On request, Different Gospels -#2.

[OldRegular]

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.

I can read through the Old testament and identify the numerous Covenants that were made. Nowhere can I find anything about various dispensations.

 

[OldRegular]

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.

That is simply a false conclusion. Perhaps a few comments from a prominent dispensationalist teacher will help you:

John F. Walvoord, the preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary confesses that the validity of the pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ depends on the definition of the Church [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282].

“If the question be asked: Will the church be raptured before end-time events? it becomes very important to define the church as an entity that is distinct from Israel or saints in general. In prophetic passages concerning the Tribulation, both Israelites and Gentiles are described, and some of them have faith in Christ and form a godly remnant. If they are part of the church, then the church is in the Tribulation, and the whole question as to whether the church goes through the Tribulation becomes moot. Many posttribulationists, in an attempt to establish their own point of view, beg the question at the very beginning by assuming that the church includes saints of all ages. The concept that the church is distinct from Israel is a part of dispensational truth that distinguishes the work of God in the Old Testament under the Mosaic Law, the work of God in the present age as he calls out both Jews and Gentiles to form the church as the body of Christ, and the millennial kingdom in which the saints of all ages participate in various ways but maintain their individual and corporate identity. Hence, the church will be raptured or resurrected, and will reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom, but the saved of Israel as well as the saved of the Gentiles who are not part of the church will also be part of the millennial kingdom. Distinguishing the church from saints of other periods that precede or follow the present age is essential to a correct answer on the pretribulational issue. It is not too much to say that the doctrine of the church, or ecclesiology, determines this aspect of eschatology.”

Historic premillennialism generally defines the Church as does the Baptist Faith and Message:

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

 

[Jim1999]

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.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Allan]

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.

Premil is the foundation on which Dispensationalims is founded. It is somewhat different (pre-trib rapture and such) but it is MUCH closer to Dispensationalism than Covenant theology.

Havensdad -n
Irenaeus in the second century spoke of and about the 'many great dispensations of God' in his work "Against Heresies" Book IV chapter 20;
he uses it mostly to describe the manifestion of God to man and thus as he puts it - in the OT they saw this prophetically manifested and in the NT revealed in CHrist Jesus:

7. Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He was with the Father from the beginning, who did also show to the human race prophetic visions, and diversities of gifts, and His own ministrations, and the glory of the Father, in regular order and connection, at the fitting time for the benefit [of mankind]. For where there is a regular succession, there is also fixedness; and where fixedness, there suitability to the period; and where suitability, there also utility. And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternal grace for the benefit of men, for whom He made such great dispensations, revealing God indeed to men, but presenting man to God, and preserving at the same time the invisibility of the Father, lest man should at any time become a despiser of God, and that he should always possess something towards which he might advance; but, on the other hand, revealing God to men through many dispensations, lest man, falling away from God altogether, should cease to exist. For the glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God. For if the manifestation of God which is made by means of the creation, affords life to all living in the earth, much more does that revelation of the Father which comes through the Word, give life to those who see God.

However in the above he places the manifestation of God to men at certain specific times suitable to that period -This is all that the term dispensation refers to and thus what dispensationalism means. God revealing Himself to man at certain times in various ways and also about speaking the same message (salvatin by grace through faith). Some people harp a little to much on the how many or the order but all agree that God has worked in various ways speaking the same message at different times.
If nothing else we can divide, as does the scriptures, into 2 primary Dispensations of the OT and NT. However we can also break this down biblically a little more into 4 main times/dispensations of the Lord toward man 1) pre-law (this can be broken down but not specifically necessary) 2) Law and the prophets; 3) dispensation of grace 4) Mill Kingdom (times of refreshing).

Scripture divides these times as do the Dispensationalists. Some divide it more so and they have their reasons but for the main we can find in scripture 4 main divisions of God revealing Himself to man at certain times and in distinct and various ways in each that not the same previously nor afterward, and yet that message that is given never changes though the means have. There is continuity to them all as each one progressively reveals God more and more and message is seem with more clarity in that the more that is known of God the more the meaning of the message grows.

