On request, Different Gospels -#2.

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by ituttut, Jun 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    A few here have it right, and are not hyper-dispensationalist so called, but hyper in furthering the cause of Christ which is to fill His Church, The Body of Christ Church, in order to bring on the Rapture, so The Kingdom Can Come.

    A simple question please. Why does the word "dispensation" scare people away from Paul? Do these same people scorn and disbelieve MOSES? For heavens sake this word comes from a little word "dispense". How in the world can anyone read scripture and not see that God dispenses His Grace differently from the beginning?

    Did His Grace toward Abel include the LAW? Did Abel have to do the the same as Noah did to be saved? Noah was required to do more more than Abel. All Abel had to do was believe God and do as he was told. And what was that? Make a Blood Sacrifice. Is this all that Noah had to do? Did God not dispense His Grace differently dealing with Noah? All Abel had to do was believe God and make blood sacrifice. Just for the heck of it let's call this something? How does Work sound?

    God determined that certain things must come about in order to accomplish His Goal. So what did He do in order to see that the Father would have His Only Begotten Son with Him in eternity, and eliminating Sin, Death, and the Grave? The next big event increased a work required of Abel, to works. Noah not only had to do blood sacrifice, but had to build the first boat, and the boat did float, and because it did the first thing Noah did was to make blood sacrifice. So what do the naysayers have to say about God "dispensing" His Grace when He will, and How He will?

    I'm putting in words as simply as I can, hoping some may catch the drift, as we move from one "dispensation" to another? How horrible we say Paul claims to have a dispensational gospel given to Him by Christ Jesus from Heaven. If not a change, then what is it?

    Before answering I hope you will check scripture first to see if there was a change in the Word of God at the birth of John the Baptist, and is the gospel of John the Baptist what God tells us to believe TODAY?

    In any dispensation, all we have to do is Believe What God Tells Us As We Live.
     
  2. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    My friend...

    Can I ask you a question? How can you be a Southern Baptist, AND a hyper dispensationalist? This is clearly refuted by the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

    Hyper dispensationalism denies the importance of Baptism. Yet the SBC faith and message states:

    "Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. "

    Hyper Dispensationalism teaches that we are not commanded to repent. Yet the Faith and Message states that repentance (defined as a "turning away from sin") is requisite for salvation:

    "It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace."

    Hyper Dispensationalism says that the Church started in Acts. Yet the Faith and Message states that:

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

    My friend, are your Church members aware of your beliefs? I only ask, because your beliefs are not Southern Baptist.
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    The Southern Baptist Faith and Message also defines the Church as:

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

    That statement is totally contrary to dispensational doctrine, hyper or otherwise.
     
  4. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, bro, there are some forms of progressive dispensationalism , which could agree with this. But, point taken.
     
  5. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    The above bolded is incorrect and your usage of the BFM2000 was improperly quoted as if to discredit a presumption that the SBC sees the church (at all times) to be all the redeemed from all ages.

    Firstly, it is not Hypers who believe the church started in Acts all Premils, dispy's, and even some covenants followers. Secondly the BFM 2000 agrees with this premise also and is seen in the first portion that was neglected to be quoted.
    The above can not be attributed to any group prior to the Acts church and there after. It is qualified by "the New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ". Of this group of 'baptized believers' in fellowship of the gospel, excersizing spiritual gifts. In the Church body there are pastors and deacons which are ascribed ONLY the NT Church. Therefore in light of the above passage the SBC does in fact hold to and agree with the Church being a New Testament entity as well as an entity in the 'future' in which all the redeemed are also included.

    The portion you quoted states which FOLLOWS the above states
    It is this portion that many of the Covenant opinion neglect to read. And thus the question is which passages are they refering to :)
     
  6. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Premils, dispys, and progressives have no problem with it when understood in light of the entire portion brother :saint:
     
  7. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro, the "also" is obviously inclusive, right now, of all people of all ages. Covenant theologians would agree with the first paragraph. But if I asked a dispensationalist "Does the Body of Christ, which the SBC states is synonomous with the Church, consist of all believers of all ages?" I would get a resounding "NO!".

    This does not say they are "Going to be". It says they are. And I don't know what form of Classical Disp. you have been studying, but all of the books I have read state pretty explicitly that Old Testament Jews and New Testament Gentiles will NEVER be united in the same body: they will be separate for all eternity. They plainly and forthrightly deny that Old Testament Jews will be part of the Church, ever.

    But the SBC Faith and Message, says they are, now.
     
