not, feel free to join in and give your take on it.

 

[Evangelion]

OK, now I see where you're coming from - and I apologise for the misunderstanding. It's just that Bob is (a) explaining himself poorly, in what I consider to be an extremely clumsy fashion, and (b) making this entire thing far more complicated than it really needs to be, IMHO. Dispensationalism seems to consist of a "gnats and camels" approach to Scripture, combined with a loose assortment of personal assumptions.

And there's still that question about circumcision being necessary for salvation...

 

[drbrumley]

Evangelion,

Glad we can get past Bob's lack of prensentation (in your opinion) and move on.

And there's still that question about circumcision being necessary for salvation

You have the honor of starting this. What are your concerns or objections to this?

 

[Evangelion]

drbrumley -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there's still that question about circumcision being necessary for salvation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You have the honor of starting this. What are your concerns or objections to this?

It is fundamentally unsound. Try saying "Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation" to yourself ten times, and wait for the logic to sink in.

Then you'll see where I'm coming from.

 

[drbrumley]

Evangelion,

It is fundamentally unsound

I would like to hear the reasons why?

Try saying "Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation" to yourself ten times, and wait for the logic to sink in.

LOL! If we as christians have to do that to determine doctrine, we are in trouble.

 

[drbrumley]

Wait, I'll try it.

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

Hmmmmmmm, was something supposed to happen?

 

[Evangelion]

drbrumley -

Evangelion,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is fundamentally unsound
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I would like to hear the reasons why?

Oh, come on - you should know the answer to this one! Think about it, please!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try saying "Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation" to yourself ten times, and wait for the logic to sink in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LOL! If we as christians have to do that to determine doctrine, we are in trouble.

Well, we don't really have to do that to determine doctrine. But some Christians have to do it before their ability to think logically kicks in.

 

[Evangelion]

drbrumley -

Wait, I'll try it.

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

"Under the law of Moses, circumcision was necessary for salvation"

Hmmmmmmm, was something supposed to happen?

Did I say ten?

I meant twenty.

 

[drbrumley]

ROFL!

 

[Evangelion]

OK, so this is the part where I ask you to prove (from Scripture) that circumcision was necessary for salvation under the Law of Moses.

Oh, and I also need you to explain how this was applied to the nation of Israel as a whole.

(Sheesh, that was a pretty big hint. I think he'll get it this time. At least, I hope he will.)

 

[drbrumley]

Evangelion,

Be glad to provide scripture, but first thing first.

I asked you first as to why. Instead of clever and rather humorous responses, give a detailed presentation. I know you can do it.

 

[Evangelion]

drbrumley -

I asked you first as to why.

For the sake of maintaining mutual respect, I'll pretend I didn't hear that.

Instead of clever and rather humorous responses, give a detailed presentation.

I'd rather watch you use your brain. (I know you can do it.)

I know you can do it.

Thanks for believing in me... :kiss:

 

[drbrumley]

A skilled debater you are.

Sits and waits for a mistake and if one doesnt present itself, make one up. Your good. Puts your combatant on the defensive.

But what i said still stands give your reasons first as to why circumsion to be saved is Unsound

 

[Evangelion]

drbrumley -

A skilled debater you are.

Thankyou.

Sits and waits for a mistake

...and nails it immediately when it appears.

and if one doesnt present itself, make one up.

Nope. You've made a genuine mistake, and I'm waiting for you to realise it.

Your good.

Thanks again. :up:

Puts your combatant on the defensive.

Which is exactly where I want you.

But what i said still stands give your reasons first as to why circumsion to be saved is Unsound

I refuse to do so - for two reasons:

• I asked you first.
  
• I can see that you don't understand the principle behind circumcision, which leads me to believe that you've never actually studied the Law of Moses yourself.

Now, you say that circumcision was necessary for salvation under the Law of Moses. But why do you say this? Is it because you've personally studied the Law of Moses, and realised that this is what it is saying? Or is it because Bob Hill has said this, and you're happy to take his word for it?

Thus far, you have given me every reason to believe the latter, and absolutely no reason to believe the former.

 

[drbrumley]

Evangelion,

I refuse to do so - for two reasons: I asked first

Geez! Do I need to point this whole dialogue on circumsion?

First there was the dialogue of your "Bob doesn't present this very well" opinion.

Then comes this:

PS. Bob appears to imply (if not assert), that circumcision was necessary for salvation. I hope he realises that this is totally false.

Thats called a statement. Not a question.

And there's still that question about circumcision being necessary for salvation

In which I replied:

You have the honor of starting this. What are your concerns or objections to this?

In which you replied:

It is fundamentally unsound.

And then I asked:

I would like to hear the reasons why?

Now with that exchange, you have already admitted that I asked first because you answered.

So please, give your presentation. I will gladly read it and make a rebuttal if I disagree. It's simple as that.

And now this wonderful statement:

I can see that you don't understand the principle behind circumcision, which leads me to believe that you've never actually studied the Law of Moses yourself.

That has yet to be determined. Assuming isnt very noble of you.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You go drbrumley :up: