Dispensationalism

[ituttut]

Originally posted by OldRegular:

Originally posted by ituttut:
[qb]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
[qb]

Originally posted by ituttut:

[qb] Again ituttut you show your inability to understand what you read. You accuse me of stating that the Church was not the Body of Jesus Christ yet you still cannot show where I stated such.

I really don’t relish pointing these things out to you, but here Quoting from your Post of July 19, 2005, 04:16PM “Your posts above are essentially nonsense. Form what little is understandable you appear to assert that the Body of Jesus Christ is the Church and that the Bride of Jesus Christ is Israel. If that it is your contention it is totally false."

In fact in my post of uly 21, 2005 11:18 PM I quoted the Baptist Faith and Message: “The New Testament speaks also of the Church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

But you evidently didn’t believe that on July 19, for you said it was totally false. And I informed you I do not agree with the Baptist Faith and Message on this particular issue, for scripture before Damascus Road will not support this contention. Please give me proof that the Body of Christ was known back all through the ages. It could not be known in the Old Testament for they did not know His name, therefore it is an impossibility. It needs more clarification, for it is not the same foundation as that church in the wilderness.

You also invent out of whole cloth the statement you attribute to me

You at first say Jesus Christ is not One with the Church, then you say Paul is after all saying the Church is One with Christ.

Again ituttut you show your inability to understand what you read. In fact your thought process appears to be irrational.

Again look at your Quote above and you say Christ is not the Church (but now you do say that), which means you at that time didn’t believe He was the Church, making us One with Him. You then Quoted Paul showing the Church Is One with Christ, which counteracted your previous observation. I only used your words as you said them Old Regular. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

[OldRegular]

On July 11, 2005 03:46 AM ituttut posted the following:

Who looked forward to salvation by faith, and who is immediately saved through faith? No one knew this until it showed up in the doctrine of the Christian, and Christianity came by CHRIST JESUS REVEALING HIS DOCTRINE TO PAUL.

This statement is not in accord with Scripture making Salvation dependent, not on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but on the call of the Apostle Paul. I responded in a post dated July 11, 2005 08:58 AM, as follows:

I had promised not to respond to dispensationalist error, hyper or not. However, the above statement is so patently false I will simply Let Scripture respond:

Genesis 15: 6 And he [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Jonah 3:5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

John 3:16-19
16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 4:39-42
39. And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
40. So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
41. And many more believed because of his own word;
42. And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Matthew 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Acts 4:4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

It appears to me that the above Scripture show that the doctrine of hyper-diapensationalist ituttut is indeed false.


Later in response to a lengthy posts by ituttut, dated July 18, 2005 12:23 AM and July 19, 2005 04:56 AM, I responded with the following, posted July 19, 2005 04:16 PM:

ituttut

Your posts above are essentially nonsense. From what little is understandable you appear to assert that the Body of Jesus Christ is the Church and that the Bride of Jesus Christ is Israel. If that it is your contention it is totally false.

In 2 Corinthians11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. Paul is obviously talking about the Church as the Bride of Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 5 Paul talks about the Church as the Bride of Jesus Christ.

Now it appeared to me that ituttut was arguing that

The Body of Jesus Christ is the Church and that the Bride of Jesus Christ is Israel.

.

It is quite possible that I misunderstood what he was trying to say. However, I responded that if that were his contention it was totally false and quoted a Scripture identifying the church as the Bride of Jesus Christ. Nowhere did I indicate that the Church is not also called the Body of Jesus Christ.

ituttut responded with the following post on July 21, 2005 06:18 PM:

Originally posted by OldRegular:

Your posts above are essentially nonsense. Form what little is understandable you appear to assert that the Body of Jesus Christ is the Church and that the Bride of Jesus Christ is Israel. If that it is your contention it is totally false.

Response posted by ituttut:
Peter tells us Paul is hard to understand, so all I suggest is all should pay heed to Peter. Why don’t you try reading, and understanding Ephesians 3? You either agree with what Christ Jesus told Paul from heaven, or you believe someone else, and from what you write you do not believe Christ Jesus has He sits next to His Father in heaven.

If you are not in the Body of Christ, then just whose church are you in. You evidently believe the Baptist church is going to save you.

