ChristiansUnite Forums

Some, today, have followed a line of reasoning concerning dispensations that result in a belief (with some, a doctrine) that stipulates that God, as ruler of the house, has established different house rules concerning salvation, with the rule set applicable to a particular dispensation. This, of course, results in a multitude of ways in which salvation might be obtained. Often called "super" or "hyper" dispensationalists, there are several common factors among the various branches.
They tend to consider the beginning of the church did not occur until Paul was converted (Acts 9), do not consider the writings of Peter, James, and Jude as being to the church, and thus carry no weight. Many also have a tendency to disregard the Gospels and 1, 2, and 3 John for the same reasons.
At the core of any issue is the contention that there is more than one gospel, or good news of redemption.

We will begin by examining the basic proof text used by the multiple dispensationalists (Ax9'rs)  to establish the existence of ''two'' gospels, as found in Galatians 2:7.
''But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter...''.
Note that the scripture definitely states ''gospel OF the uncircumcision''(gentiles) and ''gospel OF the circumcision''(Jews).
The word here translated ''of'' is, in the Gr., ''to'' (that's the best I can render it), a definite article most often translated as ''the'', but also containing ''this, that, one, he, she, it''.
Note that in Gal. 2:12, Paul speaks of Peter ''fearing them who were OF the circumcision''. Here the word translated ''of'' is the Gr. "ek", denoting origin. In this instance the definite article ''the'' is left silent.
In consideration of the Greek construction at this point, and in light of other scriptures which will soon be pointed out, the better reading for this passage is "but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel TO the circumscision (gentiles) was committed unto me, as the gospel TO the circumscision (Jews) was unto Peter...".  
In Gal. 2:8 we see this idea given even more weight with;  ''for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles''.  This passage effectively establishes that the basis of the subject here is that there are two apostles sent to two different groups, but in no way confirms that the two have differing messages.

Let's now turn back to the original problem that Paul was dealing with. In Gal. 1:6, we see:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
which certainly leaves an impression of a different or "another" gospel. But then we have Pauls emphatic words following closely, in Gal. 1:7:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Paul leaves no room for misunderstanding here....the "other gospel" is NOT a gospel, but instead is a perversion of the one true Gospel of Christ.

So, what is the Gospel? It is the good news of redemption, BY God, and through the only means He has ever declared. Redemption is the justification of a person in the sight of God, wherein that person is declared (by judicial fiat) as righteous even while that person is in a state of sin. Because God has done this, it is an ultimate expression of grace, a gift, given by God to sinful man.  Further, God is the only one who can make that declaration of righteousness.

In Job 9:2, we see the question that has been asked by man forever:
"...how can a man be righteous before God?"

We see that question answered in the following:
Gen. 3:8-21, where God graciously covered the sin of Adam and Eve.
Gen. 4:4, Gods acceptance of Abel's sacrifice and repudiation of Cain's.
This is further strengthened by Heb. 11:4;
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
Gen. 7:1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Gen. 15:6, And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Abraham)
Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

That this has been the plan of God from the beginning is clearly spelled out in Gal. 3:8;
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.

The inescapable conclusion is that, according to God, our being made righteous in His sight, our justification, is found ONLY in faith....believing Him, and this is the ONLY means, or vehicle that has ever been available.

In the times before Jesus came, those who lived, and died, in faith looked forward to the time of their redemption.
Consider Job:
13:8 Behold now, I have ordered [my] cause; I know that I shall be justified.
For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:
and
Hbr 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.
Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
1Pe 1:10
Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you:

And since Jesus:
Rom. 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

That we are to consider the entirety of the Bible in our study and understanding of God is made abundantly clear by Pauls words to Timothy;
2Ti 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost

It becomes painfully clear to those that would propose multiple ways of salvation according to whatever "dispensation" they lived in that such a proposition is exactly what Paul referred to when he said "...it is no gospel", and further that those who propose such are, just as the Judaizers that plagued Paul, "some which would pervert the Gospel of Christ."

To continue in the absence of any rebuttal.

Paul, as noted above, went out of his way to point out a number of things to the Galatians.

Please note in the following:

Gal 1:6
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Thaumazo hoti metatithemi houto tacheos metatithemi apo kaleo humas en charis Christos eis heteros euaggelion.

That the word translated "another" is:
another: heteros:
  A) as to number: the other of two
  B) to quality: one not of the same nature, form, class, kind

Notice specifically that in terms of the qualitative value of the word, it definitely states that it is NOT of the same nature, form, class or kind. In other words, it is NOT the Gospel of Christ.

Gal 1:7
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ

Hos esti ou allos eisi tis ei me tarasso humas kai thelo metastrepho euaggelion Christos.

And here Paul restates that thought, reversing the word to:
another: allos:
  A) another, other, some, one, same
      as to quality, of the same value

which is a double emphasis of the lack of equivalent value to THE Gospel of Christ.

He now goes further, and specifies that those who preach, or teach ANY other form of "gospel" are troublesome and perverse.

trouble: tarasso
   to agitate, trouble
     A) cause inward commotion, remove calmness of mind, disturb
     B) to disquiet, make restless
     C) to stir up
     D) to trouble
          1) to strike one's spirit with fear and dread
     E) to render anxious or distressed
     F) to perplex the mind by suggesting scruples or doubts

pervert: metastrepho:
   A) turn around, to turn around, to make opposite, turn one thing into another

Note that in the use of the word pervert: metastrepho; it is exactly the same kind of thing that satan used in the Garden against Eve, and attempted to use on Jesus in the wilderness by changing, adding to, taking away from, or slightly altering wording, or taking out of context the actual Word of God to the end of "perplexing" by raising doubt.

