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 ...
I saw the post and responded to it.
If you want to bow out, that is your freedom to do so.
I will note, no one promoting two gospels has answered the key points to the discussion:
1. When in Acts did the kingdom gospel end and the gospel of grace begin. Beginning, middle, end of Acts or after Acts?
2. Did Peter and the 11 continue in a separate kingdom gospel as Paul preached the gospel of grace? How long did they simultaneously exist?
3. Did Paul ever preach the kingdom gospel, and if he did when did he stop preaching it for the gospel of grace?
4. 1 Corinthians 15, Paul defines the Gospel which he taught. He also mentions that based on this gospel "Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed." If this is accurate then which gospel is Paul referring to? The gospel of the kingdom or the gospel of grace?
If anyone wants to take this up let me know.
Thanks
That said, Peter and the twelve were men raised as Jews. They were pressing Jesus first to prove He was Messiah come (John 14) then even after the resurrection pressing Him to see if He would then institute the Kingdom Age. These twelve did not yet comprehend that Salvation is by Grace when one believes in their heart that Jesus is Whom God sent for the propitiation of sins. They knew it in their hearts but still carried the baggage of Judaism which colored their perspective, as if they could not quite accept that the weeks prophesied in Daniel nine were getting a pause, a pause which we know has lasted nearly 2000 years.
There is a gradual awakening to this reality in the twelve, as evidenced by God having to show Peter three times the flaw in his reasoning, and he still didn't comprehend it until he saw for himself in the house of Cornelius that the Holy Spirit comes when someone believes int ehir heart!
Even by the time of the Great Church Council at Jerusalem, a letter is issued from James and the assembly to the Gentiles being evangelized by Paul, stating the requirements for being a Church member, and it did not list a lengthy Judaic TORH list to follow or even anything more than 'you will do well by avoiding these few things. For writing the letter was included 'that Moses (meaning the law and prophets) was offered for generations in their cities' (synagogues abounded).
The point of focus for the Church Age IS the Grace of God available to any who say in their heart what Peter uttered under Holy Spirit guidance in Matthew 16:16. The great mystery was hard for Peter and the eleven to awaken to since they were steeped in Judaism. Only gradually did they come to realize that it is by FAITH ALONE that the Holy Spirit descended INTO believers, even before Peter could finish fumbling the sermon! There is a convergence of preaching that took time to converge. But by the end of Acts, God's Spirit had unified the Church message. And it was left to Catholicism to diverge that Truth into a nicolaiten oligarchy which to this day denies the simplicity of the Gospel so that they (the Catholic hierarchy) are empowered by the organizational hierarchy blinding themselves and the followers. BUT EVEN IN THAT fog, some hearts are awakening and being sealed by His Spirit!
Because the revelation of Truth is at the spirit level and salvation is immediate when one believes in their heart, satan cannot change a saved person into someone never born from above. He therefore works to blunt their fruit bearing, using things like Institutional High Church which 'sanctifies' a cannibalistic misinterpretation of the Last Supper for remembrance of Jesus' Sacrifice for us. Or twists the scenes from the work of Paul to mean snakes should be handled to show faith or strychnine should be consumed to prove faith worthy of deliverance. KA hit is solid with 'foolery'.
While Peter preached a different Gospel message from that of Paul, for a while, it did contain the essential element hidden from the world up until Pentecost, that Jesus, as a man, being God with us, had died in our place so that we may have His life in us, the hope of Glory.
Though Peter had a kingdom perspective when he preached Christ crucified for all, his preaching gradually went from kingdom focus to the same sermon content Paul was given by revelation to reveal. The Church Age began at Pentecost, despite the Jews still stumbling on the expectation of the Kingdom. The Church Age must have dawned on Peter by/in the house of Cornelius, but I would guess he left that home still puzzled over how the Kingdom and the Church Age were to be unified.
God's Holy Spirit was doing something that took satan by surprise, God revealed His Grace, in Christ, to the entire world because of the rejection of Him by those to whom he was sent, thus putting off the Kingdom Age until the seventieth week of Daniel would be finished. Satan did not see the pause coming, and it has taken him nearly two thousand years to prepare his next battle plan, to thwart the conversion of humans during the Tribulation, with his great lie.
For satan to have the opportunity to spew this great lie upon the survivors after the Rapture, God's restraining influence will first be 'apostasized', departed, taken out of the way via the Rapture of The Church, The Body of Christ. We are facing a similar state of confusion confronted in the earliest manifestation of the Church Age. Though the Grace is contained in the preaching, it is gnarled up in all sorts of institutional falderal and ritual works. It is the belief in thine heart that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of The Living God, that has activated the Grace of God in the souls of men and women, for God's Spirit goes to and fro throughout the whole earth seeking any boy, girl, man or woman who will let God be God IN THEM.