  8. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, not true. The BFM was written in such a way as to be a document that summerizes the core beliefs (as best as is possible) of BOTH groups just as it does the views of BOTH Cals and Not-Cals. Remember, the vast majority of the SBC is Dispensationalists and this reflects their views in a general sense as much as it does others.

    The above 'also' is inclusive and I did not state it was not but the 'inclusiveness' of the term is not that it states 'also' as in at all times but that it states the word church in the NT is seen (even by dispensationalists) to also be states as the redeemed of time. This statement can not in any manner be presumed to mean the church is always to be seen as having been in existance and in fact establishes a distinction commonly understood by Souther Baptists between the meanings. Thus it is not true that the meaning is intrinsic to 'right now' except to those who hold it as such.
     
    #8 Allan, Jun 28, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2009
  9. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    You are correct and the SBC statement is correct; but not according to classical or hyper dispensationalism. I believe they also claim that the Jews in the so-called millennium kingdom will be forever separate from the church but I am not sure.
     
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    i agree. from what I have read of progressive dispensationalists they are steadily, if slowly, moving to the covenant or historic premillennial position.
     
  11. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Praise God many are seeing through this muddy water.

    Steven.
     
  12. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 1 due to length

    Dear Havensdad a good question, and I will endeavor to answer. But first, may is ask a Question? Why didn't you take a swing at disproving what I presented? Is it too much trouble to find in His Word where I am wrong?


    Iwalked the aisle at age nine, and baptized the next week into that Baptist Church. But I was saved before I came forward. I was told I had to be baptized to be accepted by that church. This I did. As I grew older, and I began reading the Bible, there finding something did not quite mesh with scripture. What was that something? Why was it the church would not accept me (now a Christian), if I was not baptized. Can you see where this is going?
     
  13. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 2

    All Baptist churches are not Southern Baptist. If I'm not mistaken there are over 100 denominations in the Baptist environment, and they all do not believe the same thing. Does your church "foot wash", or bent toward charismaticism? Does your church have pictures that Scripture says you should not have in your home, or your church? Does your home, or church have angel figures, or manger replicas made by man. If so, then don't we believe we are doing God's will, worshiping these things that man has told us to worship? Are we doing anything different than what the Idol worshiping Israelits did? He told them not to do it.
    I see you are of the crowd of the Body of Christ that does not understand others that are also in the Body of Christ. Because we understand the gospel of Paul, and build on the foundation that he laid on the foundation of Jesus Christ, we are ridiculed and called Hyper in our belief. In Antioch was the Christian name given to those in the Body of Christ because of Love, or of scorn. That name Christian was brought about by the world, and yes even some in the Jerusalem Apostolic Pentecostal church. The "Troublers from that church said you Gentile Christians must believe also the gospel of the circumcision, and do that which is required of us. You must be circumcised, and do the rites that come with our faith, which is by faith .

    I do not know of any that believe in the "dispensational gospel of Paul" that denies we are to repent. This belief of repentance as a turning to Christ Jesus, when we believe with all of heart we change our mind about remaining In SIN. We turn to Him for our Salvation. So what you have been told, or read is not correct. I am a dispensational saved sinner, belonging to a Baptist Church.
    Well why then don't you claim to be of the dispensational gospel of Paul?
     
  14. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 3

    This is another point of contention, misunderstood by those not of the "dispensational gospel which we are to believe today? I believe also this teaching, but can understand why you are not a "dispensationalist". You look to believe All has been the Same from the Beginning. In understanding Paul, this allows us to believe ALL of Scripture, without Contradiction. We understand about eternity, knowing God will be all in all. But not today, for God has promised Israel the earth, and a KING. This is known to us as the millennium Kingdom.

    But what you post above is not actually when the New Testament Began, It did not begin until Jesus spilled His Blood. We find this information in the Lord's Supper. Matthew 26:27-28, "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
    28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

    So can you tell me who is right? We dispensationalist, as you say we believe for our understanding today, we Must begin in Acts, as not until then did Jesus sit on the Throne with His Father, and fifty days later send the Holy Spirit. A church begins in Acts, but another Church can only begin sometime after Damascus Road. God says He hid certain things from man, and I do believe this. So a Christian church did begin on this earth, but not until after Damascus Road.

    But the Body of Christ Church proclamation, and understanding could not have come until sometime after Acts 13:1-4, "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch (I insert - not the church in Jerusalem) certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
    2. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
    3. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
    4. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus". I personally would not like to Grieve The Holy Spirit by not believing Him.

