On request, Different Gospels -#2.

[Allan]

Ah.I believe you are a dispensationalist by being SBC.Well this system is built upon the foundations of Scofield`s interpretation of the bible and he is analyized below.Pink is way closer to the target than Scofieldism.

Scofield Analyzed.

http://www.gospeltruth.net/scofield.htm

God bless in Jesus.

Steven.

Well, you are incorrect. I am dispensantional through intensive biblical study. And that before I even knew what it was. But I would suggest you read quite a bit more since dispensational view did not start with Scofield but actaully all the back to Irenaeus (2nd century) who spoke of dispensations in the OT and our new dispensation. God's working vai different means but the same way - by grace through faith. You can even find many others prior to Scofield and Darby espousing as back as 300 years prior to them. :thumbs: Keep studing though.

 

[pilgrim2009]

Well, you are incorrect. I am dispensantional through intensive biblical study. And that before I even knew what it was. But I would suggest you read quite a bit more since dispensational view did not start with Scofield but actaully all the back to Irenaeus (2nd century) who spoke of dispensations in the OT and our new dispensation. God's working vai different means but the same way - by grace through faith. You can even find many others prior to Scofield and Darby espousing as back as 300 years prior to them. :thumbs: Keep studing though.

The early Orthodox Church Fathers believed and taught that the Church is Spiritual Israel.Also the mention of dispensations by early church fathers was not in the scofield idea of the term.Nevertheless I continue with my studies.

Dispensationalism as it is today futurism came about after the 1500`s and went from Darby to Scofield etc.

Joseph Canfields book the incredible scofield and his book shines light on scofield and his life and theology as no other with documented un-refutable facts.

God bless you in Jesus.

Steven

 

[ituttut]

Guess what? Part 1

Jesus Christ Himself was the first to preach the Gospel to other than the Jews after the beginning of His ministry as shown in the following passage from the Gospel of John.

John 4:4-42
4* ¶ And he must needs go through Samaria.

Now why did Jesus need to go through Samaria? Simply because He was going to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Samaritans.

We need a little understanding here as to just who the Samaritans were. As you probably know there was the Northern Kingdom of Jacob, which contained the ten (10) Tribes, and there was the Southern Kingdom of Jacob, which contained the two (2) Tribes, for a total of the twelve (12) Tribes of Israel. Please take note, if you will, that the Southern Tribe is Judah, and the Northern Tribe ISRAEL, and is called Samaria, and each Kingdom had a King that reigned over them. How in the world do you deduce a Samaritan to be A GENTILE?

Do you know how many Great Commission's there are?
1st Commission) Matthew 10:5-6, "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." All of Matthew 10 is devoted to this Great Commission.

For what purpose did they go? Well wasn't it to preach the Gospel of John the Baptist of the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and bear fruit? We are to know when He gave this Great Commission, and it is before His Crucifixion.

2nd Commission) This Greater Commission is given after Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection, what the denominations call The Great Commission, meaning this particular Great Commission is the final words of Jesus Christ to the Christian Faith. So if this is the Only Great Commission that Jesus Christ gives to the Christian church, why is it we Baptist do not after all believe in THIS LAST Great Commission, yet say we do?

Here I will leave blank and let you tell me what THIS LAST Great Commission to the Church is. Will you kindly Quote all Scripture that tells us what we Must Believe, and What we Must Do in order to receive "remissions of our sins". I Await Your Answer.

3rd Commission. It is found in Scripture just as are the two above, and comes from above.

Now what was Jesus Christ talking about? He was talking about the Unmerited Gift of Salvation. I believe that is called Salvation by Grace.

Just in case you still doubt that this woman is an Israelite, let's set the record straight as this woman corrects your lack of understanding of who are those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Why do you skip over John 4:12? Is it not that what you believe will contradict His Word? "Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? She is an Israelite, one that has made Covenant with God, and all of these people that are promised the Kingdom of the Earth, must do exactly what those Promised The Kingdom, must do. They must do a work.

15* The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
16* Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
17* The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18* For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
19* The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20* Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21* Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22* Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23* But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24* God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25* The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26* Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

We see here that this woman knew something that you apparently don't. That the Christ and the Messiah are the same.

What would make you make such a statement? Of course the Messiah is Jesus Christ. This Israelite knew of their Messiah, and The Christ, who is Prophet, Priest, and King, and this is One Three-fold Office. This woman did not know Jesus' name at the outset, or the narrative as she calls Him Sir. One thing we find in this reading is she knew both the languages of Hebrew, and Greek. THEY are the same in meaning. From the Hebrew verb masshah has the same meaning as the Greek word chrism. Jesus the Messiah (the Christ) was anointed with the antitypical oil, the Holy Spirit. Yes I know they are the same, and I now something she did not know at the time, and that is that His name is Jesus.


So within His title of Messiah carries with it a meaning of King. A Kingdom must have a King, and the Kingdom promised Israel was put on HOLD, as the house of Israel (the Jew is of Israel) refused their Messiah. They refused to believe the Gospel to Them of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles. Any Israelite that lived in the time of Jesus on this earth, including the Samaritan woman with the blood Jacob, had to have a way for absolving their sins.

Why just those of All Israel, the ones who made Covenant with God, was it necessary to "repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins"? They broke that covenant they made with God, and He tells them (and only them) what they must do. Ye men of Israel ye are to repent and be baptized if you want to have remission of YOUR sins.

 

[ituttut]

Part 2

Old
Refular
27* ¶ And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
28* The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
29* Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
30* Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.
31* In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.
32* But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
33* Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
34* Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
35* Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.
36* And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.
37* And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
38* I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.
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.

Now show me in the above passage where anything is required for salvation other than faith. There is no mention of repentance, no mention of baptism.

But you fail to take into account what is posted before in John 4:25, viz. "… he will tell us all things. We do presume much when we wish to make something fit into Our way of thinking. Please show me here where Jesus told her all things. Surely as he was there for 2 days He must have told them His Name. Is she an Israelite and, yet not subject to what Peter says in Acts 2:38, or before of what John the Baptist preached? Or perhaps you are saying because she is a Woman, she is exempt.

You look to be caught up in Contradictions. Can we believe Acts 1:8 where Jesus tells his Apostles "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." This is the PROGRESSEION OF THAT KINGDOM GOSPEL.

We can see this is what Jesus did, when His time came. He came to Jerusalem to where John the Baptist was baptizing. The Gospel of the Kingdom that "was at hand, and will come" has to start in Jerusualem, and then move forward from Jerusalem, then to all of Judaea, then to the Samaritans, and then to the world. Can you tell me if that gospel of the Covenant people, that of John the Baptist ever made it to the Gentile World?

Through no fault of their own, and having the Power of the Holy Spirit with them, Israel refused Peter's offer to them to accept Messiah/Christ Jesus. The Apostles never even got out of Jerusalem, the starting point that they personally were to take their gospel to the World. It is only after the stoning of Stephen, when God cut them off, that they ventured out of Jerusalem. But God was not stymied for He had an "Ace up His sleeve" that no man knew of. It's called Damascus Road.

You look to be saying the woman of Samaria at the well was justified through faith. That is impossible for Jesus had not yet spilled His Blood, making it possible for any to come to the Father through His faith, and His Blood. May I ask how you are saved? Is it as the Samaritan woman into the Kingdom promised Israel, or into the Body of Christ Church?

To take your approach you are saying the Woman was in the Body of Christ, and if so then mustn't you also include such verses as Luke 1:68, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people". All before Jesus shed His Blood, and ascended to His Father in heaven look to the future, and that Kingdom promised them, that would come.

Just believe what Jesus says in your post above in verse 34, "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. I do believe you are in great error to believe this woman was at that time placed into the Body of Christ, when he had not yet finished his work.

 

[ituttut]

Part 3 the last

OldRefulard:
This is the same Gospel that Paul preached. It is the same Gospel that Peter preached as clearly shown in the following passage.