Now, I'm not saying he was using the term dispensationalism as eschetological view per-say but that he was acknowledging the fact that God progressively manifested Himself (revealed Himself) at different times which were suitable for what He wanted them to know. I am showing simply the seeds from which Dispy's can show that distinction of times in the early Church Fathers.

 

[Allan]

I can read through the Old testament and identify the numerous Covenants that were made. Nowhere can I find anything about various dispensations.

It's called selective reading.

 

[Allan]

That is simply a false conclusion. Perhaps a few comments from a prominent dispensationalist teacher will help you:

Nope.

Historic premillennialism generally defines the Church as does the Baptist Faith and Message:

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

First you ONCE AGAIN misconstrue what the BF&M is stating. It has NOTHING to do with covenant theological view but that those in the SBC see BOTH views as consistant and true (even in Dispensationalim).

However I did notice you changed from the 'always have defined' to 'generally defines'. Your getting closer. :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

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.

Actually there was no opposition to it for the first 200 years only about 2 to 3 people are noted (via writings) to somewhat disagree with it in next hundred years and at about 450'ish ad it was remove totally and replaced with Replacement theology

 

[Allan]

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.

Cheers,

Jim

Wow! You actually know very little about what your talking about. I'm [not] impressed.

 

[ituttut]

Part 1 in order to be clear

From the other thread:
Different audiences--different way of putting essentially the same message.
In Acts 2 who was Peter speaking to? He was speaking to primarily if not exclusively Jews--people that were gathered there for the feast of Pentecost. Among them Peter testifies that they were the very ones that had crucified Christ. For this abhorrent and evil sin they needed to repent and they needed to show that deep sorrow and repentance by baptism. In no other place in the Book of Acts is the message of salvation worded in such a way. There is a reason for that. The message hasn't changed. It is worded differently because of the audience.
Salvation is by faith in Christ.

Did you notice DHK you speak close to what a "dispensationalist" believes? A different audience, which shows something Is Different. You correctly identify thosePeter speaks to, and why Israel was to obey what God said to do, At That Time of their lives. They believed what God told them to believe. They believe this same thing all the way through Pentecost.

I find inconsistencies in your reply as you admit something changed, for that "great commission" can no longer be found. You say the message hasn't changed. If it has not then you must believe the "great commission", and following its demands you have now acquired the Power of the Holy Spirit, and can do just as did Jesus, and the Apostles doing all manner of miracles, and drink or eat anything poisonous and no harm will come to you. This is what I see you saying, for you say there is no other gospel given to man by Jesus Christ.

Of course Salvation is by Faith in Jesus Christ, but if we Reject Damascus Road, then please tell me how we access by faith? Christians accept some things Paul tells us what Christ Jesus from heaven revealed to him, But Not All of the Gospel of Paul do they believe.

Do we concede today there is no difference in the sight of God, between a Jew, and a Gentile? If we believe this truth, then all today are Gentiles, regardless of our Blood Line. Who is it that tells us God hid from man certain things in the Mysteries of God. It wasn't Jesus while on this earth. Was it Peter, James, John, or any other writer of scripture, other than Paul that tells us this? If only God knew what He had hidden from man, then can't we believe it is God that tells us what He had hidden? He had to tell someone.

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. .

Jesus could not tell us about the Body of Christ Church, and He couldn't tell us about the Rapture while He was on earth. God would not reveal such things, and more, until He was ready, and that time had it's beginning on Damascus Road. God knew what Israel would do (Refuse the Kingdom), so He hid His purpose from the beginning of Reconciling the Word unto Himself, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. I Corinthians 2:7-8, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8. Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Continuing in this thought what prevents so many from accepting Romans 3:30, "Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith".

I just cannot understand how people believe they Must do as Jews did, when Paul tells the Apostles in Jerusalem to stay away from His Gentiles who are justified through faith. Peter comes to believe Paul, believing what Christ has revealed to Paul. But what does the Christian do, but place question marks on some scriptures penned by Paul. In doing this we then must also question what Peter tells us. Error brings on more error.