    How about at Pentecost? Does Peter know anything about the Body of Christ Church as he told those men of Israel, you covenant people must repent, and be baptized for the remission of your sin? Can you tell me with a straight face that this is the gospel of Christianity of the Gentile jailer of all you have to do is To Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. Did Peter (who says we must come to understand Paul, for our own good) bring to us the message of the Body of Christ of for by Grace are we saved through faith; it is not of ourselves of anything that do, but it is The Gift Of God. Do we Boast of those things we do, which want to set us apart from others in the Body of Christ? Do we say only if we baptize you can you become part of this church, which we claim Unity in The Body of Christ? Is this Unity or rejection because we believe one Must Be Baptized, and if So, It Is into This Church. Any Baptism of other churches Are Not Acceptable.

    Only when we study His Word, and not that of Theology of man, do we find Christ only gave to Paul the right to present The Body Of Christ to us. Nowhere in His Word can you find the Body of Christ Church before Damascus Road, and not until after Paul has permission to tell us about this Church. Remove from your Bible (as many did in times past in time of trouble) John, and the Epistles of Paul, and find what do you have left. Is it not that other gospel, just as Peter says. Acts 2:37-38, "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
    38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

    God had hidden this information from man, until He wished to dispense this information to them. Peter preached that Gospel of John the Baptist, of the Kingdom is at hand, and at Pentecost he was offering Israel that Kingdom, they were promised. They refused, and God then followed through with His purpose of establishing the Body of Christ Church. This is not the gospel Jesus preached while He Was On This Earth.
    Some do, but most do not; some approve (with understanding), and some not understanding does not. Why say my belief is not of the Baptist ilk? Does my Salvation ride on my being "water baptized"? I don't believe so.

    Do Baptist preach the Pentecostal Gospel as presented by Peter, who has nothing at all to say about the Body of Christ? Although most don't understand about the Body of Christ, this is what the Baptist Preach, and not that gospel that some churches do. Is this Paul's gospel not biblical and of the Baptist Faith? I believe this and understand it.

    Are we somehow supposed to become the men of Israel that ask Peter "What Can We Do? Did Peter give them the Good News Gospel of believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, or did he preach to the hand chosen "covenant people" a different Gospel. The gospel Peter preached was one of condemnation of the Israelites for they had Jesus, their Messiah killed, and they had to do a work for this act. If only Israel had believed Jesus Christ was their Messiah, then what Peter says in Acts 2:21 would have come to pass. "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved". But this could not happen for the Kingdom had not fully come. But after the Rapture, and the Tribulation, it will become true.

    So what does God do, as He said He would? He will make Israel jealous as we see inDeuteronomy 32:21. "They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." Paul tells us the same thing in Romans 10, therefore I find I am in lockstep with most Baptists that believe this, and that Christ is the end of the law.

    I find it is only when we study His Word, and not that of Theology of man, do we find Christ gave only to Paul the right to present The Body Of Christ to us. Nowhere in His Word can you find the Body of Christ Church before Damascus Road, and not until after Paul has permission to tell us about this Church. Remove from your Bible (as many did in times past in time of trouble) John, and the Epistles of Paul, and find what you have left. Is it not that other gospel, just as Peter says. Acts 2:37-38, "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
    38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." We know there are other churches that believe this, But Baptists Do Not.

    God had hidden this information from man, until He wished to dispense this information to them. Peter preached that Gospel of John the Baptist, of the Kingdom is at hand, and at Pentecost he was offering Israel that Kingdom, they were promised. They refused, and God then followed through with His purpose of establishing the Body of Christ Church. This is not the gospel Jesus preached while He Was On This Earth, which was the Gospel of John the Baptist.

    We are not to Judge any man in Christ that does not believe every detail that a church may preach. Holding on to the necessity of being Water Baptized is essential to many, and is certainly desirable if one does it with the clear understanding that it has nothing at all to do with their salvation, and know it is not a Work that must be done by One in the Body of Christ, that has been baptized, and sealed by the Holy Spirit into The Body Church.
     
  15. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    The above is ungodly nonsense. There is no such thing as the gospel of John the Baptist. There is no such thing as the gospel of Paul, Peter did not offer the Jews any kingdom at Pentecost because he had no kingdom to give.

    Jesus Christ told the Jews in Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

    What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church. However, for certainty we turn to Scripture. We read in the Gospel of Luke:

    Luke 12:32, KJV
    32. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

    The ‘little flock’ is the Church, the ‘called out’ ones, who would bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom. For those who would insist that the Church cannot be identified as a ‘nation’ we turn to the writings of the Apostle Peter in which he uses the language of Exodus 18:5,6 to describe the Church:

    1 Peter 2:9, KJV
    9. But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

    There is no Scripture in the New Testament that indicates that the judgment pronounced against Israel in Matthew 21:43 was or ever will be revoked. Therefore, it still stands. The Kingdom belongs to the little flock, the Church.


