On request, Different Gospels -#2.

[Havensdad]

Premillennialism, as well as a belief in a literal Millennial Kingdom (which they did have) lends itself to dispensationalism. You can't have it any other way.

Brother, this is absurd. Historic premillinnialism is HEAVILY covenantal.

 

[Aaron]

I can testify that since I have claimed the promises that dispensational Scofield and Clarence Larkin says I have no right to claim since they are for the Jew my life has been more blessed than when I lived under the deception that I have no right to them.


There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free there is neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.And if ye are Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and HEIRS according to the promise.{Gal 3:28-29}KJB

Dispensationalism says there is a difference and there is a different plan for Jews in the coming tribulation while the church is gone to heaven.No God`s word says different.

In Jesus love.

Steven.

The writings of Paul led me out of not only dispensationalism, but mormonism and charismania.

 

[OldRegular]

Of course it is and it was agreed upon by a convention of churches that are primarily DISPENSATIONALISTS! Good grief, how often does one have to be told before they actaully listen to what others actaully believe and not what that one continues to make up about it in their own mind.

I know and have wondered. I finally came to the conclusion that it must have been Divine intervention that resulted in that statement in the BF&M; particularly since it is contrary to the dispensational definition of the Church.

I did not make up the dispensationalist definition of the Church. I have used quotes from Chafer, Ryrie, and Walvoord for their grossly incorrect definition. If you have a problem with their definition take it up with them; don't make false accusations about me.

You know very well that dispensationalists teach that the church is limited to those saved during the so-called dispensation of grace.

 

[OldRegular]

Brother, this is absurd. Historic premillinnialism is HEAVILY covenantal.

You are correct but apparently the dispensationalists like to claim affinity with covenant premillennialists to lend a little respectability to their doctrine.

 

[OldRegular]

Statement by OldRegular
Furthermore, it is totally contrary to the dispensational view of the church.

Response by Allan
For a person who read as much as you it is amazing that you still don't get it. That is EXACTLY the dispensationists view. They are not 'forever' seperated but in fact all will eventually be One Church body, just not yet.

That is not what Ryrie and Chafer say.

Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ] Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.”

 

[OldRegular]

Posted by OldRegular
I simply quote John F. Walvoord, the preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary.

Response by Allan
Yes, you quote him with seemingly little to no comprehension of what he is actually saying. Again it isn't that they never to be seen as one body in which all the saints of God are united together as one, just not yet. Walvoord states specifically in your quoted portion that he is speaking of 'during the tribulation' and not after the mil-reign.

Frankly I think Walvoord is confused but I could say that about dispensationalism in general.

I do give references to my quotes!

 

[gb93433]

Those who believe we under the dispensation of grace need to be reminded that grace is a big thread that runs throughout all of scripture which includes both the OT and NT.

I wonder which dispensation the intertestamental period represents?

 

[ituttut]

Part 1 due to length

Ituttut: "I believe what makes this so difficult to believe (God telling Paul a secret), is not many will accept, and understand what God Hid. They don't want to believe the revelations that Paul puts before us, for Jesus Christ on earth didn't tell anyone about The Gentile being justified through faith, and the Jew could now come just as the Gentile. No where in Prophecy are we told it is Now the Jew can be saved just as a Gentile; And it is the Gentile, in this dispensation that will Spread the Gospel of The Grace Of God thoughout the Whole World.

Winman: Look up the word church in a concordance. You will see the first two mentions are by Jesus himself.

Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Matt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Jesus was addressing Jews in both these cases.

May I insert just one other verse, it being a continuation to verse 18 above. Matthew 16:19, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This man has the keys to the "kingdom of heaven".

And in Acts;

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Again, these were Jews only.

Winman, I sure can't disagree with scripture you present. We can see here, with scripture of Matthew verse 19 above I added, during those days of the Pentecostal church, Peter really did have the keys to the kingdom. Let's also remember that he that holds the Keys to the Kingdom, had a gospel to preach that we find just ahead of your Acts 2:47, that being Acts:38. I wish you had included verses 37 through 47 to see what those of this Gospel, after becoming part of the church did. What transpired with that church could very well be how "socialism" began, i.e. strip everyone of what they have, making all things common.

Did Jesus mention Jews being saved by faith only? Let's see.

Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man,thy sins are forgiven thee.

Yes, I agree it is by faith, but not of faith only Without the hands of man. Were these not "water baptized", and did they not make blood sacrifice? No. This is not the gospel that Christ Jesus from heaven gave to Paul.

Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. 49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Above will cover, with further observation here.

I believe God is the only one who can forgive sins, in any dispensation, and when He does, it is He that determines What Gospel He will save the sinner by. It is He that will dispense His Gospel of Grace When He will. He will justify man as He sees fit in His dispensations, and in Every one of his dispensations only one (1) thing is required of man. Man is to believe what God tells him, as he lives.

Again, all these verses are spoken to Jews. So not only did Jesus speak of the church, he also showed that a Jew could be saved by faith alone.