Cynical Bear has just posted proof that Rood has claimed to be a rabbi in the past. While he may have stepped back from that more recently and removed those references from his "official" sites, the record is there for those who wish to pursue the matter. So is the record for the other issues most of us have with Rood.
I know that Rood is an engaging teacher. He's also one that is very good at pushing the pride buttons: Oh, thanks to Rood, you now know the Truth that both the Church and the Jews are blinded to! And anyone who challenges Rood's teaching must be the instrument of the Adversary to keep men blinded to this Truth!
Don't let pride lead you to reject what we've been trying to tell you out of hand, nor to only get your information about Rood from Rood himself so as to confirm what you want to believe.
If you aren't willing to do your homework in this area, then you're no better than anyone else who blindly follows a tradition of men over the Word of God.
Shalom uv'rekha m'ach Yeshua HaMashiach
.
Unbelief is not the unpardonable sin.
The state of mind of one who knows of Yeshua and his sacrifice, and holds back to enjoy the world, thinking that he can choose the time of repentance of his own volition has committed the unpardonable sin.
When the Holy Spirit has called you, and you make a calculated delay for your Earthly pleasure, you are playing with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
.
Which part of the Body of Christ contains those twelve thrones that Peter and the 11 were PROMISED by Christ? And what about Paul? Where is HIS throne? If they all preached the same message, why doesn't Paul get a throne? And Paul states that in the body, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, we are one new man in Christ. How then are Peter and the 11 going to be judging 12 tribes of Israel when they body doesn't recognize a difference?
It seems you keep making it something you can do or not do.
I didn’t have anything to do getting sealed with the holy ghost. God did all that. It was a one time event, a gift from above that I did not deserve that cannot be taken from me.
God made it real simple for us
Speculation based on some theology or theory of man.
However we can tighten the shot group up a bit and lay down some foundations to the discussion at hand. This will clear up some of the multiple posts:
1. When in Acts did the kingdom gospel end and the gospel of grace begin. Beginning, middle, end of Acts or after Acts?
2. Did Peter and the 11 continue in a separate kingdom gospel as Paul preached the gospel of grace? How long did they simultaneously exist?
3. Did Paul ever preach the kingdom gospel, and if he did when did he stop preaching it for the gospel of grace?
4. 1 Corinthians 15, Paul defines the Gospel which he taught. He also mentions that based on this gospel “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” If this is accurate then which gospel is Paul referring to? The gospel of the kingdom or the gospel of grace?
If you are interested in addressing the above questions, I think we can have an organized discussion.
Thanks
.
>> “Cynical Bear has just posted proof that Rood has claimed to be a rabbi in the past” <<
.
You are completely in error.
You have accepted the word of a man’s earned detractors, and defamed him.
What CB chooses to believe is between him and God, but when it is provably false the risk is great.
Michael Rood has been known for more than two decades to reject every element of Jewabieism, and has done so on a world wide scale.
The words of a man’s detractors are proof only of their venom.
If by “pushing pride buttons” you mean fund raising, every minister I have ever known of in my life does that.
That is one of the reasons why not one penny of my donations goes to any 501c-3 compliant corporation, large or small.
All of my cash goes to individuals doing the work of Yeshua out of their own homes.
Every sin is something you either do, or do not do.
Those that will stand with Yeshua on the sea of glass choose “do not do,” and when they slip and “do,” they confess and repent.
When one chooses “do” with the plan to choose “do not do” later, he has committed that unpardonable sin.
Scary, but that is what it is. Every one that commits that sin is a technical believer, not an unbeliever.
.
That when Israel as a nation realized that Christ was INDEED their prophesied Messish, they repented and were baptized so that the days of refreshing might come and God would send Christ back. Read Peter’s sermon AS IT IS WRITTEN, WORD FOR WORD. And don’t try to anticipate revelation that had yet to be revealed.
You do realize, many Jews accepted the Gospel message on Pentecost. They were also filled with the Holy Spirit. Based on your above comments, then even with that small remnant of Jews converted, Christ would return. We know that did not happen. We also know from Peter's epistles, as with Paul's epistles, they both expand on the gospel message.
So if you do not want to put a stake in the ground where the kingdom gospel ended and the gospel of grace started, that is fine, but don't expect me to respond to your unfounded and belittling comments.
There were many Jews accepting Christ on Pentecost. The apostles were Jews.
The apostles never went out to all the nations preaching the good news. They stayed in Jerusalem, argued a bunch and disappeared. While Paul was able to spread the good news to the gentiles and the gospel went out to the world.
The apostles did go to Samaria. Philip did preach the Gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch. Peter did enter the home of a Roman to preach the same gospel Paul preached. The results were the same.