Acts 15:7-11, KJV
7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Peter tells the Jews in the Church that God put no difference between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers. The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2 states the same thing. It is apparently useless to show you Scripture that proves there is only one Gospel. You are so steeped in the heresy of ultra dispensationalism that you simply will not believe. You continue to spout the heresy of two Gospels.

I really don't think you pay any attention to what I say, or show you what the Bible says. What you put forth is another gospel that came after Damascus Road. Please study you Bible more closely, forgetting the theology presented by man, and see, paying attention to what Peter says shortly after Damascus Road, as he didn't know agout it. Acts 10:28, "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Jesus called the Gentile woman a dog, and that is exactly what we are. WE NEED to accept that fact, that WE ARE NOT ISRAEL. Peter would avoided me like the plague had we met back then. And I would have hated his guts, just as he hated mine. For heavens sake. I just cannot understand why people will not accept what happened on Damascus Road. All things are New, and the Old has been cast away. Can you not see this in what you posted immediately above, to wit, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

This is brand new to Peter for NOW THROUGH THE GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WE SHALL BE SAVED, EVEN AS THEY.Peter before would not have given me the time of the day, but now says I will believe as you, for I now believe through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, We of Israel can be saved just as the Gentile.

I will, as Jesus Christ told his disciples [Luke 9:5]: shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. I say again, God have mercy on you.

Harsh words given in lack of understanding, so I'll not take issue with you here, other than pray for you. Why don't you quote verses 1 through 4? Is it because you are not one of His twelve (12) disciples? Or could it be you don't have power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases, as shown in verse 1?

What about verse 2? Perhaps you did not wish to quote this scripture for you do not have the right to preach the kingdom of God, for you do not have the power to heal the sick.

What about verses 3, and 4? So you go around when leaving abode with nothing but your One Coat? Would you take charity, living off another, And Then Leave?

My friend you are living in the Past, that which is Old, and passed away. Become a New Man. Ephesians 2:12-16, "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:"

Leave that hostile person behind, just as Peter did.

 

[OldRegular]

We need a little understanding here as to just who the Samaritans were. As you probably know there was the Northern Kingdom of Jacob, which contained the ten (10) Tribes, and there was the Southern Kingdom of Jacob, which contained the two (2) Tribes, for a total of the twelve (12) Tribes of Israel. Please take note, if you will, that the Southern Tribe is Judah, and the Northern Tribe ISRAEL, and is called Samaria, and each Kingdom had a King that reigned over them. How in the world do you deduce a Samaritan to be A GENTILE?

No Ituttut it is you who need a little understanding not only of the Samaritans but of the entire Bible.

If you will study the Old Testament a little you will find that most of the people of the Northern Kingdom were carried into captivity by Assyria never to return. These captives were replaced by non-israelites who intermarried with the Israelites. You should read the Book of Ezra to understand the animosity between the Samaritans and the Jews returning from captivity in Babylon. I remind you that devout Jews of that time would not travel through Samaria.

It is evident from a study of Scripture and history that the Samaritans must be considered Gentiles. They were considered by the Jews to be a mongrel peoples.

John Gill writes of the Samaritans, commenting on Verse 4:9 as follows:

"Ver. 9. Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, &c.] In a scoffing, jeering way,

how is it, that thou being a Jew; which she might know, by his language and his dress:

askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? [not that the waters of Samaria were unlawful for a Jew to drink of; for as

``the land of the Cuthites (or Samaritans), was pure, or clean,
so, hytwqm, "their collections of water", and their
habitations, and their ways were clean ,''

and might be used; but because the Jews used no familiarity with the Samaritans, nor would they receive any courtesy or kindness from them, as follows:

for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans: some take these to be the words of the evangelist, commenting upon, and explaining the words of the woman; but they seem rather to be her own words, giving a reason why she returned such an answer; and which must be understood, not in the strictest sense, as if they had no dealings at all with them: indeed in some things they had no dealings with them, and at some certain times; hence that discourse of the Samaritans with a Jewish Rabbi .