Show me one from the very beginning that Blood was not shed for. God did the first sacrifice of an animal for Adam and his wife. But after that we see all, beginning with Cain, and Abel, were to do the work of Blood Sacrifice, and nothing else but a Blood sacrifice be acceptable to God.

Again, in the church you refer to a work must be done by those saved by faith, and that faith was not detached from works. No the works of their hands did not save them, but They Believed God as they Lived, and did What He Required of Them. Please read Hebrews 11 to see all are by faith, but every one of them had to do the work.

So if you understand that this is the church you belong to, were you circumcised on the 8th day; Do you make blood sacrifice, and in repentance were you "water" baptized for the remission of your sins. All these and more are required to be in that Kingdom Church.

I am personally associated, not with Jesus while on this earth (His Word makes no bones about this), but with Him in heaven as He sits on the Right hand of His Father. As I am in the BODY OF CHRIST CHURCH, I find myself to be lined up to the Right of Him, as I stand before God.

 

[ituttut]

Part 2

Winman:
And did Jesus mention the Gentiles before Acts? Let's see.

Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

Jesus said there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth when these Jews found themselves thrust out of the kingdom of God, and then tells them that Gentiles from the east, west, north, and south will sit down in the kingdom of God.

Good try, but no brass ring on this one, as with other attempts to prove Paul wrong.

I pray you will follow me through on this for There is A Kingdom, and There Is A Kingdom. Let's start in verse 24. The Strait Gate is the DOOR to the KINGDOM ON THIS EARTH, so we must carry through Truth, and we are to know with the Truth that the Kingdom of God must enter THE KINGDOM promised BY WAY of this DOOR.

Verse 25, 26, 27 tells us he is going to SHUT THAT DOOR. But it will be too Late for the Door has been shut for Good to those of Israel that are by faith.

Let's now see if we cannot correctly see How God has Divided His Word, and expects us to Study His Word to be approved, bringing it together again. Let's look at Matthew 8:11 in conjunction with your above Luke 13:29. Matthew 8:11, "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

In Luke 13:29 we find the words "And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

Winman I see something is missing, and I know where to find it. Do You See it?

We can see it in Luke 22:29-30 which reads "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30. That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

But as with so many truths hidden from view until after Damascus Road, there is no way that we can understand unless these mysteries are revealed to us. Please witness who it is that tells us of the Body of Christ. It is not found anywhere else. We find in our conversation that we can understand one of the Mysteries of God if we continue to read our Bibles, and come to the Epistles of Paul. Ephesians 5:5, "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."

I understand the Holy Spirit has interpreted the Bible for us, and will reveal His interpretation to us, if we will only let Him.

I see a Kingdom Church, and a Body of Christ Church, of which He is the Head. Those of the Kingdom Church will go through the Tribulation. Those of the Body of Christ Church will not.

 

[gb93433]

Parenthetical theology is no theology. They started with the gap theory and continued with gaps throughout scripture.
Then they divided the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, plus a spurious, mystical secret rapture. Then, they had the nerve to criticize the 7th Day adventists because they made an adjustment when Jesus failed to return at the turn of the last century.

Many dispensationalists today are not old enough to remember that, nor have they studied historical dispensationalism enough to know those facts.

 

[Winman]

ituttut

I don't know if I can answer that, I am not sure I even understand what you are saying for certain.

I believe God is the only one who can forgive sins, in any dispensation, and when He does, it is He that determines What Gospel He will save the sinner by. It is He that will dispense His Gospel of Grace When He will. He will justify man as He sees fit in His dispensations, and in Every one of his dispensations only one (1) thing is required of man. Man is to believe what God tells him, as he lives.

I will say this, your belief is very flexible. It is difficult (actually, impossible) to argue against doctrine that conveniently evolves to suit any argument presented against it.

I perceive you are a dispensationalist. I don't pretend to know everything about this persuasion, and from limited experience I know that there are many various beliefs among dispensationalists.

One thing I have heard that most dispensationalists seem to agree on is that the Jews had to be baptized to be saved and receive the Holy Ghost. But there is scripture contrary to this.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

This was Jesus speaking to Jews only. What dispensation was this? They were still under the law. But notice Jesus tells these Jews that they will receive the Holy Ghost by believeing on him. No mention of baptism whatsoever. And vs. 39 informs us that the only reason those Jews who believed on Jesus at this time had not received the Holy Ghost is because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Now, if the Jews had to be baptized to receive the Holy Ghost, then Jesus left out a mighty important detail, didn't he? Of course, if the Jews only need believe on Jesus to receive the Holy Ghost, then Jesus did not leave out anything.

Decide for yourself.

Now, go to Acts 2

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

How many people were present here? About 120 (Acts 1:15).

How many were baptized? If you are honest you will answer that you do not know. I don't know, and I do not know of any scripture that tells us that these 120 were all baptized. So you cannot assume they were. I am sure many were, and maybe all, but no one knows for sure.