Originally posted by OldRegular:
In 2 Corinthians11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. Paul is obviously talking about the Church as the Bride of Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 5 Paul talks about the Church as the Bride of Jesus Christ.

Response posted by ituttut:
I don’t believe you quite understand what you are saying. In your first paragraph you deny we are in the Body of Christ. Now here you are saying the Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ?

Which is it? I explained to you in my previous post that we inherit Christ Jesus, and are connected to Him NOW, in the Spirit, not what you are contending is in prophecy as revealed in Revelation.

In his response ituttut states that I “deny we are in the Body of Christ.” My eyes are not what they once were but I fail to see where I made such a statement. But then ituttut is a hyper-dispensationalist and believes that Christianity started with Paul;

Initial statement by ituttut: No one knew this until it showed up in the doctrine of the Christian, and Christianity came by CHRIST JESUS REVEALING HIS DOCTRINE TO PAUL.

To allay ituttut’s misconception about my beliefs related to the Church and the Body of Jesus Christ i quoted on July 21, 2005 11:18 PM the statement from the Baptist Faith and Message

The Southern Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 writes of the Church in Section VI as follows: “The New Testament speaks also of the Church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Fast forward to July 23, 2005 02:07 AM:

Originally posted by ituttut:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:

Originally posted by ituttut:
[qb]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
[qb]

Originally posted by ituttut:

[qb] Again ituttut you show your inability to understand what you read. You accuse me of stating that the Church was not the Body of Jesus Christ yet you still cannot show where I stated such.

I really don’t relish pointing these things out to you, but here Quoting from your Post of July 19, 2005, 04:16PM “Your posts above are essentially nonsense. Form what little is understandable you appear to assert that the Body of Jesus Christ is the Church and that the Bride of Jesus Christ is Israel. If that it is your contention it is totally false."

In fact in my post of July 21, 2005 11:18 PM I quoted the Baptist Faith and Message: “The New Testament speaks also of the Church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

But you evidently didn’t believe that on July 19, for you said it was totally false. And I informed you I do not agree with the Baptist Faith and Message on this particular issue, for scripture before Damascus Road will not support this contention. Please give me proof that the Body of Christ was known back all through the ages. It could not be known in the Old Testament for they did not know His name, therefore it is an impossibility. It needs more clarification, for it is not the same foundation as that church in the wilderness.

You also invent out of whole cloth the statement you attribute to me

You at first say Jesus Christ is not One with the Church, then you say Paul is after all saying the Church is One with Christ.

Again ituttut you show your inability to understand what you read. In fact your thought process appears to be irrational.

Again look at your Quote above and you say Christ is not the Church (but now you do say that), which means you at that time didn’t believe He was the Church, making us One with Him. You then Quoted Paul showing the Church Is One with Christ, which counteracted your previous observation. I only used your words as you said them Old Regular. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

</font>

Does anyone understand what ituttut is trying to prove? I sure don't other than he has mistated my position on a number of occasions. I believe I have shown that.

He appears to be claiming that Christ is the Church in the above post. I thought that all who had been redeemed by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ constituted the Church, consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

I read this thread debate lately. It debates about 'the body of Christ' & 'the bride of Christ'.

Actually, both are no difference, both are synonymous meaning.

Revelation 21:9 declares, New Jerusalem is Christ's bride. Whose are dwelling New Jerusalem? All ages of believers either Jew or Gentile through Jesus Christ.

Right now, we are under the new covenant because of Calvary's result. During Old Testament time, Gentiles were strangers and separated from commonwealth of Isreal. But NOW, Gentiles are join with Jews together as reconciled through Calvary by Christ's blood.

During Lord's supper in the upper room. Christ told His disciples, about the wine, He told them, this is the new covenent, that he made covenant with many - Mark 14:24. Through His blood of Calvary.

All nations, all races are forgived through His own blood(new covenant), now all are unity together into one which is Christ's body or bride as church.

Most of pretribs, premills are depends on dispensationalism. Some posttribs are dispensationalism.

The most major reason, why they teaching 'dispensationalism', because of the issue on distinction(seperate) between Israel and Church, deals with millennial issue.