``The Cuthites (or Samaritans) inquired of R. Abhu, your
fathers, Nyqptom wyh, "used to deal with us" (or minister
to us, or supply us with necessaries), wherefore do not ye
deal with us? (or take a supply from us he replied unto
them, your fathers did not corrupt their works, you have
corrupted your works.''

They might not use their wine and vinegar, nor admit them to their tables; they say of a man ,

``because the Cuthites (or Samaritans) ate at his table, it
was the reason why his children went into captivity--and
further add, that whoever invites a Cuthite (or Samaritan)
into his house, and ministers to him, is the cause of
captivity to his children.''

And they forbid a man to enter into partnership with a Cuthite (or Samaritan ) and particularly,

``three days before the feasts of idolaters (for such they
reckoned the Samaritans, as well as others), it is
forbidden to have any commerce with them, to borrow of
them, or lend to them &c.''

But then at other times, and in other respects, they had dealings with them; they might go into their cities and buy food of them, as the disciples did, Joh 4:8; they might send their wheat to a Samaritan miller, to be ground ; and as it appears from the above citations, their houses and habitations were clean, and might be lodged in, with which compare Lu 9:52; the poor of the Samaritans were maintained with the poor of Israel ; wherefore the sense is, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, that the Jews refused to receive the least favour or kindness at the hand of a Samaritan; and therefore the woman might justly wonder, that Christ should ask so small a favour of her, as a little water. The reason of this distance and aversion, was religion; and so the Ethiopic version, rather paraphrasing than translating, renders the words, "the Jews do not agree in religion, nor do they communicate with the Samaritans, nor mix together": and this was of long standing, and had been occasioned and increased by various incidents; for when the ten tribes revolted in Jeroboam's time, the calves were set up in Dan and Bethel, in order to draw off the people from worship at Jerusalem, which gave great umbrage to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and when the ten tribes were carried away captive by the king of Assyria, he planted the cities of Samaria with colonies in their room, consisting of Heathenish and idolatrous persons, brought from Babylon, and other places; to whom he sent a priest, to instruct them in the manner of the God of the land; but with these instructions, they still retained their idols, and their idolatrous practices; see 2Ki 17:24-41, which must render them odious to the Jews: and these were the principal adversaries of the Jews, after their return from captivity; and discouraged them, and weakened their hands, in the building of the second temple: but what latest, and most of all had fixed this aversion and enmity, was this; Manasseh, brother to Jaddua the high priest, having married Sanballat's daughter, governor of Samaria, was for it removed from the priesthood; who applying to his father-in-law, he proposed building for him a temple on Mount Gerizim, and making him an high priest; for which he obtained leave of Alexander the Great, and accordingly built one, and made his son-in-law high priest; which drew a great many profligate Jews over to him, who mixing with the Samaritans, set up a worship, religion, and priesthood, in distinction from the Jews; and this was ever after a matter of contention and quarrel between these people, and the reason why they would have no dealings with them.":wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

[OldRegular]

Original Post by OldRegular
25* The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. b
26* Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

We see here that this woman knew something that you apparently don't. That the Christ and the Messiah are the same.

Response by Ituttut
What would make you make such a statement? Of course the Messiah is Jesus Christ.

From the following quote it appears that you do not know that Jesus Christ is the Messiah since you say that it is heresy for Israel to believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah.

By Ituttut, post #133, thread: A question
I believe you misquote scripture, which brings you to wrong conclusions. It says no such thing as the Bride of Christ. Revelation speaks of the Bride of the Lamb. We know Jesus came as a Lamb to Israel, but not as Jesus Christ, for they refused such heresy. Your error is seeing all has been the same, completely leaving out the purpose of God.

:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

[OldRegular]

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:

Now which church did Saul persecute Ituttut, the Peterine Church or the Pauline Church?

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.

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.

[/B]All things are New, and the Old has been cast away.

So you are saying that all the ministry of Jesus Christ is to be thrown away. That is blasphemy of the worst sort Ituttut.

Can you not see this in what you posted immediately above, to wit, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Everyone who has every been saved has been saved through the Grace of my Lord Jesus Christ. To claim otherwise is to lie.

