That's it! I'm finished. You and I don't speak the same language.
If we continue, you will become an enemy which I do not want. I won't be responding to your posts any longer. Don't force me to put you on ignore.
ECT The Gospel Proper
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
- Status
That's it! I'm finished. You and I don't speak the same language.
If we continue, you will become an enemy which I do not want. I won't be responding to your posts any longer. Don't force me to put you on ignore.
Was Eliezer the steward of Abram's whole household?
Rosenritter
New member
Steko seems to understand.
Rosenritter
New member
I think that's a fair assumption:
Genesis 15:2-4 KJV
(2) And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
(3) And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
(4) And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
I would love to hear where this is going (no sarcasm).
Well, thanks, however I don't think that you and I have come to full meeting of the minds on these points.
I'm more in harmony with Clete on most matters....and I share Clete's frustration at trying my best to be understood... and not.
I usually just walk away quietly and sometimes pick it up again later if I'm inclined to.
Well, I'm feeling bad that I've contributed to derailing Clete's thread at this point... though what I have posted is related to the differences in understanding these basic truths.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Okay, since there seems to be a lul in the thread.
The word 'steward' in that verse in the LXX Greek is 'oikogenous' which is literally 'born in house', however it is generally understood along with 'ebed/servant' to be referring to Eliezer's role as 'house manager'.
Likewise, Joseph had a 'steward' in Egypt Gen_43:19 and Christ speaks of 'stewards/oikonomos' and 'stewardships/oikonomia' in various places.
Luk_12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward[oikonomos], whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
Luk_16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward[oikonomos]; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Luk_16:2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship[oikonomia]; for thou mayest be no longer steward[oikonomos].
Paul:
Tit_1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward[oikonomos] of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
1Co_9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation[oikonomia] of the gospel is committed unto me.
Eph_3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation[oikonomia] of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Col_1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation[oikonomia] of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
Paul uses the term 'dispensation/oikonomia/house law' to describe his unique ministry to the nations, as revealed to him directly from heaven by the ascended and glorified Lord Jesus.
Therefore, the concept of 'dispensation' exists throughout the Bible and is especially used by the Apostle Paul to describe his unique ministry to the nations.
Us 'dispensationalists' agree with Paul and 'dispensationalism' is at least as old as Paul... if not Eliezer.
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Because you are unable to understand the Gospel preached by Jesus and the twelve is not the Gospel Paul was sent to preach, you manage to miss what is so obvious to the rest of us.
Like those little words "A" and "BOTH" in the yellow above. It is not the same Gospel no matter how hard to try to convince otherwise.
Just work on reading all of what is written before you try to respond, and you should do better.
You remind me of the city fella that came out to the ranch and wanted to see a "filly", and all he saw was horses everywhere. :chuckle:
You words, while dead on correct, will have no efffect.
He has redefined to the word gospel to mean what he needs it to mean in order to maintain his doctrine. I've tried till i'm blue in the face. It's hopeless.
Wow! Lots packed into a quite brief post. Excellent post.
It wasn't you who derailed it. It doesn't matter anyway. Threads always seem to take on a life of their own.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I know....you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
But with so much equivocation, it's more like:
"You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead."- Stan Laurel
I'm not talking about the doctrine. I'm talking about the idea, the concept, of recognizing different eras in history where God did different things.
Dividing up history in the correct places makes it easier to understand the relevant portions of the piece you're trying to study.
For example, if you want to learn about WW2, you don't start in 1917 near the end of WW1, nor would you start halfway through 1942, but you might appropriately start (if you want to get an idea of the events leading up to WW2) after WW1 ended in 1918. This is rightly dividing.
In the same way, if you want to learn about different periods in the Bible you don't start halfway into Matthew or 50 chapters into Psalms, you start by getting an overview of the Bible, seeing where everything is, and then you can focus on certain portions by discerning where those portions begin and end.
As far as Mid-Acts Dispensationalism goes, I don't know of any scripture that is even twisted to say something other than what it plainly says, let alone rejected.
Perhaps instead of making accusations like that without any supporting evidence, you should provide examples of scripture that you think that dispensationalists (specifically, MADs) reject because they supposedly "contradict the core concepts).
musterion
Well-known member
No. It was conditional upon recognizing Him as Messiah.
That is a commonly believed lie. No one knew nor expected Him to rise from the dead, not even the disciples, until it had happened. So no one had faith in the fact of His resurrection before it happened, nor was it expected of them. It is part of the mystery gospel of grace TODAY but it was not required as a component of faith prior to the cross nor for a good stretch afterwards into the book of Acts. The fact that He DID rise again was stated plainly but that's different from how Paul preached it.
But clearly you listen to nothing people try to tell you.
musterion
Well-known member
Maybe he'll tell us how faith in the resurrection of Christ was a vital component of salvation even before He died, when no one was expecting it to happen. Maybe he'll provide evidence for that. I expect he'll try to change the subject instead, but you never know.
- Status