Many things I do agree with Paul33, what he saying as he interpreting Scriptures. I know he is premill. I am amill. Myself was premill before for a long time.

OldRegular explains the scriptures very clear, I agree with him. He understands the purpose of Calvary and the new covenant.

I think many dispensationalists seem do not actual understand clear enough what the New Testament teaching on the new covenant, and what Calvary is all about.

The mainly reason is, pretribs deny Rev. 13:7, 10- 'saints' is Church. Because, Rev. 13:7-18 warning us very clear that the persecutions shall hit Church hard before Christ comes. Many Christians dislike hear what the truths of the Bible saying. Instead they rather having their own itching ears want to hear pastors preaching positives. Like as they love to hear word, 'rapture' or 'escape from the coming persecution'. That is kind of itching ears today.

Cannot you see history of Chruch showing us so overwhelming, that millions of Christians were persecuting and killed throughout centuries, even they are still persecuting today?

There is no promise in the Bible telling us that we shall persecute from tribulations, persecutions. Why shall we suffering tribulations and persecutions? Because John 16:33 tells us, that we must have tribulations, and we should be cheerful, because Christ already victory over them(through Calvary). So, therefore, we should follow Christ's example - 1 Peter 2:21.

I consider, dispensationalism is a man-mading teachings, instead what the Bible actual saying.

By the way. Sorry I didn't discuss on 4 verses of word,'dispensation'. Ed Edwards already showed 4 verses in the post recently. Later, I will explain the defintion of 'dispensation' with 4 verses, what Apostle Paul actual talking about.

Also, I was supposed to discuss on verses on the comparing of 'this age' & 'age to come'. Sorry, I didn't doing it. I hope I will discuss on them next week with verses.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by UZThD:

Originally posted by ituttut:
[qb]

Originally posted by UZThD:
[qb]

Originally posted by ituttut:


(Snipped)

Hi IT:

My concern in posting now is not dispensationalism ! My only concern is the determination of the difference in Pauline usage between prepositions. And while those 5 exegetes I referenced opined on that difference or lack of it, they did not exemplify for me in Paul's writings the cause for their convictions. So, I read some texts on my own in the Greek. I believe Paul NOT commentators or establishers of belief systems even if they are not of the masses.

It seems to me that if we wish to see what Paul in Rom 3:30 sigifies, if anything, by using both dia and ek, we should look at how he elsewhere uses those same prepositions with that same noun!

Thanks, UZThd, but I don’t believe I can leave dispensations out for “through” is at the heart of Paul’s gospel. This is not to ignore your request, or endeavor to force it upon you, but for me it is built into your question. You had to ask didn’t you?

In all of these verses the object of the preposition is pisteos (long o--"faith"). However , the preposition is sometimes dia and at other times ek. As you know, in Rom 3:30 Paul uses both prepositions each of which has as its object pisteos --although in one usage the noun is articulated and in the other it is not! What that may signify may be of interest! Perhaps you'll be kind enough to share with me your view as to why one pisteos is articulated but other is not?

While I looked at other texts besides Pauline, I'll limit the sample to Paul. So in the Greek (as neither do I put my entire trust in translators! I never could understand why anyone who wishes to grasp Pauline thought and who, like me, deems Paul so important, would be content to attempt that in English instead of the language in which Paul actually wrote--don't you agree??) ) So, I looked at:

Gal 3:8 ; 3:11 ; 3:24; 3:26 Eph 3:17 ;Phil 3:9; Rom 1:17 ; 3:22 ;3:25; 4:16 ; 9:32; and, 2 Cor 5:7 .

Again, understand that in some of these the Greek is ek pisteos and in others the Greek is dia pisteos. SAME noun! Yet at first glance, the two prepositions appear to be used by Paul in these texts interchangeably with NO difference at all in the meaning!

Would you please, therefore, as you have time, look at the Greek in those texts and tell me if you agree that Paul in them uses the two prepositions with the same meaning?

I am not a linguist, translator, student of the languages, or anything close to an expert on the Parts of Speech.

I approach this question from the standpoint of understanding His Word. By this I mean we know it is first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile, as well as the way to God for the flesh will of necessity need to be of a Jew, that being the Only Begotten Son of God, Jesus the Christ.