If you can answer post 525 with Scripture, I will gladly enter into a discussion with you. Post 525 should be the “ah-hah” moment in what we’re discussing. Where ARE those twelve thrones that Christ promised Peter and the 11? And why was Paul not promised one, if they all preached the same message. This is important, redleghunter. It should serve to make you search God’s word for the answer, compare Scripture with Scripture and see things you may have never seen before. I apologize for offending you. It was not my purpose, my zeal just gets in the way of any longsuffering I may have, which isn’t much, as you can tell.
I agree. I would also like to point out that we cannot take Acts 2 or 3 or many parts of Acts as a theological dissertation. The epistles reveal the details. Acts is a historical account of how the first believers came to Christ as Lord and Savior and what they did, their actions. To formulate a separate gospel theory between the kingdom and grace from Acts is, theologically, untenable. I think you make a good point of this with the remainder of your previous post.
Once again you forgot to read on to verse 20.
Acts 3:20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,
See there? "that He may send Jesus". Wasn't Jesus already sent? Still Peter is talking about "may send Jesus"? Let's look back and put that with verse 19.
Acts 3:19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,
Think about that. Peter is talking to them after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet he makes the comment "may send"? And that "times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord"? He's talking about when Jesus returns to set up His Kingdom after the tribulation. That's when the Jews will see "times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord".
>>then at what point did Peter and the 11 shift from the kingdom message and take up the grace message?<<
I don't think Peter and the 11 ever really "shifted" did they? Their focus was always on the Jews/Israel and the coming time when Jesus would set up His Kingdom. Now that's not to say they didn't also preach grace as Peter did mention in his sermon at Pentecost but look at his words in Acts 2 starting with verse 17.
Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: The phrase "in the last days" is talking about the time of the tribulation after the "church" has been taking out of the world and God is once again dealing with the nation of Israel prior to Jesus setting up His "Kingdom" on earth.
>>Also, at what point did Paul cease teaching or preaching the kingdom gospel?<<
Paul didn't "cease preaching the kingdom gospel". He was the one who differentiated between the "dispensation" of grace" and the attention again being given the people of Israel after "the fullness of the Gentiles".
I want to point out a couple of statements in your referenced passage from 1 Peter 1.
"reserved in heaven for you"
What's "reserved in heaven"? Isn't it Jesus who will return to set up His kingdom on earth for 1000 years?
"ready to be revealed in the last time"
Again, that "revealed in the last time". That's again referencing the time Israel turns to Christ just prior to Him setting up His kingdom on earth.
"the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow"
What "glories that would follow? Isn't the the glories that will be given the saved Jews/Israelites at the end of time with their King and Messiah sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem?
1. When in Acts did the kingdom gospel end and the gospel of grace begin. Beginning, middle, end of Acts or after Acts?
2. Did Peter and the 11 continue in a separate kingdom gospel as Paul preached the gospel of grace? How long did they simultaneously exist?
3. Did Paul ever preach the kingdom gospel, and if he did when did he stop preaching it for the gospel of grace?
4. 1 Corinthians 15, Paul defines the Gospel which he taught. He also mentions that based on this gospel “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” If this is accurate then which gospel is Paul referring to? The gospel of the kingdom or the gospel of grace?
No one is saying individual jews did not accept Jesus as the messiah.
And the apostles did not follow the Lords instructions go out to all nations. They waited at home for Jesus to return.
In post 525 you provided one scripture verse to promote two gospels.
So you should be able to answer these previously, and unanswered questions now:
1. When in Acts did the kingdom gospel end and the gospel of grace begin. Beginning, middle, end of Acts or after Acts?
2. Did Peter and the 11 continue in a separate kingdom gospel as Paul preached the gospel of grace? How long did they simultaneously exist?
3. Did Paul ever preach the kingdom gospel, and if he did when did he stop preaching it for the gospel of grace?
4. 1 Corinthians 15, Paul defines the Gospel which he taught. He also mentions that based on this gospel “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” If this is accurate then which gospel is Paul referring to? The gospel of the kingdom or the gospel of grace?
1. When in Acts did the kingdom gospel end and the gospel of grace begin. Beginning, middle, end of Acts or after Acts?
2. Did Peter and the 11 continue in a separate kingdom gospel as Paul preached the gospel of grace? How long did they simultaneously exist?
3. Did Paul ever preach the kingdom gospel, and if he did when did he stop preaching it for the gospel of grace?
4. 1 Corinthians 15, Paul defines the Gospel which he taught. He also mentions that based on this gospel “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” If this is accurate then which gospel is Paul referring to? The gospel of the kingdom or the gospel of grace?
I watched some of it editor. The man is a con artist and fraud. He tried to cover some of his errors by closing down that 6001 site but it had already been recorded and saved. That's the "early stuff". Denying his association with The Way International and his Karaite wedding will only discredit you further. Those are all on record and part of his history.
Rightly dividing seems important at that point doesn't it.
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.