Thus, any one who preaches or teaches any other form of Gospel than that which Paul preached is perverse, an agitator, a troublemaker, one who causes dissension among the brethren, and is cursed.

That the singular Gospel of Christ is applicable to all through all ages is further emphasized when Paul writes of confronting Peter over his dissembling.

Gal 2:14
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Paul is definitely stating that although Peter is a Jew, and lives after the manner of the gentiles (he has been freed from the bondage and slavery of law through the Gospel of Christ - faith!), he (Peter) is wrong to attempt to force anyone to be obedient to rules and regulations.

Gal 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Note here that Paul does not say Jew or Gentile, but MAN (anthropos; meaning human, neither male or female, and not corresponding to any particular ethnic group), which of necessity includes all who ever lived or would live, no matter where, or who they were (are/will be).

Beginning here, Paul stipulates the singular condition of inclusion into the family of God, acceptable by Him, and declared righteous.
Gal 3:26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

And here Paul stipulates the absolute LACK of division within that family, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or social status.
Gal 3:28
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 here Paul exhorts the Galatians (and us) to not pay attention to those who would pervert or distort the Gospel of liberty, or cast dung upon the shed blood of Jesus Christ by claiming others have different requirements.
Gal 5:1
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage

And finally, the coup de grace: in Jesus, the ONLY thing that counts, ever has counted, or ever will count, is FAITH, made available to us by HIS love, and which works in us effectually to love the same way.
Gal 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love

Finally, either God is fair and just, or He is unfair and unjust. He says He is fair and just, and is the ONLY righteous judge. He also says that He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and in Him there is no variableness or shadow of turning. He also says that He is no respecter of persons.

If all this is true (Jesus said I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life...), then the only reasonable conclusion that can be arrived at is that God has declared only ONE way to Him, and that same way, the only way, is the same for all persons, throughout all time, and will never be changed.

"ye are saved by grace through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast."

 

I agree there is one gospel, but I think you have made an error in the understanding of a verse you quoted in Gal.-


you also left out verse 15, let me quote the chapter before I make my point:


verses 15 -16 point out that to Paul it was obvious to Jews that they were not saved by works, but that was something the gentile pagans believed!!  Paul's point was that since Peter was not living according to faith (i.e. not eating w/ gentiles who God had saved w/o circumcision), he was living like a pagan and yet he wanted to make the Gentiles follow the custom of circumcision as part of conversion (which is not required by God's law for conversion).

From the finds in the Dead sea scrolls, there was one document called (roughly translated) "some of the works of the law".  This document was a conversion checklist of what a person had to do before he could be part of the community (presumably, the essene community).  This sheds some light on Paul's use of the phrase "works of the law".  It seems in Paul's case, it was a matter of conversion as well that he was debating.  Note that the phrase in the above translation "observing the law" is equivilant to the phrase "works of the law" (see KJV).

Onebook:
Actually, I think we said the identical thing, just in different phraseology.

Paul was pointing out that Peter (a Jew) was saved the same way the gentiles were...and knew it, even though he (Peter) was still (by a lifetime of experience and upbringing) conditioned to act in the old way sometimes.

Paul's main point was the hypocrisy of Peter and the other Judaizers...including Barnabas, in giving way to a fear of what others (the Judaizers) might say.

FINAL STATEMENT:

In considering the application and use of "ultra-dispensationalist" theology, there seems to be several salient points that must be made concerning the  application (doctrine) of that theology to an understanding of eschatology.

Setting aside the obvious conflict with scripture that occurs over the belief that there is more than one Gospel, we see a number of things that do occur when this multiple gospel theology becomes a doctrine.

First, a tendency to compartmentalize the scriptures, believing that any given set of scriptures is applicable ONLY to a particular group. By doing this, one rapidly arrives at the point of being able to effectively emasculate the power and truth contained in the Word of God by saying "it doesn't apply to me."

We see this exact frame of mind in the published words of many of the proponents of ultra-dispensationalism, such as Bob Hill.

"When God began the body of Christ with the salvation of Paul, He produced the most radical change a Jew could think of. God did away with the law for believers. That is, God did away with the law for believers in the body of Christ." (biblicalanswers.com/Articles/ChristiansandtheLaw.htm).

Whereas, by the death of Christ, the entirety of the requirements of the law was fulfilled and set aside.

"from these passages, and others, we can see that the circumcision dispensation is one where faith must be associated with law works. We also see that the believer must endure in these works by faith to remain saved." (biblicalanswers.com/Articles/ChristiansandtheLaw.htm)

The obvious implication is that the law still applies to those NOT in the Body of Christ, the Church, and includes ALL who believed from the day of Pentecost until Paul was converted. A further implication, and often seen in some today (such as John Hagee) is that “In fact, trying to convert Jews is a ‘waste of  time,’ he said. ‘The Jewish person who has his  roots in Judaism is not going to convert to Christianity.  There is no form of Christian evangelism that has failed so  miserably as evangelizing the Jewish people. They (already)  have a faith structure.’ Everyone else, whether Buddhist  or Baha’i, needs to believe in Jesus, he says. But not  Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never  been replaced by Christianity...”