    The Gospel that Jesus Christ preached on this earth was not the Gospel of John the Baptist. To make such a claim is totally false and blasphemous. Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God [Mark 1:14]. That was His kingdom. We read in Colossians 1:13 that believers are delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of His dear Son

    Ituttut I cannot say whether you have been saved or not. Only God can determine that. I can say that what you are attempting to spread on this Forum is worse than manure. It is heretical and blasphemous nonsense. Some have called for pilgrim2009 to be banned because he believes dispensational doctrine is incorrect. He certainly has not taught anything that is heretical as far as i can tell but to claim continually that there are two Gospels is nothing but heresy and blasphemy. The Apostle Paul states that anyone who preaches two gospels should be accursed.
     
  16. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because what you presented is not only insanely wrong, but written in such a way that it is extremely difficult to comprehend exactly what you are saying.

    However, in your first post, you seem to be indicating that people were saved differently (Able vs. Noah, etc.). This is not true. Hebrews 11, James 2:22, and MANY other verses tell us explicitly that salvation has always been exactly the same: Saved by faith in God alone.

    What you are failing to distinguish, is the proper relationship between faith and works. When the Israelites were told to do something in the Old Testament, like sacrifice an animal, they were not saved by the work: they were saved by the faith, that caused them to perform the work.

    True faith, ALWAYS causes works. Any time when God tells us to do something, and we do not do it, that is unbelief, or a lack of faith. Anytime God tells us to do something, and we do it, that is faith that is demonstrated in our actions. We are not saved by works: we are saved by grace, THROUGH the faith that caused us to do the works.

    So when Jesus said "Take up you cross and follow me", to the crowds, and He warned them that not doing so could forfeit their soul, He was NOT teaching a works righteousness. He was teaching salvation by faith. IF you had faith in God, you would be saved. You picking up your cross, and following Him, would simply demonstrate that you HAVE such faith.


    Sir, you say that you are part of an SBC church. Not a different Church. You are being dishonest, holding to such beliefs, while participating in a church which subscribes to the Baptist faith and message.

    As far as Baptism, no, I don't have any clue what you are saying. You SHOULDN'T be allowed Church membership without Baptism. The Lord commanded you to be baptized. If you refuse, you are being disobedient, and we are commanded to not associate with disobedient persons who CALL themselves brothers.
     
  17. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hyper-Dispensationalism is Les Feldicks Gospel not the Gospel of Christ.

    Les Feldick teaches that all a person has to do to obtain everlasting life is just believe in Jesus Christ and your saved.

    Many others teach the same by quoting John 3:16 as their proof text.This verse quoted alone without considering the verses before and after it,seems to say that there is another way,apart from repentance,by which one can obtain everlasting life.

    But never,in any of His teachings,did Jesus say that the only thing a person has to do to obtain everlasting life is believe.A statement like this would be contradicting His main message-REPENT.

    It is ridiculous to isolate a verse,or verses from the theme in which they are found and try to attach a meaning to them that doesn`t fit the meaning of the theme.

    This practice is especially bad if the interpretation of that verse or verses contradicts the main message of the Bible.

    I have heard pastors quote John 3:18 He who believes is not condemned;but he who does not believe is condemned already.These pastors quote John 3:18 by itself and claim that all you have to do is believe in Jesus Christ and that God condemns people because they fail to believe in Jesus Christ.

    But this is not what Jesus is saying.Read the whole message not just one verse {John 3:1-21}One will clearly see that Jesus is explaining,to a man called Nicodemus that the reason GOD can give a person everlasting life is because the person believes in Him but He goes on to say that it is not possible for a person to believe in Him unless the person first of all REPENTS.

    This is clarified in verses 19-21 of John chapter 3.

    And this is the condemnation,that light is come into the world,and men loved darkness rather than light,because their deeds were evil.For every one that doeth evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light,lest his deeds should be reproved.But he that doeth truth cometh to the light,that his deeds may be manifest,that they are wrought in God.

    If people would repent about their sins they would come to the light in other words they would receive faith and believe in Jesus Christ.

    Just saying I believe or hey I accept Jesus is not biblical salvation because this is not being born again which is a condition of salvation.

    In Jesus.

    Steven.
     
    #17 pilgrim2009, Jun 29, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2009
  18. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 1 due to length

    If only for one time, you would take time to read and see if what is shown is TRUE. Tell me where scripture LIES.

