Posted on 05/22/2015 4:54:44 PM PDT by OK Sun
I have been taught Dispensationalism from my mother’s womb. I was born in a dispensational environment. It was assumed at my church to be a part of the Gospel. There was never another option presented. It made sense. It helped me put together the Scriptures in a way that cleared up so much confusion. And, to be honest, the emphasis on the coming tribulation, current events that prove the Bible’s prophecy, the fear that the Antichrist may be alive today (who is he?) was all quite exciting. But what might be the biggest attraction for me is the charts! Oh how I love charts. I think in charts. And dispensationalism is a theology of charts!
The first time I came across someone who was not a Dispensationalist was in 1999. I am not kidding. It was the first time! I don’t think I even knew if there was another view. It was when I was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary (the bastion of Dispensationalism) and I was swimming with some guys who were at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Once they discovered I was a dispensationalist, they giggled and snickered. They made fun of the rapture, the sacrificial system during the millennium, and the mark of the beast (which, at that time, was some type of barcode). It was as if they patted me on the head and said “It’s okay . . . nice little dispensationalist.” I was so angry. I was humiliated. I was a second-rate theologian. They were “Covenantalists” (whatever that was). But they were the cool guys who believed in the historic Christian faith and I was the cultural Christian, believing in novel ideas.
(Excerpt) Read more at reclaimingthemind.org ...
Until the time Israel is blinded (temporarily) and set aside, (Acts 28), Paul confirmed the covenants God made with Israel and kept the law. Once they were set aside, the ordinances that were contained in the law were blotted out. Col. 2:9-14. Paul had a two fold ministry. First he confirmed the covenants and promises made to Israel and second he proclaimed the gospel of the grace of God. As long as Israel was still operating as God's favored people, they were given the gospel of the kingdom, to accept whereby Christ would return and set up the Kingdom. Once they rejected the gospel of the kingdom and Christ as Messiah, there was no longer a gospel of the kingdom to proclaim. There was no one to proclaim it to. The gospel of the grace of God superceded it and will until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. At which time the Church the Body of Christ is removed and God removes the scales from Israel's eyes and the kingdom gospel is once again preached. Think about it: once the Body of Christ is raptured, who is there to preach the gospel of the grace of God to? Knowing that this gospel, when believed, places us into the Body of Christ, once that Body is complete, it is removed from this earth to heaven. There is no more Body left to fill. It is complete. This is why the dispensation of the grace of God ends. And why the kingdom message is once again proclaimed.
If Paul were given the same commission as Peter and the 11, why not save him before the day of Pentecost and make him the 12th Apostle? He wasn't made the 12th because his ministry, given to him by the RIsen Christ, was different.
Thinking about it, the only Christians groups I know of that place eschatology at the same doctrinal level as Christology are modern (as opposed to historic) pre-tribulational dispensationalists.
Yup. Been anathematized more than once, by one or another member of FR's Dispensational Squawkus. The reasoning seems to be, I don't believe some silly and unbiblical dispensational distinctive, so obviously I don't believe the Bible, and so obviously I'm not saved.
In a sense, eschatology is at that high level. Eschatology is a lot broader than the stuff (divining schedules, date "suggesting", combing Arab princes and has-been Euro royalty for AC candidates) that our dispensational friends tinker with. A good theology is coherent -- holds together well. Everything has a place and a time, In God's superintending this age toward the consummation.
Christology is eschatological. First Adam, last Adam. The resurrection -- Christ, the firstborn from among the dead. Then us -- we get what he got. "As we have born the image of the man of dust, so we shall bear the image of the man of heaven".
(hopefully I'm coherent. I'm underslept and propped up by caffeine.)
Did Peter preach these things on the day of Pentecost? Even ONE of these things? No, he did NOT. These things were given to Paul to preach, the gospel of the grace of God.
AMEN. Not a one of us reaches for anything other than the Bible to support our beliefs. And yet, the other side cannot seem to make a point without resorting to some man’s book or doctrinal statement or church father’s belief in order to try and prop up their argument. If a person needs to go outside God’s word to prove God’s point, something is REALLY WRONG>
Fortunately your opinion is worthless to God. It’s HIS opinion that matters and will endure.
Show me where Paul wrote Hebrews. WHere can I find that information?