In discussing the immutability (unchanging) aspect of God, Hill says:
 
"This view (Platonic) of perfection is called the static view of perfection. We would disagree with Plato that perfection must be static. If God were to respond perfectly to each situation as the event occurs then God could be perfect and dynamic. As an illustration consider a football coach. If the coach was determining the plays of both teams, then the coach could easily cause his team to win. Such a coach would not be brilliant or admired. However if a coach were able to respond perfectly to the changing strategy of the opposition, the such a coach would have to change his game plans as the opposition changed their strategy. This coach would be practicing dynamic perfection. Such a coach is more worthy of our admiration." (biblicalanswers.com/Articles/AbsoluteForeknowledgeofGod.htm).

In so doing, Hill maintains that God does change, and further, at many points in time, changes His will or agenda ACCORDING to what man does, or how he responds to what God is doing. In other words, God then becomes a "coach worthy of admiration" because He changes His game plan to accomodate what the other team is doing. The end result is that God does NOT have perfect foreknowledge, or omniscience.

To the subject of unchangeableness, I would just submit the following:

Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Of course, using ultra thought patterns and processes, we can dispense with these verses, since they were not written to "us" (the Church).

The second major problem that occurs with the multiple ways theology is that it gives rise, via the separation noted above, to a an attitude of spiritual superiority, a differentiation that quashes brotherhood and fosters militantancy.

By the 4th century AD, and spurred on by Augustine, the Church had adopted an attitude of complete seperation from the Jewish roots of Christianity. In turn, this led to a rejection of all things even remotely associated with Judaism, including the OT prophecies concerning the eventual reconciliation of Israel, and its reestablishment. From this thought developed "A-millennialism", or the idea that (1) there would be no millennial reign, and (2) the tribulation has already occured and we are IN the millennium.  Additionally, this rejection of Judaic history and prophecy led to the idea that the Jewish people had been totally rejected, once and for all, by God and that the Church was NOW the "new Israel", or chosen people of God.

This is replacement theology, and in turn gave rise to the anti-semitism that reached its zenith in the Holocaust. Such an attitude is also seen in pronouncements by some today, such as "we don't preach or evangelize to the Jews, because they have their own way of salvation" (John Hagee, Cornerstone Church, San Antonio, TX).

A further and final consideration of ultra-dispensational theology is that it gives rise to some who began in that movement, and have then "chosen" their favorite dispensation to attempt to move back into, believing that they can choose they "house rules" they want to live under. One such is Bob Enhart, a reconstructionist (theonomist), who believes that it is up to the church today to reinstall a Theocracy, and the only laws are God's laws....all of 'em.  Some variants of this belief are the Kingdom Now and Dominion movements.

The one thing that is identifiable and prevalent throughout all of these movements is that the received Word of God is dispensed with, in part or almost completely, the adherents then excerpt ONLY the parts that they believe apply to them, and even many of those parts are "reconstructed" or "re-interpreted" or "reconfigured" to provide support for their particular belief, which is in complete and utter defiance of
2Ti 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(16)
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17)
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Please note that these words come at the end of a chapter that begins with:
2Ti 3:1
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
(2)For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
(3)Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
(4)Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
(5)Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
(6)For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
(7)Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
(8)Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
 
I will close with the following, often used by the UD's to "prove" their points:
2Ti 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Paul, as we know, earned his living while in ministry by being a tent-maker. Keep in mind, these were probably not pup-tents, or even anything as mundane as a camping tent able to hold several people. In that day and age, the tents used by nomadic travelers were quite large, more closely resembling a house to many of us. Some probably consisted of several rooms. Whatever the size, those tents were made out of materials both woven and animal skin, and as such had to be put together out of different pieces. I believe that Paul had in mind the construction of one of these tents when he used the phrase "rightly dividing", for he knew, far better than most, that if all the pieces were not properly cut out, or "rightly divided", then when it came time to sew them together and erect the tent, it would NOT fit properly together, nor would it be able to withstand strong winds or storms.

Such is the Word of God, that each and every "piece" MUST fit into the overall framework of ALL scripture so that each piece ADDS to the strength and integrity of the entire Word. Without such a "right dividing" we then end up with inconsistencies and contradictions that will result in a weak and ineffectual understanding and display of God, His will, and His Salvation.

Amo 7:7 Thus he shewed me: and, behold, the Lord stood upon a wall [made] by a plumbline, with a plumbline in his hand.
(8) And the LORD said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more:

Plumblines keep the wall straight and true, that it will not collapse, and it is by the plumbline that we can rightly divide.

Well, I think you have backed up your point well, but that brings up some other questions....

If God commanded Israel to do the law and stated that if anyone told them not to keep abiding in His law, they were not to give heed to the voice of that person (prophet), then how could a Jew accept Jesus, or more pointedly Paul, and why would God be so confusing about that? (see Deut. 13)

If there is one gospel (and I agree that there is), then the law that God gave to Israel didn't save them, and since Paul's argumentation is about how one is saved, is the law opposed to faith or is it's function something entirely different?

I think the next big question is, does God have 2 peoples (Israel and the Church)?  And if so, is Israel obliged to keep the law while gentiles aren't?  It seems odd that God has 2 children and says to one- just live by faith, and the other- live by faith and keep these laws because I expect more out of you.