Acts 10:43 states the same very clearly:
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
--This is Peter's message; this is Paul's message; this is Christ's message. It is the message of the Bible--the gospel message. It changes not--that whoso believes on him shall receive remission of sin. It is taught from the Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation. It is not exclusively taught by Paul, though Paul teaches it as well.

But I believe Damascus Road did happen, for I read about it in Acts 9. This happened some months before Acts 10? Check in you Bible and you will see that Paul had gone to Jerusalem and spoke to Peter before Acts 10, and Peter probably thought Paul had been too long in the sun, for 3 years, in that Arabian Desert. This is the reason in Acts 10 that God forced Peter into doing something he had never before done, and that was to do something UNLAWFUL for one of the Jerusalem Pentecostal church to do. And that something was to go to an unclean dog. Please just read with prayer for understanding, Acts 9, and Acts 10 again.

Why did God give Peter the vision of the unclean, but now no longer unclean. Why did God command Peter to go to a Gentile with A Gospel that Peter did not believe? God WOULD NOT allow Peter to preach to a Gentile the gospel of John the Baptist, of repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the Holy Ghost.

Your Acts 10:43 will confirm that God stopped Peter's tongue before Peter could say you must be of the "great commission" as we and follow the gospel of we that are of the Circumcision Gospel. Where can you find justification through faith before Paul told Peter in Jerusalem, and before God had Peter preach the gospel of Paul of it is through faith in the name of Jesus Christ that our Sins are remitted?

God did this to confirm what Paul had told Peter in Jerusalem, that he, Paul, had been commissioned by Christ Jesus to be The Apostle to The Gentile, and they will be justified through faith in order to enter into the RAISED Body of Christ, accessing that Salvation (as you say) "by faith in Christ". A good place to check this out is in Hebrews 11 where we find all before were justified by faith.

So for us, we see the Gospel Now Includes justification through faith, which now Excludes by faith, with works of man. Our through faith also includes work, but that work was done by God, and not us.

I just cannot go along with you contenting Peter's message was the same before and after Damascus Road. I see a difference in repent and be baptized for the remission of sins to Israel (Acts 2:38), and the gospel that came by Paul of By the Grace of God we are saved through faith; it is THE GIFT of GOD; We Boast if we say of works by the hands of man, Ephesians 2:8-9.

I see it differently my friend for I believe the last gospel of Jesus Christ preached to man Came From Heaven.

To confirm what you say, won't you have to prove Jacob knew the name "Lord Jesus". You have to prove Moses knew the name Lord Jesus, as well as Manoah. The Lord told Jacob "why do you inquire about my name? To Moses he said I Am That I AM. To Manoah the Lord said "Why do you ask my name. It is a Secret".

I can see in scripture when it became possible for us to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. No one before Jesus was born could be saved by Just Believing on His Name for Their Salvation. All is not the same from the beginning. There was the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, but the people before the birth of Jesus did not know His name. You know this information now for you have Scripture, but none, not one knew the name of our Lord Jesus. David did not live in this "dispensation of God", and we did not live in "that dispensation of God".

Perhaps not, but seem to be saying you found your Salvation even before the New Testament was written.

 

[ituttut]

Part 2, final

Ituttut: Please notice that John wrote all of his books about 30 years after the death of Paul.

DHK: This is your problem, not mine.

Is that really an answer for a fact that is true?

ituttut: You will not find in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or James such a remark or understanding of what Jesus said in John 3:16.

That makes no difference.

What Jesus says makes no difference? The Holy Spirit brought the remembrance to John of what Jesus said on earth, that no one understood at the time could understand what He said it. The Bible tells us this very fact.

ituttut: Scripture tells us they understood very little of what Jesus was talking about while He was with them on this earth.

Nicodemus didn't understand what Jesus was saying either.