 

[gb93433]

Well, you are incorrect. I am dispensantional through intensive biblical study. And that before I even knew what it was. But I would suggest you read quite a bit more since dispensational view did not start with Scofield but actaully all the back to Irenaeus (2nd century) who spoke of dispensations in the OT and our new dispensation. God's working vai different means but the same way - by grace through faith.

Do you have a reference from Irenaeus for that?

For 14 years I attended a dispensational church and never found one person who could explain Larkin's charts so even they understood them. I bought all of Larkin's books and many of Chafer's books and the more I read in them the more I found holes in their theology. The more questions I asked of those who graduated from dispensational theological schools the more I uncovered their lack of knowledge about dispensationalism and the more I saw their lack of answers. For years I heard many dispensationalists teach that because we are under grace there is no need for the OT. When I read in the Bible that Jesus did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill (Mt. 5:17), and when I asked them about it, it was as if they never saw it. They were taught to interpret scripture through the filter of dispensational theology. The only problem is that theology keeps changing.

I find it interesting that Baptists are becoming more dispensational while DSTS is becoming more like the Baptists of years ago. I do not find it encouraging to have a theology that is constantly under change. Just in my lifetime I have seen the dispensational teaching of C.H. McIntosh, Scofield, and Larkin to Ryrie and Walvoord then onto progressive dispensationalism. The dispensationalists of today egt some new revelations? The fact is that the dispensationalists of today believe very little of what the professors at DTS did of just a few years ago.

 

[gb93433]

You look to be saying the woman of Samaria at the well was justified through faith. That is impossible for Jesus had not yet spilled His Blood, making it possible for any to come to the Father through His faith, and His Blood. May I ask how you are saved? Is it as the Samaritan woman into the Kingdom promised Israel, or into the Body of Christ Church?

Romans 4:2-3, "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

James 2:21-25, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?"

 

[OldRegular]

Response by ituttut to OldRegular
You look to be saying the woman of Samaria at the well was justified through faith. That is impossible for Jesus had not yet spilled His Blood, making it possible for any to come to the Father through His faith, and His Blood. May I ask how you are saved? Is it as the Samaritan woman into the Kingdom promised Israel, or into the Body of Christ Church?

Response by gb93433 to Ituttut
Romans 4:2-3, "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

It is also worth noting that the Apostle Paul states:

Galatians 3:7-9
7. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Now what Gospel was preached to Abraham? The one and only Gospel which Paul calls: the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;

Romans 1:16, 17
16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

[OldRegular]

Well, you are incorrect. I am dispensantional through intensive biblical study.

Can you point to Scripture in the Old Testament that identify the dispensations?

 

[Aaron]

I escaped dispensationalism by studying the writings of Paul.

 

[gb93433]

Dispensationalism put me in bondage until I studied scripture in light of its historical context and haven't found too many theological isms to conform to the interpretation of scripture in light of its historical context since.

So many theological isms are nothing more than a man made filter in an effort to solve a seemingly difficult situation with very little study.

 

[pilgrim2009]

Dispensationalism put me in bondage until I studied scripture in light of its historical context and haven't found too many theological isms to conform to the interpretation of scripture in light of its historical context since.

So many theological isms are nothing more than a man made filter in an effort to solve a seemingly difficult situation with very little study.

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.

 

[DHK]

The early Orthodox Church Fathers believed and taught that the Church is Spiritual Israel.Also the mention of dispensations by early church fathers was not in the scofield idea of the term.Nevertheless I continue with my studies.

Dispensationalism as it is today futurism came about after the 1500`s and went from Darby to Scofield etc.

Joseph Canfields book the incredible scofield and his book shines light on scofield and his life and theology as no other with documented un-refutable facts.

God bless you in Jesus.

Steven

You need to keep on studying. Here is a good link to help you.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1344687&postcount=4

It is a post by Fred Moritz who says:

Premillennialism can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr, Hermas, Papias, and Irenaeus. I refer you to the book Premillennial Essays edited by the Presbyterian Nathaniel West. He wrote a chapter on "The History of the Pre-Millennial Doctrine" that takes up 91 pages in the book. It is a History of Christian Doctrine classic on the subject.