Want to tackle this one next?

 That's a great question.
I think it is resolved by dispensation....

 Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  


 Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Bronzesnake

Bronzesnake -

I don't see how Matt. 5:17-18 supports dispensationalism. In fact, I would use those verses to refute dispensationalism.

It all hinges upon how one defines the word fulfill in this context. The greek word used in 17, plerosai, means literally to fill; the word fulfilled in verse 18 is actually a different Greek word. Some possible meanings for fulfill in 17 could be: "to accomplish, to carry into effect, bring to realisation, to perform." Here is how the verse would read with fulfill being understood this way: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to accomplish, to carry into effect, bring to realisation, to perform." It makes perfect sense.

Some interpret the word fulfill in Matt. 5:17 as "to put an end to." Here is what verse 17 would read according to this understanding: " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to put an end to (the law)." This sounds contradictory.

The same Greek word for fulfill used in Matt. 5:17, is also used in Matt. 3:15 (the baptism of Jesus) "But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness."

This verse is evidence that the first interpretation I gave of the word fulfill for Matt. 5:17 is the correct one. To believe the contrary, would lead one to come to the same conclusions as 5:17 applied to 3:15 would mean that Jesus did away with baptism by becoming baptised, or that He "put an end to righteousness." Of course we know this is not true. I think we can all agree this is correct way to understand 3:15: "for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill (accomplish, to carry into effect, bring to realisation, to perform) all righteousness."

The same Greek word used in Matt. 5:17, Matt. 3:15 is also used in the Gospels when Jesus fulfills a Prophecy about Him in the Prophets: Matt. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet..."

I don't have time now to discuss verse 5:18 and the different Greek word for fulfill, but I can in a future post if you'd like to read what I have to say about that.

~ Chesed

Chesed quote...

 

That's exactly the way I understood the verse.
However, there is a huge difference in the way God deals with sin after Jesus came than there was prior to His coming...don't you recognize this as a new dispensational period? Jesus said...

 Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

"no man" includes the Jews my friend.
  Do you believe that the Jews can be washed clean and saved through the daily sacrifice of animals? That dispensational time ended the day Jesus came, and died on the cross. We now understand that He came as a final Holy sacrifice to pay for the sins of the "world" that whosoever believes in Him shall have eternal life. The Jews are saved by Jesus - it's in Revelations. The 144,000 sealed Jews have accepted Him and become priests to the remaining Jews and gentiles who are trapped in the Tribulation. Many are saved after the Rapture, during the Tribulation hour...Jews included.

Bronzesnake.

Ephesians 1:10.  :That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:1.  For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
 2.  If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
 3.  How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
 4.  Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
 5.  Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
 6.  That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

 Jew and gentile one in Christ. fellowheirs, and of the same body, partakers of His promise by the gospel, the one gospel.

Paul tells us somethong about dispensation identity.

 Ollie

Bronzesnake -


In what way do you think God deals with sin differently now that Jesus has come than before?


I absolutely agree with you here. No one is saved apart from Jesus the Messiah - even the Jewish people.


No, but I don't believe that Jews were ever saved through sacrifice. If you are saying they were saved by sacrificing, then you must be saying that there is or was more than one way of salvation. I believe there has always been only one way of salvation: by grace through faith.

Now let me assert that there is only one people of God- Israel.
I will attempt to support this first, then I'll get back to the dispensation thing-


Note in the above passage, that being excluded from the commonwealth of Israel (national term) made us strangers to the covenants, which left us without hope.  There are no covenants in the Bible made with any entity other than Israel.  It is clear that without being joined to Israel, one has no way to be saved, because that is who the Messiah is sent to save.  Where does that leave gentiles (like myself)?  Check out what Paul says a little further down in Eph.


Fellow Citizen is a national/political term, and what Paul is stating here is that we gentiles are saved because we are now part of Israel through the Messiah.  Note in the Isaiah passage below, that the Messiah is a covenant to the gentiles-


The salvation of the gentiles is the mystery of the gospel.  Part of that mystery is why God would blind his people Israel, but the purpose was to bring us (gentiles) into the body.  The term dispensation is being used as if it is a period of time, but that is not what it means exactly.  It has more to do with whose authority we are under.  The only change in dispensation was that Israel had a change in management.  Up to the time of Messiah, the sanhedrin and the priesthood had authority over Israel.  Once Messiah resurrected, and ascended, he received the dispensation of Israel (authority/administration over Israel).

Now with that in mind, read the passage in Eph. that Ollie quoted again (in full)-

The above verses also corresponds to Isaiah-

I find that this truth bears itself out in the story of Joseph, in that he like the Messiah is dispised by his brothers, taken away (like death, especially where Jacob is conserned) and raised in power to the right hand of pharoh.  When his brothers see him again, they do not recognize him (because he looks like a gentile), but he reveals himself to them.  This is how I think the blinding of Israel occured, after Messiah was dispised, he was raised in power, and became great in the gentile world.  He also became un-identifiable to his brothers (he couldn't be our Messiah, he's a gentile!!).  But wait, there's more-
Joseph had two sons: Ephraim, and Manneseh.  These were born of a gentile mother, so they can't be considered part of Israel, right?  Wrong- they were because Jacob adopted them as his sons, making them brothers to the 12.  This is a perfect picture of how the gentiles would come into Israel, and in the blessing Jacob gives them, he states that Ephraim would become a multitude of gentiles (nations)!