One thing I do know though, these all received the Holy Ghost and baptism is never mentioned.

As for the church, show me even one scripture that distinguishes the church that started here at Pentacost with the Jews from any other church. I can show you scripture that says that they are one.

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

I have to get off the computer soon, so that is enough for now. Post your answer and I will be back soon.

 

[OldRegular]

Those who believe we under the dispensation of grace need to be reminded that grace is a big thread that runs throughout all of scripture which includes both the OT and NT.

As far as the thread of grace throughout all of Scripture W. A. Criswell wrote a treatise on the Scarlet Thread of Redemption [printed in the Open Bible]. Though Criswill was unfortunately a dispensationalist I believe that his Scarlet Thread must presuppose the grace of God throughout all Scripture.

I wonder which dispensation the intertestamental period represents?

Perhaps the dispensation of confusion, or does that describe all of them.

 

[OldRegular]

Many dispensationalists today are not old enough to remember that, nor have they studied historical dispensationalism enough to know those facts.

Sadly the only thing many dispensationalists know about dispensational theology is that the Church will be raptured out and they won't have to face death or the GRRrreat Tribulation.

 

[OldRegular]

Ituttut
Unless i am badly mistaken you have not yet responded to the questions I posed in my posts 48 and 79. I repeat them for your edification with some Scripture to aid you.

Originally Posted by ituttut
I just cannot understand why people will not accept what happened on Damascus Road.

The only thing that happened on the Damascus Road was that Saul who says he was a persecutor of the Church was saved.

1Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

Question #1: Now which church did Saul persecute Ituttut, the Peterine Church or the Pauline Church?

Question #2: By the way Ituttut, why was Saul Baptized?

Acts 9:17, 18
17. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Question #3: What does Paul mean when he writes the following?

2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

You have argued that both repentance and baptism were not a part of your heretical, nonexistent gospel.

 

[Allan]

That is not what Ryrie and Chafer say.

Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ] Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.”

Yes, no problem here.

But what do that state is the dispensational belief 'after the mil-reign'. What you quote refers to what God has done is and is going to be doing up till that point. You never go further, why??? Because we hold they will all become one body, one group, one church - AFTER the Mil-reign.

 

[Allan]

I do give references to my quotes!

I didn't say you hadn't given references. (?)
What's your point.

 

[Allan]

Those who believe we under the dispensation of grace need to be reminded that grace is a big thread that runs throughout all of scripture which includes both the OT and NT.

I wonder which dispensation the intertestamental period represents?

No, even Paul distinguishes it and this time from the others. It run through all of the scriptures of course, but 'now' it is different from all the other times in scripture as it is now in the forefront.

Intertestamental - Law and the Prophets.

 

[Allan]

I know and have wondered. I finally came to the conclusion that it must have been Divine intervention that resulted in that statement in the BF&M; particularly since it is contrary to the dispensational definition of the Church.

See, there you go again, pretending you understand something you are absolutely clueless about. It would be most benifial to you if you just stick to talking about what you believe because you have a hugely limited understanding of what dispensationalists 'actaully' believe. Even when we tell, state it in the BF&M and declare it their theological works on their views of eschetology - you still don't believe it and will not recant what you willingly disbelieve (even when told you are wrong) and then go on to perpetuate those untruths about what we believe.

I did not make up the dispensationalist definition of the Church. I have used quotes from Chafer, Ryrie, and Walvoord for their grossly incorrect definition. If you have a problem with their definition take it up with them; don't make false accusations about me.

I have absolutely no problem with their defination nor the BF&M.
The problem I have is with 'your' inability to acknowledge you absolute incorrectness on the issue. They give a very staunch and biblical definition of the church and it is believed, understood, and agreed upon by those who not only hold the dispensational view but have also studied/s it in depth and still agree. It is you, not them nor I who am wrong about what 'we' believe.

You know very well that dispensationalists teach that the church is limited to those saved during the so-called dispensation of grace.

No one said that is wasn't, in 'this dispensation of grace'. However that does not negate the 'fact' that we also believe 'after' the mil-reign they both will become one - the 'Church'.

 

[gb93433]

Parenthetical theology is no theology. They started with the gap theory and continued with gaps throughout scripture.
Then they divided the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, plus a spurious, mystical secret rapture. Then, they had the nerve to criticize the 7th Day adventists because they made an adjustment when Jesus failed to return at the turn of the last century.

Do you remember how they dealt with the intertestamental period? What dispensation did they name that.

 

[gb93433]

No, even Paul distinguishes it and this time from the others. It run through all of the scriptures of course, but 'now' it is different from all the other times in scripture as it is now in the forefront.

In what way? Jesus did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil. How does that separate the OT grace from NT grace.


Intertestamental - Law and the Prophets.[/quote]That includes about 2/3 of the MT. I am unable to find anywhere among Jewish writings when any of them write about dispensationalism.

Do you have a reference from Irenaeus in regards to dispensationalism?