This may not make any sense to you but to me it is clarification, telling me why Paul used the prepositions as he did for positional purposes.

To illustrate we can use a “pipeline” as the way to God’s plan that He made known to man. This one and only “pipeline” (or perhaps ladder) named the Jewish Pipeline of God and it is by this pipeline that the Jew is to come. Can the Gentile come as the Jew by the gospel of the Law and the Prophets that was until John the Baptist (and after) preaching to all those of Jacob (Israel)that “the kingdom is at hand”? Yes, but they cannot come on their own for there has not yet been a way set for them to come to God other than by becoming a proselyte to the Jewish religion.

As such these Gentiles are allowed into heaven, where there positions will be as servants, and at the mercy of the Jew forever, seeking their favor – Zechariah 8:23. The Gentile that can be saved in this manner byfaith will not be allowed into the inner court of the Temple – Revelation 11:2. So we know we are back into prophecy in the book of Revelation (no longer in this hidden age of today) for we see God is again dealing with His people, and the heathen for they are not allowed into the Temple, as they are not the Temple people.

So now we must find the reason for Saul/Paul. Why did Christ choose this worst of sinners that had killed, beaten, and jailed those of the Jewish Pentecostal church? Since Christ’s own people rejected their King, their Messiah, God did what he had planned from the beginning. He told this heavenly appointed Apostle Paul the “secret”, this gospel to save All, which He (God) had hidden from man since the beginning, I Corinthians 2:7-8. Christ Jesus on Damascus Road set in motion the gospel that He gave to Paul, and that gospel is to the Gentile, and to the Jew also. This is the Christian gospel that puts us into the Body of Christ, and it is Spiritual not needing that earthly ”pipeline” to the “kingdom that was at hand” on the earth. It is a New gospel, a heavenly gospel, a faith that all today can come throughfor there is no “pipeline” today called the Jewish “pipeline” to God’s kingdom to come. That will come later.

So we come “through” the faith of Jesus Christ, at the bloody Cross, dying there with Him where all our sins are dead along with the law. As we were buried with Him, it is through Him, and His shed blood that we will be raised at the rapture, by Him. So being raised by Him we know this conforms to that in the first paragraph above of coming to our Lord Jesus Christ, by a Jew, through His gospel from heaven given to His One Apostle to the Gentile, and the Jew, in this dispensation that He had hidden from man since the beginning.

Then for those left it on earth after the rapture it is back to the “pipeline” by which one will enter into the promised kingdom on this earth.

I’m sorry I couldn’t make it shorter, or prove linguistically, for I don’t see how that is possible. I believe the Bible is of the Holy Spirit, and not man. Perhaps God has plans for you to enlighten further, and if so, I believe it will be He that informs you as you pray for guidance as you translate the Word of God.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
1Co 9:17 For if I doe this thing willingly, I haue a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the Gospel is committed vnto me.

Eph 3:2 If ye haue heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is giuen me to youward:

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulnesse of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heauen, and which are on earth, euen in him:

1Co 9:17 For if I doe this thing willingly, I haue a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the Gospel is committed vnto me.

All of these are:

----------------
G3622
οἰκονομία
oikonomia
oy-kon-om-ee'-ah
From G3623; administration (of a household or estate); specifically a (religious) “economy”: - dispensation, stewardship.
----------------

oikonomia is the word from which we get
our word ECONOMY.

In God's economy (where the temporal
can be seen as eternal): the lame walk,
the poor are rich, the first are last,
the last are first,
the blind see, and the stupid are Einstin

Dispensation(s) are just part of the
Gospel of Jesus, the Christ, as defined in
God's Holy Bible.