Now back to dispensationalism- well there is not much more to say about it since above I already excluded the popular view.  I would like to say however that I know that this a large bite to chew, since if what I am saying is correct, it means there are some major flaws in our mainstram theology, and every block of a theological system is built on other blocks, so when proposing a paradigm shift in understanding, you basically have to rebuild the whole building from the scriptures up...

Onebook:


Mat 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Fulfil: pleroo:
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
    a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
    a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
    b) to consummate: a number
1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
    c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute
2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]

Keep in mind that the law in and of itself was not capable of declaring a man as righteous. That was accomplished on a temporary basis, once a year, by the sacrifice offered by the high priest, and it was good only for as long as he was in the holy of holies, and only for that which had occurred during the preceding year. The future was NOT covered. Once a supplicant exited the temple, it was a whole new ballgame.

Jesus came to offer a lasting and permanent sacrifice that did NOT require repeating, thereby completing, fulfilling, and FINISHING the requirements of the law.



Gal 3:21
[Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith

The sole purpose of the law was to introduce to man the understanding that he, by nature, was a sinful being who in no way could attain to the righteouness of God.


Eph 2:11
Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

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:

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];

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;

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Israel is now obligated ONLY to recognition and acceptance of the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ (by faith) to be declared righteous in His sight....forever.

Hope this tackles it sufficiently. :D

chesed quote...


 Before Jesus there was the Law...After Jesus - we are saved, not by the Law, but by faith in Jesus, through His sacrafice which - once we accept Him - washes us clean of our sins, and enables us to be saved eternally through Jesus.

chesed quote...

 The "Jews" I am refering to, are the Old Testament Jews my friend. How could they be saved through the blood of Jesus, before He came? Do you believe those O.T. Jews are saved? If so, how are they saved? They were under a different dispensational period, where they had to obey God's Law.

chesed...
Quote:

2  Strong's Number: 4847 Greek: sumpolites
sun, "with," and No. 1, denotes "a fellow-citizen," i.e., possessing the same "citizenship," Eph 2:19, used metaphorically in a spiritual sense.

 I doubt very seriously that merely being joined to a country (Israel) is sufficient to make anyone eligible for salvation. Strong's gives us the actual meaning of the word "commonwealth"... The verse is relating that - Whereas once, we (gentiles) were not under the covenant, as the Jews exclusively were - That now, we are under the same covenant as the Jews. So, it's not being "joined with Israel" which guarantees us access to salvation - it's is being joined with Jesus/God. The following verse confirms this...

Eph. 2:18 - 22
18 for through Him (Messiah) we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Messiah Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

 We may be debating semantics here - I think we may actually agree on this, though I'm not totally sure of your point on this one.

 
 I strongly dissagree with you on this point my friend. The Jews were never under that authority - at least they weren't supposed to be. Jesus got quite angry with those who neglected God's authority in favour of the "sanhedrin and the priesthood"

 It seems to me that you are minimizing the dispensational age after Jesus arrived. This is most definitely the greatest dispensational "change" of our history - God actually came to us in the form of Jesus Christ to willingly die for us! We deserve to be ground into dust. We don't deserve anything but instant death, and yet God came to us, proved who He was through His ministry and miracles, including raising Himself from the dead, so that we could be spared our rightful destiny (death) and be washed clean in order that we can live eternally with Him. Can't you recognize this as a great, new, dispensational period my friend?

Bronzesnake

Bronzesnake –

Okay, here it goes...


I know that you don’t believe that salvation can be earned by one’s works – you and I agree there. But I don’t believe anyone has ever been saved by works.  Paul refuting the idea that salvation is/was by works in Romans 4 uses the First Testament (OT) to back him up:

1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered" Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account." 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised…”

Galatians 3:7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

So obviously the law didn’t have anything thing to do with Abraham’s salvation, he was saved by his faith, even before the Messiah came and died for us. Abraham’s obedience to God’s Law came after he was declared righteous by faith.


Yes it is in a spiritual sense, exactly!


It’s not about being eligible for salvation, but it is what salvation means. Israel is not just a country but a people, God’s chosen people. God calls Israel His bride. The people Israel are the ones He chose to represent Him to the world, the ones He chose to dwell in their midst, the ones He addressed His promises to. We gentiles have become part of His people by adoption through the blood of Messiah, we share those promises, we choose to represent God to the world, He does and He will dwell in our midst.  When gentiles came to faith, we joined Israel.

Romans 9:6  But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Romans 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." 27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." 28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Gal. 6:16
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God


How can you say the Jews of the First Testament weren’t supposed to be under the authority of the Sanhedrin and the Levitical priests? God commanded them to submit to the authority of the Sanhedrin and the Priest in His Torah:

Deuteronomy 17:9-12 "So you shall come to the Levitical priest or the judge who is {in office} in those days, and you shall inquire {of them} and they will declare to you the verdict in the case. "You shall do according to the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the LORD chooses; and you shall be careful to observe according to all that they teach you. "According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. 12 "The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the LORD your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.”

Even Jesus tells his disciples to submit to the authority of the Pharisees:

Matt 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, F124 that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.