    All I can say OldRegular is you still do not believe (Perhaps Understand may be a better Word) the WHOLE Bible. John preached the Gospel of the Kingdom is at Hand, as did Jesus, and the Apostles.

    As I said before, you do not believe Paul was given the Gospel of Grace, just as Moses was given the Law. God has always offered His Grace, but never alone in a Faith i.e. until after Damascus Road.

    Now I see you don't know what to make of Jesus' saying in Matthew 16:19, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". Peter had the keys of the kingdom, but that Gospel of John the Baptist could not be consummated for Israel refused Messiah. What do you believe was going on In Acts2:36-40, other than offering Israel that Kingdom at hand, and would come if Israel took up his offer to enter the Kingdom that He had the Keys to? You invite me to your house, and as we arrive you say. Come on in with me, but first let me unlock the door with MY KEY. This is an offer to allow me to enter, if I wish.
    Let's keep this in mind (the Church) as we progress to see which Church you refer.
    You are not showing me anything new here for what scripture says, and what you say is what I believe the Bible says. That little flock, and those of Israel promised the Kingdom, will inherit that Kingdom. Please explain to me how I, a Gentile has all of a sudden become an Israelite of that chosen generation, and become a Holy Nation? Christianity is not a nation but a Body. You correctly bring up the "church in the wilderness" with your Exodus 18:5,6, but has it escaped you a Gentile is never included in any Millennium Kingdom talk, other than to take hold of the shirt-tail of a Jew having heard God Is With You (Zechariah 8:23). I'm not looking for that Kingdom, but for the Rapture.

    Fast forward to after the Crucifixion, and then on further until after Damascus Road. II Peter 3:14-16 writes to his own people advises they have available to them all of Paul's Epistle's, including the one Epistle he wrote to the Hebrews. Peter in Acts 15:10-12 tells us in his own words that they (the circumcised) can now receive repentance of sins, just as we Gentiles, and that is through faith. Will We Refuse to see that things are beginning to change, from One Gospel to Another? That tells us how Noah, Moses, David, and all the rest are now justified, viz. just as we Gentiles.

    But does Peter ever say he is in the Body of Christ Church, or does John, James, or Jude? Why don't they? Because they are of that church in the wilderness, and of Pentecostal church, that church which is to inherit the earth. True that Salvation has come to the Gentile, through the fall of Israel, but scripture shows we were never promised the Kingdom. By scripture can you prove the Bible to be in error?
     
  19. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 2

    Old Regular haven't you just told me that the Kingdom belongs to that little flock, and it will never be revoked? Only an Israelite is eligible to be of that Little Flock, and today no on qualifies. I say you are right the Kingdom belongs to that little flock, but please tell me how that Kingdom which belongs only to that Little Flock, can possibly include any today, in that Spiritual Israel. Those of Spiritual Israel must be of the Physical Seed of Abraham going through only Isaac, and Jacob.
    Why do you contradict at every turn? Luke 7:28 will correct you. You are mixing and trying to match here, and it is not only inappropriate, but also blatantly false mixing Works with Faith only. You pick and choose what you wish. Why don't you learn to read all of scripture for understanding? Let's begin in not Mark 1:14, but in Mark 1, and continue through verse 4. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
    2. As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
    3. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
    4. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

    Do you see your error here. Are you not of the same gospel as the Catholic church, which the denominations do seem unable to break away from? Doesn't John preach you Must Be Baptized for the remission of your sins? Did John Baptize with Water? Why do you fail to add verse 15? " And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Once again I see you fail to believe, or understand what Jesus is telling you. He Did Preach the kingdom is at hand, and any way you cut it is, This is the Gospel of John the Baptist.

    There is a difference in the Gospel of the Kingdom is at Hand, and the Gospel of The Body of Christ, as we should be able to see in the below:

    Colossians 1:25-28, "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
    26. Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
    27. To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
    28. Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus".
    Thanks for not judging me here. But you do as those, of that other gospel calling Paul or anyone that believes his gospel a heretic. Paul tells us plainly in Galatians 1:6-7 there are two gospels laid on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Chose you Who Is the Blasphemer as you read What Paul says in Galatians above. "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
    7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." It is beyond me, as it was Paul that some wish to be put back under bondage of the Law, and the Ordinances of the Pentecostal Church.
     
  20. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    We see here that error begets error and eventually heresy. The error of Darby/Scofield is the father of the heresy of ultra dispensationalism. I feel sorry for anyone caught up in this heresy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...