To a man of understanding, and a man that has entered into the Body of Christ by the Grace of God through faith of His Savior. Christian faith, ituttut

 

[robycop3]

There were two dispensations...Before Christ's resurrection, and after. In the first, people offered living things they owned which were killed by the priests & their blood shed, according to the instructions God gave to Moses. All those animals, the methods & circumstances of their killings & disposal of their various parts, the objects within the Tabernacle & later the temple, all pointed to JESUS. Jesus' sacrifice of Himself was the ULTIMATE sacrifice...GOD, suffering and dying for those whom He had created, thus fulfilling all the laws of sacrifice PERFECTLY,once and for all. After HIS sacrifice, there remained no other sacrifices to be made. After His resurrection, the NEW dispensation was salvation by believing in Jesus as Lord and savior, believing He died for our sins and rose from the dead the 3rd day after His death, and obeying Him.

The first dispensation ended with Jesus and was ended BY Jesus. During his earthly lifetime Jesus followed the rules of the first dispensation, but after His resurrection, His command was, "Believe in Me, follow My example, proclaim My gospel everywhere." We are under THAT dispensation.

While speaking of dispensations...J.N.Darby started a FALSE DOCTRINE...the "seven church ages" myth...within his dispensationalist theory. This false doctrine was spread in the USA & Canada by one William Branham(1909-1965). Why is it false? it has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, and is shown false by secular history as well. For example, its "Philadelphian" period(1820-1900), when the church was supposed to be at its purest, saw the founding of several cults(Millerites, 7th Day Adlibbers, Mor"m"ons, Jehovah False Witlesses, to name a few. It saw the American Civil war, the Crimean War, the mexican War, The Spanish-American war, the systematic attempts to destroy the American Indian by bullet, alcohol & disease, and the births of most of the most notorious figures of WW2. It saw the most corrupt period in American history, the Reconstruction Era. It saw Mexico wracked by constant turmoil. This was perhaps the most decadent period in the history of the world since before the Flood...and some dare say the church was at its purest? Yeah, right........

Anyone believing that false doctrine had best chuck it ASAP.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by ituttut:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UZThD:

Originally posted by ituttut:
[qb]

Originally posted by UZThD:
[qb]

Originally posted by ituttut:


(Snipped)

Hi IT:

My concern in posting now is not dispensationalism ! My only concern is the determination of the difference in Pauline usage between prepositions. And while those 5 exegetes I referenced opined on that difference or lack of it, they did not exemplify for me in Paul's writings the cause for their convictions. So, I read some texts on my own in the Greek. I believe Paul NOT commentators or establishers of belief systems even if they are not of the masses.

It seems to me that if we wish to see what Paul in Rom 3:30 sigifies, if anything, by using both dia and ek, we should look at how he elsewhere uses those same prepositions with that same noun!

Thanks, UZThd, but I don’t believe I can leave dispensations out for “through” is at the heart of Paul’s gospel. This is not to ignore your request, or endeavor to force it upon you, but for me it is built into your question. You had to ask didn’t you?

In all of these verses the object of the preposition is pisteos (long o--"faith"). However , the preposition is sometimes dia and at other times ek. As you know, in Rom 3:30 Paul uses both prepositions each of which has as its object pisteos --although in one usage the noun is articulated and in the other it is not! What that may signify may be of interest! Perhaps you'll be kind enough to share with me your view as to why one pisteos is articulated but other is not?

While I looked at other texts besides Pauline, I'll limit the sample to Paul. So in the Greek (as neither do I put my entire trust in translators! I never could understand why anyone who wishes to grasp Pauline thought and who, like me, deems Paul so important, would be content to attempt that in English instead of the language in which Paul actually wrote--don't you agree??) ) So, I looked at:

Gal 3:8 ; 3:11 ; 3:24; 3:26 Eph 3:17 ;Phil 3:9; Rom 1:17 ; 3:22 ;3:25; 4:16 ; 9:32; and, 2 Cor 5:7 .

Again, understand that in some of these the Greek is ek pisteos and in others the Greek is dia pisteos. SAME noun! Yet at first glance, the two prepositions appear to be used by Paul in these texts interchangeably with NO difference at all in the meaning!

Would you please, therefore, as you have time, look at the Greek in those texts and tell me if you agree that Paul in them uses the two prepositions with the same meaning?

I am not a linguist, translator, student of the languages, or anything close to an expert on the Parts of Speech.

I approach this question from the standpoint of understanding His Word. By this I mean we know it is first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile, as well as the way to God for the flesh will of necessity need to be of a Jew, that being the Only Begotten Son of God, Jesus the Christ.