No, not at all. I want to understand what Jesus did in His life, death and resurrection with the entire scripture in mind. I think when we start compartmentalizing scripture into dispensations (of time) we loose the context of the gospels and the apostolic writings. Paul says all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).

How do you explain Rev.13:8 that says the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?  

Going back to Matt. 5:17-18, I’m still not sure how your understanding of this passage (we both agreed as to how it should be interpreted) can be reconciled with your dispensationalist views. Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law, that not one Jot or Tittle from the Law, until Heaven and Earth pass away. But correct me if I’m wrong, you believe that with Jesus’ death, and when He said, “It is finished” that the dispensation of Law ended. If this is true, why did Jesus say what He said in Matt 5?

I don’t believe Jesus did away with the Law by His death. Yet I know that by saying this one might misunderstand what I believe about salvation, so I want to make it clear: I don’t believe anyone can earn their salvation by works or by keeping the Torah. I don’t believe anyone can be saved without believing in Jesus. I know that we both agree here. This is the role I think the works of Torah plays in the scheme of salvation:

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

***

Well bronzesnake, the ball is now in your court. It is nice discussing this topic with you. Iron sharpens iron you know...

Take care,
Chesed

chesed...

 Yes, it's very nice to discuss with you also my friend.

 Let me clarify something...
We both know that we are saved through Jesus and not works. I agree, Jesus did not come to put an end to the Law.
On it's face, this would seem to be almost contradictory...If we are saved by Jesus' sacrifice, then why do we need the Law?

 We are saved by Jesus sacrifice - washed clean of all sin, and accepted into His eternal Kingdom. However, we are judged according to our works - not for salvation, but for the rewards promised to us by Jesus.

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.  

 The O.T. Jews certainly were not saved by works, I agree. However, they were redeemed by their faith, which included following God's instructions to obey the Law, and partake in the sacrifices. Once Jesus died on the cross, the sacrifices were eliminated and no longer useful.

   

 You then quoted...Deuteronomy 17:9-12

 However, I believe you took the verse out of context. God was not instructing the Jews to allow the Sanhedrin and the Levitical priests' authority to supercede His - He was instructing them in how to resolve a dispute. In that respect - yes, they were obliged to follow the Sanhedrin and the Levitical priests' instruction.

 Deuteronomy 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;

 Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:  

 Notice that Jesus warns His followers - to follow God's Law, and not the religious leaders. This makes the distinction from who's authority the people were under - God's and not the religious leaders in the Sanhedrin, nor the Levitical priests'

 Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


 In the same manner, Jesus also instructed people to pay their taxes, and follow the laws of the occupying Roman forces...

 Mar 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.  

 Besides these minor details, I actually basically agree with you chesed.

 Bronzesnake.

FWIW....it is my opinion (rofl) that scripture teaches very clearly two things:
1. That God has, through the ages, dealt with man in a progresssive and more revelatory way for the purpose of teaching man how far separated he is from God.
2. During the various methodologies employed by God, there has still remained only ONE way for man to be declared righteous in His sight...and that is by faith.

Paul goes into some details to try to explain all this, but the best summary is:

Gal 3:21
[Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
which of necessity implies that no law ever could or ever will give life, or righteousness

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
the faith being referred to here was not the faith exhibited by Abraham, or Job, or any other OT saint, but the faith revealed by the death and final atonement of Christ Jesus. It is akin to the faith of the OT in that, as Heb. 11 puts it, "...these all died without having received the promise....but looking FORWARD..."

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
which stipulates, of course, that the ONLY purpose of the law was that of teaching, not of actually achieving or awarding righeousness (salvation).

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
 

Sure.... lets see
 Matthew   Mark  Luke  and John  :P

 Reba's right boys and girls...there's four gospels!  :P :D

Bronzesnake

This, is wrong.  On many levels.  Humorous.  But wrong.  Very wrong.   ;D ;) :D

Evangelist:
As a Acts 9/mid-Acts dispensationalist, I and I am sure Bob Hill, do not consider ourselves "Ultra-dispensationalists."

The following is taken from a past issue of the Berean Searchlight.

Are We Hyper-Dispensationalists?
By David M. Havard

Keywords: hyperdispensationalism, ultradispensationalism, dispensationalism, H. A. Ironside, Charles Baker, Pastor C. R. Stam, E. W. Bullinger, J. C. O'Hair, revelation of the mystery, body of Christ, Paul's gospel, gospel of the grace of God, Apostle Paul, rightly dividing the word of truth

Many years ago, H. A. Ironside1 published a booklet entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth in which he threw Charles Baker and C. R. Stam into the same bucket as E. W. Bullinger. Ever since then, we have been labeled as having the same extreme views as Bullinger. Men who have never looked into what we really teach continue to spread the slander started by Ironside back in the 1930's. Besides, it's much easier to label us as "hyper" and dismiss us than it is to address us based on the Scriptures.