Agree

ituttut: It is only after Pentecost He tells us the Holy Ghost will give them understanding of what He said, before being taken into heaven.

I believe Nicodemus came to that understanding before Pentecost.

Then a very favored fellow to received knowledge of the Holy Ghost before God sent the Holy Ghost - John 14:26

ituttut: But even then they did not come to the full knowledge of all that Jesus said, for it was a "secret" of God that could not be understood until God revealed to man the meaning of John 3:16.

Even before the resurrection many believed on him. Mary and Martha are good examples of that.

And I completely agree with you here DHK, however we should admit that they were justified by faith, with works required by them in that faith. They could not come through the blood of Jesus, or through His faith at that time for He had not yet shed His Blood. Nor could they enter into His Works, for He had not finished, what He came to Fulfill.

ituttut: Pau taught, andl wrote this same thing in different wording long before Christ allowed John to write his books.

That makes no difference at all. Your inference is that no one was saved before Paul. That is ridiculous. Christ told the thief on the cross: "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." You infer that Christ lied, for he didn't preach the gospel of Paul.

I have never said, or thought such a thing as you lay on me. What you refer to above is not of the heavenlies we are told of, but of the thief going to be in the Bosom of Abraham in the heart of the earth, whose Bosom was renamed to Paradise when Jesus entered into the heart of the earth.

If you will only look at what I have said, without prejudice. I didn't say Jesus did not say what He said. I have said Christ Jesus gave to Paul his gospel, just as He gave to Moses, Moses' Law. God works through man and surely we can see this in Moses and Paul. No one knew of Moses' Law until God revealed it to Him. No one knew of Paul's gospel until God revealed it to Him.

Isn't it Paul ONLY that tell's us of the Body of Christ? Is it not Paul who informs us of the Rapture? Is it not Paul that gives us the seven (7) One's (1's) in Ephesians 4:4-5 for our understanding of the Body of Christ?

 

[ituttut]

What a book by this brother.

AW Pink

A Study of Dispensationalism(snipped)

Fully agree all scripture is for our benefit, but we do have personal mail that we must read, and let the Holy Spirit interpret for us, what we are to believe in this Dispensation of God.

None today can believe and be saved as was Moses, David or any of the others. We are today saved immediately into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit as He baptizes us, sealing us, with no way out, even as some believe they can do.

 

[ituttut]

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.

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

I you will again read what I posted I said it is Israel that thought it heresy.

 

[Winman]

"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. "

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[ituttut]

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

Yes I know OT scripture, as I have imparted to you, but also must believe NT scripture as well. Why won't you believe this woman, and notice Jesus does not correct her. She says she is Israel, and He knows she is. Do you believe Jesus or man?

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.

But can't you see that Jesus considers them Israel? The Samaritans thought the same thing about the Jew, so you must then also believe the Jew was then considered Gentiles.

Do you know that God today knows who are in the 12 Tribes of Israel, but man has no idea. Jesus knew this woman was an Israelite. When the time comes God will choose 144,000 thousand in equal numbers of the Tribes, and they will then pick up again of what was in Prophecy. The Great Commission Gospel will be carried by Israel to the whole world. It hasn't happened, but it will after this Secret Time we live in comes to a close.

John Gill writes (snipped)

I'll not comment on John Gill, but I do know my Bible, and I believe what Jesus Christ believed, whether anyone else does or not. The woman said her roots go back to Jacob. Jesus believed her, but YOU DON'T. Is that because you believe man, and do question our Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[ituttut]

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

Suffice it to say on your post, you have no understanding, or comprehesion of what is said in Acts 9. Jesus Christ spoke, and told Paul what he had to do. And Paul believed what He told Him. Paul said, " what wilt thou have me to do?". Jesus said "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

The rest is history, that some just cannot bring themselves to believe.

 

[OldRegular]

It's called selective reading.

Selective or secretive?

Or wrongly splintering the Word of God?