This may not make any sense to you but to me it is clarification, telling me why Paul used the prepositions as he did for positional purposes.

To illustrate we can use a “pipeline” as the way to God’s plan that He made known to man. This one and only “pipeline” (or perhaps ladder) named the Jewish Pipeline of God and it is by this pipeline that the Jew is to come. Can the Gentile come as the Jew by the gospel of the Law and the Prophets that was until John the Baptist (and after) preaching to all those of Jacob (Israel)that “the kingdom is at hand”? Yes, but they cannot come on their own for there has not yet been a way set for them to come to God other than by becoming a proselyte to the Jewish religion.

As such these Gentiles are allowed into heaven, where there positions will be as servants, and at the mercy of the Jew forever, seeking their favor – Zechariah 8:23. The Gentile that can be saved in this manner byfaith will not be allowed into the inner court of the Temple – Revelation 11:2. So we know we are back into prophecy in the book of Revelation (no longer in this hidden age of today) for we see God is again dealing with His people, and the heathen for they are not allowed into the Temple, as they are not the Temple people.

So now we must find the reason for Saul/Paul. Why did Christ choose this worst of sinners that had killed, beaten, and jailed those of the Jewish Pentecostal church? Since Christ’s own people rejected their King, their Messiah, God did what he had planned from the beginning. He told this heavenly appointed Apostle Paul the “secret”, this gospel to save All, which He (God) had hidden from man since the beginning, I Corinthians 2:7-8. Christ Jesus on Damascus Road set in motion the gospel that He gave to Paul, and that gospel is to the Gentile, and to the Jew also. This is the Christian gospel that puts us into the Body of Christ, and it is Spiritual not needing that earthly ”pipeline” to the “kingdom that was at hand” on the earth. It is a New gospel, a heavenly gospel, a faith that all today can come throughfor there is no “pipeline” today called the Jewish “pipeline” to God’s kingdom to come. That will come later.

So we come “through” the faith of Jesus Christ, at the bloody Cross, dying there with Him where all our sins are dead along with the law. As we were buried with Him, it is through Him, and His shed blood that we will be raised at the rapture, by Him. So being raised by Him we know this conforms to that in the first paragraph above of coming to our Lord Jesus Christ, by a Jew, through His gospel from heaven given to His One Apostle to the Gentile, and the Jew, in this dispensation that He had hidden from man since the beginning.

Then for those left it on earth after the rapture it is back to the “pipeline” by which one will enter into the promised kingdom on this earth.

I’m sorry I couldn’t make it shorter, or prove linguistically, for I don’t see how that is possible. I believe the Bible is of the Holy Spirit, and not man. Perhaps God has plans for you to enlighten further, and if so, I believe it will be He that informs you as you pray for guidance as you translate the Word of God.

Christian faith, ituttut

</font>

===


Hi It:

Neither am I a linguist. Neither would I insist that God's plan of salvation or 90% of His edifying guidance in Scripture in English, requires one to have some understanding of the Biblical languages. But IMO when important, divergent, and dogmatic statements are made about a particular text as Rom 3:30, these claims need to be evaluated by taking a look at the original language. I think Christ, His Church, and Paul deserve that.

I had guessed, wrongly it appears, that since you provided a Scripture for my purview wherein each English word was given a number which I suppose connects to Strong's (?) very incomplete at times explanations of Greek words, that you saw some need to grasp the Greek meaning behind the English. I'm sure that you know that Strong and all lexicons determine the meaning of words by how those words are used .

It follows that if Paul in Rom 3:30 writes...

"ek pisteos...dia pisteos"

..that his meaning by connecting those two prepositions to 'faith' should be determined by how that same Paul elsewhere connects those same prepositions to that same noun-'faith,' and not , IMO, by forcing the text through a system of belief or by analogies like "pipelines."My little study referenced above leads me to think that you are off base in saying what you do about ek and dia pisteos.

I will try to let the inspired apostle show me what his usages of prepositions signify in Rom 3:30 by his usages elsewhere not by my preconceived notions or metaphors. That doesn't make me infallible on this grammaticism. It just makes me feel that I have done what I should to understand!

