DEBATE -Is there more than one gospel?

[Evangelist]

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.
 

[Reba]

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

[Bronzesnake]

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

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

Bronzesnake

[Allinall]

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

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

Bronzesnake

This, is wrong.  On many levels.  Humorous.  But wrong.  Very wrong.  

[BigD]

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.

[BigD]

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!

[Chesed]

Bronzesnake -

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?

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.

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.

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.

[oneBook]

Evangelist:

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.

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-

Heb. 10:3-4
3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible

for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

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...

Jesus came to offer a lasting and permanent sacrifice that did NOT require repeating,

thereby completing, fulfilling, and FINISHING the requirements of the law.

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.

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.

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

was-

Duet. 4:6-8
6 "So keep and do {them,} for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the

peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and

understanding people.' 7 "For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is

the LORD our God whenever we call on Him? 8 "Or what great nation is there that has statutes

and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?

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"-

Acts 10:28
28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to

associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call

any man unholy or unclean.

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

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.

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-

Phil. 2:12
12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now

much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God

who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

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...