 

[OldRegular]

Posted by OldRegular
Historic premillennialism generally defines the Church as does the Baptist Faith and Message:

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Response by Allan
First you ONCE AGAIN misconstrue what the BF&M is stating. It has NOTHING to do with covenant theological view but that those in the SBC see BOTH views as consistant and true (even in Dispensationalim).

I simply quoted the BF&M, how is that misconstruing it? It is not, you are grasping for straws. It may not have anything to do with covenant theology but it states exactly the position of Covenant Theology on the Church.

Furthermore, it is totally contrary to the dispensational view of the church. I simply quote John F. Walvoord, the preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary. Walvoord writes, regarding the definition of the church, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:

“If the question be asked: Will the church be raptured before end-time events? it becomes very important to define the church as an entity that is distinct from Israel or saints in general. In prophetic passages concerning the Tribulation, both Israelites and Gentiles are described, and some of them have faith in Christ and form a godly remnant. If they are part of the church, then the church is in the Tribulation, and the whole question as to whether the church goes through the Tribulation becomes moot. MANY POSTTRIBULATIONISTS, IN AN ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW, BEG THE QUESTION AT THE VERY BEGINNING BY ASSUMING THAT THE CHURCH INCLUDES THE SAINTS OF ALL AGES. The concept that the church is distinct from Israel is a part of dispensational truth that distinguishes the work of God in the Old Testament under the Mosaic Law, the work of God in the present age as he calls out both Jews and Gentiles to form the church as the body of Christ, and the millennial kingdom in which the saints of all ages participate in various ways but maintain their individual and corporate identity."

I have bolded and capitalized Walvoord;s statement about the dispensational view of the church [Just so you won't overlook it.] which is diametrically opposed to that of the Baptist Faith and Message, and of course contrary to your assertion that:

It has NOTHING to do with covenant theological view but that those in the SBC see BOTH views as consistant and true (even in Dispensationalim).

I would also note that posttribulationists include Covenant or historic premillennialists. Sorry Allan but you are wrong again!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by Jim1999
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.

Cheers,

Jim

Response by Allan
Wow! You actually know very little about what your talking about. I'm [not] impressed.

Well Allan you are incorrect again. I believe in an earlier response to you I wondered if the dispensationalists had splintered the Word of God. Sadly I was correct.

 

[OldRegular]

Ituttut
I am repeating my post #48 eagerly anticipating your response to my questions. I have added the word Question where appropriate.

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

Question: 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: 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.

Originally Posted by ituttut
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.

Originally Posted by 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.

 

[Allan]

I simply quoted the BF&M, how is that misconstruing it? It is not, you are grasping for straws. It may not have anything to do with covenant theology but it states exactly the position of Covenant Theology on the Church.

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.

You're as bad as some of the few non-cals who say they have studied extensively Calvinism and have come to the conclusion that all calvinism is nothing more than hyper-calvinism. For all their study they remain quite ignorant of the truth.

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

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.

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

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.

You bold one portion which only speaks of those during the tribulationwhere are the bolded sections that speak to what happens 'after the mil-riegn'. It is at the 'end' of the millennial Kingdom in which in they all become one body/church. But of course you miss that part - all the time. And it is in that part in which dispensationalists agree with 'all the saints of all the ages' being called the church.

I have bolded and capitalized Walvoord;s statement about the dispensational view of the church [Just so you won't overlook it.] which is diametrically opposed to that of the Baptist Faith and Message, and of course contrary to your assertion that:

I am serious when I say that you are either sorely misinformed or poorly studied on what dispensationalists actually believe because you keep only putting half truths out there or half of their view. You have rarely get it right that I have ever seen. Again, you give only what he is speaking of in relation to the tribulation and the tribulation only, what about 'after the mil-reign'.

From George Ladd on his view (Historic Premil) from Moodys handbook on theologies:

A distinction, however, between historic premillennialism and amillennialism is the recognition of a literal future for national Israel, which the former acknowledges and the latter denies".

I would give you the actaul sourse citation but my hyer-link in my Quickverse 08 program is not functioning properly (at all). I will get it for you as soon as I get my disc back from a friend.