I need to remember that it is Paul who wrote dia revelation , or was it ek revelation (?) and not not me.

I wish you , sincerely, God's best,

Signing off this thread , I think, as IMO all the long windedness by me or others will in the end convince no one.

Bill G.

[ July 24, 2005, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[OldRegular]

Study of the Bible will reveal that God, in His self revelation has, in general, dealt with man through a covenant relationship. This is the basic premise of Covenant theology. These covenants are unilaterally imposed with the terms dictated by God. The covenants in general consist of one or more commands coupled with a promise or promises for obedience. Covenant theology teaches that there are two basic covenants: 1] the Covenant of Works which defines the relationship between Adam and God prior to the fall and 2] the Covenant of Grace through which God works out His promise of redemption after the fall. That grace is manifest in this promise of redemption is evident; the continuing revelation of God shows that this promise to fallen man is fulfilled in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. In general, covenant theology teaches that all successive covenants are subsidiary to this Covenant of Grace. Although the Covenant of Works preceded the Covenant of Grace in time, the Covenant of Grace is an eternal covenant, since Scripture teaches that those who would be redeemed, the elect, were chosen before the foundation of the world [Ephesians 1:3-6] and that the promised Redeemer [Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God] was slain from the foundation of the world [Hebrews 9:26, 1 Peter 1:20, Revelation 13:8].

The Covenant of Grace constitutes the basis for the salvation of the elect of God through Jesus Christ, the mediator of the Covenant, the only mediator between God and man [1 Timothy 2:5]. The Covenant of Grace is perhaps best understood as an eternal covenant between the members of the Godhead which includes the following elements[9]:

1. God the Father chose a people to be His own;
2. God the Son agrees to pay the penalty for the sins of all those the Father gives Him so that none are lost; and
3. God the Holy Spirit agrees to apply the work of the Son to those chosen by God.

We must not think that this Covenant of Grace was preceded by a proposal of terms by one person of the Triune Godhead followed by deliberation prior to acceptance or rejection of the proposal by the other persons of the Triune Godhead. God is One and the nature of the Godhead is such that perfect harmony, in fact, unity of thought must exist within the Triune Godhead.

Holy Scripture is the story of the outworking of the Covenant of Grace in time and history. Though there is one Covenant of Grace [and many subsidiary covenants] there have been two primary administrations of the Covenant, one before the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and one after His death and resurrection. The first administration as recorded in the Old Testament dealt in types and shadows of things to come [Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1]; the second administration, as recorded in the New Testament, presents the spiritual reality of that which was promised. This second administration was instituted by the death of Jesus Christ [Hebrews 7:14-28] and is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promise of a New Covenant [Jeremiah 31:31-33, Hebrews 8:6-13]. The elect of God have, since the fall of Adam, received the blessings of the Covenant solely through the Grace of God.

 

[Paul33]

1. God the Father desires that none perish;
2. God the Son agrees to pay the penalty for the sins of the world.
3. God the Holy Spirit agrees to apply the work of the Son to those who do not persist in rebellion against God.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Robycop3: " While speaking of dispensations...J.N.Darby started a FALSE DOCTRINE...the "seven church ages" myth...within his dispensationalist theory. "

I agree, J.N.Darby started a 7 church ages myth.
I have taught nothing among you save Jesus and Him
resurrected. READ MY LIPS:
I teach only the four verses that contain the word
'dispensation'. I do not teach Darbian dispenstion,
i teach Biblical dispenstatin. Please note also, i
never told you what the four verses mean, only what
they say.

 

[robycop3]

I agree 100%, Ed.

The 7 churches to which Jesus told John to write all existed at the same time, and types of those churches have existed simultaneously ever since. jesus' words to those 7 churches are as applicable to today's churches as they were to their original recipients, but nowhere in them is there any hint that the church in general would undergo 7 "ages".

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by robycop3:
I agree 100%, Ed.

The 7 churches to which Jesus told John to write all existed at the same time, and types of those churches have existed simultaneously ever since. jesus' words to those 7 churches are as applicable to today's churches as they were to their original recipients, but nowhere in them is there any hint that the church in general would undergo 7 "ages".

so true