If you will read the writings of Hubmaier and other genuine Anabaptists you will find that they drew a clear distinction between Israel and the Church.

Some of our Reformed brethren (and I genuinely regard you as brethren) like to hang the "Johnny come lately" tag on Dispensationalism by attributing it to Darby. But biblical elements of Dispensationalism have been around far longer than the invention of Reformed Theology with the Dutchman Coccesius and his imagined "Covenant of Works." At least the Reformed Theologians Charles Hodge and John Gerstner have admitted in writing that such a covenant is not found in Scripture.

A. H. Strong has a great line where he observes: "That covenant was made in Holland."

 

[Havensdad]

You need to keep on studying. Here is a good link to help you.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1344687&postcount=4

It is a post by Fred Moritz who says:

Bro,

The early Church fathers (some of them) taught historical premillenialism, which is distinctly different from dispensational premillenialism. NONE of the early Church fathers taught dispensationalism. In fact, I cannot bring to mind a single quote of any Church father from the first two centuries, that says the Church is anything but a direct continuation of Israel.

 

[Winman]

ituttut: God had hidden this information from man, until He wished to dispense this information to them. Peter preached that Gospel of John the Baptist, of the Kingdom is at hand, and at Pentecost he was offering Israel that Kingdom, they were promised. They refused, and God then followed through with His purpose of establishing the Body of Christ Church. This is not the gospel Jesus preached while He Was On This Earth, which was the Gospel of John the Baptist.

Peter did not preach the restoration of the kingdom in Acts.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Here is the one and only mention of the restoration of the kingdom in Acts. The apostles asked Jesus directly if he would restore the kingdom "at this time". And Jesus answered that it was not for them to know when this would take place. But note, that Jesus also mentioned "the times" or "the seasons" which the Father hath put in his own power.

Now how can a dispensationalist miss that? There are going to be at least two times or ages before Jesus returns to reestablish the kingdom. And this is shown again in Acts 3.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

First, notice Peter was preaching receiving Jesus for the forgiveness (remission) of sins. This is the gospel.

Second, notice that Peter does indeed mention Jesus returning, but the heaven must receive him until the "times" of restitution of all things.

So, you believe in dispensationalism? How can you overlook these "times" mentioned in Acts 1 and 3?

We also know the Gospel that John the Baptist preached.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

John the Baptist preached that people should believe on him which should come after him, that is, Christ Jesus.

This is the same gospel that Paul preached. And as has been shown, Paul verifies that the same gospel he preached was preached to Abraham. And Jesus verifies this himself.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Abraham knew about Jesus, Jesus said so himself.

My experience with dispensationalists is that instead of helping to understand the scriptures, it accomplishes the exact opposite. Those of this persuasion tend to interpret scripture to fit these pre-conceived ages, instead of understanding the clear, straightforward, and often simple scriptures.

 

[DHK]

Bro,

The early Church fathers (some of them) taught historical premillenialism, which is distinctly different from dispensational premillenialism. NONE of the early Church fathers taught dispensationalism. In fact, I cannot bring to mind a single quote of any Church father from the first two centuries, that says the Church is anything but a direct continuation of Israel.

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.

 

[gb93433]

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.

Historical premillenialism is distinctly different than interepting scripture through the filter of dispensationalism and coming up with something entirely different. To say that historical premilenialism is much the same thing as dispensational premillenialism is much the same as saying that dispensationalism is much the same as evolution in that is it always evolving.

The dispensationalists are trying to cover their new dispensational theology through the new progressive dispensationalism in an effort to keep their dispensationalism when there was not any effort to change the dispensationalism of Larkin, Darby, C.H. McIntosh and Scofield until just a few years ago.

Progressive dispensationalism is very similar to Mormonism in that there is an evolving, ever changing, progressive, rationalistic, (patterned after German Rationalism) theology.

The one question I always like to ask the rationalists is to explain God rationally.