On request, Different Gospels -#2.

I can read through the Old testament and identify the numerous Covenants that were made. Nowhere can I find anything about various dispensations.

 

That is simply a false conclusion. Perhaps a few comments from a prominent dispensationalist teacher will help you:

John F. Walvoord, the preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary confesses that the validity of the pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ depends on the definition of the Church [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282].

“If the question be asked: Will the church be raptured before end-time events? it becomes very important to define the church as an entity that is distinct from Israel or saints in general. In prophetic passages concerning the Tribulation, both Israelites and Gentiles are described, and some of them have faith in Christ and form a godly remnant. If they are part of the church, then the church is in the Tribulation, and the whole question as to whether the church goes through the Tribulation becomes moot. Many posttribulationists, in an attempt to establish their own point of view, beg the question at the very beginning by assuming that the church includes saints of all ages. The concept that the church is distinct from Israel is a part of dispensational truth that distinguishes the work of God in the Old Testament under the Mosaic Law, the work of God in the present age as he calls out both Jews and Gentiles to form the church as the body of Christ, and the millennial kingdom in which the saints of all ages participate in various ways but maintain their individual and corporate identity. Hence, the church will be raptured or resurrected, and will reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom, but the saved of Israel as well as the saved of the Gentiles who are not part of the church will also be part of the millennial kingdom. Distinguishing the church from saints of other periods that precede or follow the present age is essential to a correct answer on the pretribulational issue. It is not too much to say that the doctrine of the church, or ecclesiology, determines this aspect of eschatology.”

Historic premillennialism generally defines the Church as does the Baptist Faith and Message:

“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.”

 

Parenthetical theology is no theology. They started with the gap theory and continued with gaps throughout scripture.
Then they divided the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, plus a spurious, mystical secret rapture. Then, they had the nerve to criticize the 7th Day adventists because they made an adjustment when Jesus failed to return at the turn of the last century.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Premil is the foundation on which Dispensationalims is founded. It is somewhat different (pre-trib rapture and such) but it is MUCH closer to Dispensationalism than Covenant theology.

Havensdad -n
Irenaeus in the second century spoke of and about the 'many great dispensations of God' in his work "Against Heresies" Book IV chapter 20;
he uses it mostly to describe the manifestion of God to man and thus as he puts it - in the OT they saw this prophetically manifested and in the NT revealed in CHrist Jesus:

However in the above he places the manifestation of God to men at certain specific times suitable to that period -This is all that the term dispensation refers to and thus what dispensationalism means. God revealing Himself to man at certain times in various ways and also about speaking the same message (salvatin by grace through faith). Some people harp a little to much on the how many or the order but all agree that God has worked in various ways speaking the same message at different times.
If nothing else we can divide, as does the scriptures, into 2 primary Dispensations of the OT and NT. However we can also break this down biblically a little more into 4 main times/dispensations of the Lord toward man 1) pre-law (this can be broken down but not specifically necessary) 2) Law and the prophets; 3) dispensation of grace 4) Mill Kingdom (times of refreshing).

Scripture divides these times as do the Dispensationalists. Some divide it more so and they have their reasons but for the main we can find in scripture 4 main divisions of God revealing Himself to man at certain times and in distinct and various ways in each that not the same previously nor afterward, and yet that message that is given never changes though the means have. There is continuity to them all as each one progressively reveals God more and more and message is seem with more clarity in that the more that is known of God the more the meaning of the message grows.

Now, I'm not saying he was using the term dispensationalism as eschetological view per-say but that he was acknowledging the fact that God progressively manifested Himself (revealed Himself) at different times which were suitable for what He wanted them to know. I am showing simply the seeds from which Dispy's can show that distinction of times in the early Church Fathers.

 

It's called selective reading.

 

Nope.

First you ONCE AGAIN misconstrue what the BF&M is stating. It has NOTHING to do with covenant theological view but that those in the SBC see BOTH views as consistant and true (even in Dispensationalim).