This was recently done again in the July/August 1999 issue of Uplook magazine (published by the Plymouth Brethren). In this their Dispensationalism Issues issue, they presented an excellent overview of dispensationalism. As a matter of fact, we would agree with the majority of what was written. But then, one writer had to add this statement:

"One final word. Like all good things, the study of dispensations can be abused. There are some Christians who carry dispensationalism to such an extreme that they accept only Paul's Prison Epistles as applicable for the church today. As a result, they do not accept baptism or the Lord's Supper, since these are not found in the Prison Epistles. They also teach that Peter's gospel message was not the same as Paul's….These people are sometimes called ultra-dispensationalists or Bullingerites (after a teacher named E. W. Bullinger). Their extreme view of dispensationalism should be rejected."2

This article was then followed by the following excerpt from Ironside's book:3

"What is Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism? This system was first advocated some years ago by Dr. E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913), who was educated at King's College, London, and was a clergyman in the Church of England. These views have been widely spread through the notes of the Companion Bible which he edited. Dr. Bullinger's positions are glaringly opposed to what is generally accepted as orthodox teaching. This movement has been carried forth in our day by ardent proponents such as Cornelius Stam, J. C. O'Hair and Charles Baker. [emphasis mine]

"There are a number of outstanding tenets of Ultra-dispensationalism. First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church. Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul's Prison Epistles. Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body. All of the other epistles of Paul are relegated to an earlier dispensation and were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish Church of that time. Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.

"Beside these points, there are many other unscriptural things which are advocated by Bullingerism. Many boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, the universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit. All these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism."

"But wait!" You're thinking, "I don't believe those things!" Well, neither do I, but these are their tactics. As far as most Acts 2 folks are concerned, we agree with Bullinger's far out views regarding soul sleep, annihilation of the wicked, universalism, and that the Body of Christ did not start until Acts 28. You either believe in their interpretation of dispensationalism or you are an extremist like Bullinger. They do not recognize any middle ground. This is what we are up against.

In the above quote, Ironside lists some the "outstanding tenets" of what he calls "ultra-dispensationalism." While this is a convenient label, it does not Biblically address the issues. Let us examine what Ironside said (and everyone else seems to repeat) and see if we agree or not.

"First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church": We do not believe that the four gospels have no real message for the church—Paul says that ALL Scripture is profitable. However, we do believe (because we hold to a literal historical interpretation of the Bible) that Christ's earthly ministry was in keeping with Israel's prophetic kingdom program (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24). We find application in the gospels to be sure, but to say that the basic message of the gospels is directed to the Body of Christ is not being consistent or literal. As Scofield says in his reference Bible, "The Epistles of the Apostle Paul have a very distinctive character....Through Paul alone we know that the church is not an organization, but an organism, the Body of Christ; instinct with His life, and heavenly in calling, promise, and destiny. Through him alone we know the nature, purpose, and form of organization of local churches, and the right conduct of such gatherings. Through him alone do we know that `we shall not all sleep,' that `the dead in Christ shall rise first,' and that living saints shall be `changed' and caught up to meet the Lord in the air at His return. But to Paul was also committed the unfolding of the doctrines of grace…Paul, converted by the personal ministry of the Lord in glory, is distinctively the witness to a glorified Christ, Head over all things to the church which is His Body, as the Eleven were to Christ in the flesh." And if, according to traditional dispensationalism, the Body of Christ started at Pentecost, how can it be found retroactively in the gospels? The message that Peter preached at Pentecost was an offer of the millennial kingdom to Israel (Acts 2:22) conditional upon their repentance and recognition of Jesus as their Messiah—something that we now know will not happen until after the tribulation.

End of part 1 - to be cont'd

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

Part 2

"Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book, refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul's Prison Epistles": You'd think they would at least understand this! Regarding the assembly in the book of Acts, we have both "churches" mentioned, depending on the context. If you see the Body of Christ in the gospels, you are closer to a covenant position than a dispensational one. If the Body is found in the gospels, then to be consistent, it also has to be found in the Old Testament prophetic program as well. It was Bullinger (with whom we do not agree) who said that the Body of Christ did not start until the close of the book of Acts and that only Paul's prison epistles are for us today.

"Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body": We do not agree with Bullinger on this point either. We do say that Paul received a special revelation (Gal. 1:11-12), but we do not agree that only his prison epistles are applicable to us today. Paul began to receive his special revelation of the mystery upon his conversion in Acts 9.

"Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation": Regarding the "ordinances" of the church, there is no place in Scripture where water baptism and the Lord's supper are linked. The Lord's Supper is a memorial that we are instructed in I Corinthians 11 to keep "until He come." However, we do feel that water baptism is a Jewish ordinance and is something that was phased out during the transition period. It is also rarely pointed out that we are not unique in understanding that water baptism is not for today. Other groups throughout church history, such as the Quakers, have also come to this same conclusion.

"Many boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, the universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit. All these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism": This is the worst sort of guilt by association, but I'm sure you see the implication. If you believe in a mid-Acts position, then, according to them, you also believe in these extreme and unscriptural viewpoints as well. By associating us with these cult-like beliefs we can be discredited without ever having to answer our Biblical arguments.

This is what we are up against. These are the same battles, misunderstandings, and deliberate misrepresentations that Pastor Stam has had to fight against for over 60 years—and we must continue to do so today if the gospel of the grace of God is going to continue to go forward.

Yet rather than discourage us, these things should motivate us. We know what we have found. We know how confused we used to be. We can honestly say that this is a more consistent and literal approach to Scripture. We no longer have to explain away what the Bible clearly says in verses such as Acts 2:38. We know that by reading the Body of Christ back into the gospels, we rob them of their distinctive kingdom character. By not understanding the difference we either have to make the clear statements in the gospels (such as a distinction between Jew and Gentile and water baptism) conform to Paul's epistles (where he says there is no difference between Jew and Greek, and that he is the apostle to the Gentiles) by explaining them away or we have to read the gospels into Paul's epistles and make them conform to the message in the gospels (which is what John MacArthur has done with "Lordship Salvation").