I also would like to know which Scripture in Hebrews you are using to support your position regarding Moses and Paul preaching the “same exact gospel”. Thank you
And when they had appointed him (Paul) a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: [ Isa 6:9 Matt 13:14 John 12:40 ]
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. [ Isa 6:10 Matt 13:15 Mark 4:12 ]
Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
And to see how Jesus explained it to the disciples:
Matthew 13: 10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. given [ See Matt 11:25, 16:17, Mark 4:11, Luke 8:10, 1st Cor 2:10, Col 1:26, 1st John 2:27 for more parables and insights ] 28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. 29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Apparently being given the clear Greek wording and meaning, you are too dull to receive it. Sad that ...
I’m sure af vet forgot that I corrected my mistake of saying Acts 29 when I should have said Acts 28...so when he states that I said Acts 29 you of course would not agree with me. DUH...:) SURELY he meant no harm...
Of course he meant no harm. I was just trying to lighten up the discussion with a little oblique humor.
Dr. H.A. Ironside defined dispensations in his book, In the Heavenlies, as follows, “It is an economy or a particular order or a condition of things prevailing in a special age which does not necessarily prevail in another age.”
2 Pet 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Where, in that Scripture, does it say the Paul wrote Hebrews? I believe that every one of Paul’s Epistles ends with his name as the author of it. And yet Hebrews does not.
**And Matt and Mark and Luke and John.**
There was no remission of sins until the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:16,17, and 10:15-18). And there was no pouring out of the Holy Ghost, until Jesus departed: “..for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you”. Jn 15:7
**Did Peter jump at the opportunity to witness to Cornelius as part of the great commission to go to all nations? No. He had to be given a vision about this. And he even questioned that.**
The story of the vision God gave Peter has some undeniable facts:
1. Peter did NOT know anything about Cornelius, or the messengers that were sent, BEFORE the vision.
2. The vision was given to Peter thrice.
3. God did NOT afterwards reveal what the vision meant, he simply told him about the three men and to go with them.
4. He WENT with them, no holding back.
5. Peter preached to them Christ crucified, and resurrected.
**And he STILL told Cornelius that it was unlawful for a Jew to “keep company” or “come unto one of another nation” BUT God had SHOWED him to go.**
Read the whole verse 28, and notice:
That Peter, knowing enough about Cornelius (he had just walked and probably talked, for about 40 miles with his messengers), that he knew Cornelius was aware of Jewish separation from Gentiles, said: “YE (I repeat ‘YE’) know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”
Then in verse 29, Peter anounces: “Therefore came I unto you WITHOUT GAINSAYING, AS SOON AS I WAS SENT FOR: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?”
Cornelius told his story, and Peter responded: “Of a truth I perseive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”
Peter preached Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost fell, and Peter commanded them baptized in the name of the Lord (which was what the Lord commanded in his commissions).
And Paul, after seeing the goings on of the followers of Christ, persecuted them. He had to get the smack down on the road to Damascus to even admit he needed to be changed (I notice that you skirted his witness of his detailed conversion. AND you STILL won’t go to Acts 19).
The baptism of the Holy Ghost was, and has always been since Pentecost, a supernatural experience. That’s the stumblingblock so many folks have.
This is a classic example of the primary error and vulnerability of Protestantism as devolution reoccurs and another sect or cult breaks off. The gospel according to this new sect/cult is that there are (at least) two different gospels, one of Peter and the other eleven apostles, and another of Paul which this sect purports to follow.
I did not include and elsewhere. I quoted what smvoice actually wrote. He specified when it occurred and I asked if you agreed with him.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Mark 16:16.
Both of these are examples of the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, preached by John the Baptist and Christ BEFORE Christ's crucifixion.
The reason this is important is the anyone who was there and who was convicted of sin KNEW what they MUST do to be saved: REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED. No doubt about that. Right?
The baptism of repentance for the remission of sins was part of the "Great Commission" given to the 12 by Christ. Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16 are clear. Right?
And so it was also preached AFTER Christ's crucifixion and resurrection and ascencion, as Acts 2:38 CLEARLY states. Right? The "great commission" demanded repentance AND baptism for sins to be remitted.
I'm not sure WHAT point you're trying to make with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You'll have to be clearer.
As far as Peter and Cornelius, you are not understanding what I'm saying here. The Great Commission states: "AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD, AND PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERY CREATURE. That they were to go into all the world was clear. There was no misunderstanding. right? So, why did Peter need a vision about unclean things? And why did he doubt in himself what that vision meant? And what did it matter? There was nothing in the great commission about clean and unclean things, it was about preaching the gospel to all the world. Right? Then why did Peter hesitate? WHy did he question the Lord? The great commission says "go". Why did Peter hesitate? He was filled with the Holy SPirit, right?
Hey af vet, have you heard the good news?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.