We are not the wild-eyed radicals that the theological media tries to portray us as. We are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of traditional dispensationalism. Our two primary points of disagreement are that we see the Body of Christ starting with the conversion and call of the Apostle Paul and that water baptism is not a requirement for this dispensation.

Let us stand firm in proclaiming the unique message revealed to and through the Apostle Paul. It is like telling others about our faith in Christ. We know what it has done for us. We know that it has cleared away our confusion. Let us graciously and boldly share with others what this message has done for us.

Endnotes

1. If you can find someone who has a copy of The Controversy (it's now out of print), you can read more about Ironside's history as related to the Grace Movement.

2. William MacDonald, "Distinguishing things that differ," Up-look, July/August 1999, pp. 11-12.

3. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, H. A. Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers, New York, 1938.
-----------------------
I am not personally offended when I am referred to as a hyper/extreme dispensationalist. When I am asked what my church affilliation is I usually say that I am what others refer to as extreme/hyper dispensationalist. That usually brings on the question "What's that?". This gives me the opportunity to present "the gospel of the grace of God."

One must learn to make lemonade out of lemons.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

Bronzesnake -


Well, if we agree that even the First Testament Jews were not saved by keeping the Law, then why did they need the Law? That's a very good question. If you ask a Jewish person about keeping the Law to be saved, they will most likely tell you that they don't think of everything they do in terms of their salvation. Same thing is (or should be) true of Christians. If your neighbor is sick and you bring him a meal to show kindness, do you believe that you are earning your salvation, or obeying God because you are a Christian? Probably, I would guess, you would choose the latter. That is the Torah/Law. It is not something we do to become saved. It is something we do because we are saved. When we give our lives to Messiah and profess our faith in Him, we become baptized, not to become saved, but because we are saved. In my last post I quoted Eph 2:8-11 and Titus 2:11-14, I think those verses illustrate the role keeping God's law (Torah) should play in the life of a Christian. And I believe that is the role God always intended His Torah to be kept.

I found another verse that indicated the Israelites of the First Testament had the same Gospel as we do: Hebrews 4:2 "For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them (the Israelites in the Wilderness, see Chapter 3);" Check it out and tell me what you think about it.


In the context of Deuteronomy 17, God is giving authority to the priests and judges (which became the Sanhedrin) to decide legal cases, both civil and criminal: 8 " If any case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, being cases of dispute in your courts,..."

However, we know that Jesus condemned the Priests and Sanhedrin for being hypocrites. But still, in Matt. 23, He specifically told His disciples to obey them.

By the way, the Schofield Bible, in the older editions stated in the footnotes that there were 4 different gospels for 4 dispensations: pre-Moses, Mosaic, New Covenant, and post rapture.

I think that the dispensational teaching is a tradition of man.

Evangelist:

I don't think the Bible supports this idea that the sacrifice had any power to cover or

erase sin, it was only to remind us or educate us to the effect of sin.  Hebrews clearly

states that it had now power to forgive-


Additionally, if the sacrifice forgave sins, even just past ones, then God would not have

had to have sent His son to die for us.  I'm sure he would have preferred another way if it

was possible...



I agree that Jesus came to offer a lasting and permanent, and altogether different

atonement, one that cleansed our sin, and not one that just pointed out every year that we

are sinners.  I disagree that he replaced or did away with the animal sacrifice, since you

would have to view those two sacrifices on the same level for one to replace the other.  As

it is, I know that we still are able to sin, and we could use some reminders of that, and

the consequence.  The sacrifices pointed to the payment Messiah made before the foundation

of the world, and when the Temple is rebuilt, it will still point to that.


The law had many purposes, but that was not listed as the primary reason in the Bible, this

was-



A few notes on Eph 2:11, it is obvious that the main thrust of this section is that Gentiles

have become part of Israel (fellow citizens).  Also, the word law in this verse is the Greek

dogma, not the usual nomos.  This word dogma is a reference to edict law made by the sages

of the time, and not to God's law.  This is obvious since there are no passages that state

that Jews cannot meet with any Gentiles.  This was something that the sages enacted, but

Peter in Acts refers to it as "law"-


Dogma also appears in Col. 2:14 which is along the same lines as this Eph. passage.


Yes, I agree that Israel is obliged to accept the Messiah, but I suppose I differ with you

in that when they do, they will keep the law as God intended.

After salvation comes sanctification.  Salvation is God's work alone, but sanctification is

a work that God gives us to share in (service to Him).  We can see this clearly in the

following verse-


The overall picture here can be seen with Israel coming out of Egypt.  God saved Israel from

slavery to Egypt(sin) with the blood of the lamb (Messiah's offering). It was not anything

that Israel did that brought this about, but God's promise to Abraham.  God brought them out

of Egypt to Sinai to teach them His ways before he brought them into His rest.  Sinai here

is like the giving of the Holy Spirit, however the people in the desert didn't obey the

Spirit, so they died in the desert.  

Well, I've gotta get some sleep.  Good discussion...