However I did notice you changed from the 'always have defined' to 'generally defines'. Your getting closer. :thumbs:

 

Actually there was no opposition to it for the first 200 years only about 2 to 3 people are noted (via writings) to somewhat disagree with it in next hundred years and at about 450'ish ad it was remove totally and replaced with Replacement theology

 

Wow! You actually know very little about what your talking about. I'm [not] impressed.

 

"I believe what makes this so difficult to believe (God telling Paul a secret), is not many will accept, and understand what God Hid. They don't want to believe the revelations that Paul puts before us, for Jesus Christ on earth didn't tell anyone about The Gentile being justified through faith, and the Jew could now come just as the Gentile. No where in Prophecy are we told it is Now the Jew can be saved just as a Gentile; And it is the Gentile, in this dispensation that will Spread the Gospel of The Grace Of God thoughout the Whole World. "

Look up the word church in a concordance. You will see the first two mentions are by Jesus himself.

Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Matt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Jesus was addressing Jews in both these cases.

And in Acts;

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Again, these were Jews only.

Did Jesus mention Jews being saved by faith only? Let's see.

Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. 49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Again, all these verses are spoken to Jews. So not only did Jesus speak of the church, he also showed that a Jew could be saved by faith alone.

And did Jesus mention the Gentiles before Acts? Let's see.

Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

Jesus said there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth when these Jews found themselves thrust out of the kingdom of God, and then tells them that Gentiles from the east, west, north, and south will sit down in the kingdom of God.

 

Selective or secretive?

Or wrongly splintering the Word of God?

 

I simply quoted the BF&M, how is that misconstruing it? It is not, you are grasping for straws. It may not have anything to do with covenant theology but it states exactly the position of Covenant Theology on the Church.

Furthermore, it is totally contrary to the dispensational view of the church. I simply quote John F. Walvoord, the preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary. Walvoord writes, regarding the definition of the church, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:

“If the question be asked: Will the church be raptured before end-time events? it becomes very important to define the church as an entity that is distinct from Israel or saints in general. In prophetic passages concerning the Tribulation, both Israelites and Gentiles are described, and some of them have faith in Christ and form a godly remnant. If they are part of the church, then the church is in the Tribulation, and the whole question as to whether the church goes through the Tribulation becomes moot. MANY POSTTRIBULATIONISTS, IN AN ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW, BEG THE QUESTION AT THE VERY BEGINNING BY ASSUMING THAT THE CHURCH INCLUDES THE SAINTS OF ALL AGES. The concept that the church is distinct from Israel is a part of dispensational truth that distinguishes the work of God in the Old Testament under the Mosaic Law, the work of God in the present age as he calls out both Jews and Gentiles to form the church as the body of Christ, and the millennial kingdom in which the saints of all ages participate in various ways but maintain their individual and corporate identity."

I have bolded and capitalized Walvoord;s statement about the dispensational view of the church [Just so you won't overlook it.] which is diametrically opposed to that of the Baptist Faith and Message, and of course contrary to your assertion that:

I would also note that posttribulationists include Covenant or historic premillennialists. Sorry Allan but you are wrong again!

 

Well Allan you are incorrect again. I believe in an earlier response to you I wondered if the dispensationalists had splintered the Word of God. Sadly I was correct.

 

Ituttut
I am repeating my post #48 eagerly anticipating your response to my questions. I have added the word Question where appropriate.

The only thing that happened on the Damascus Road was that Saul who says he was a persecutor of the Church was saved.

1Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

Question: Now which church did Saul persecute Ituttut, the Peterine Church or the Pauline Church?

Question: By the way Ituttut, why was Saul Baptized?

Acts 9:17, 18
17. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Question: What does Paul mean when he writes the following?

2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

You have argued that both repentance and baptism were not a part of your heretical, nonexistent gospel.

So you are saying that all the ministry of Jesus Christ is to be thrown away. That is blasphemy of the worst sort Ituttut.

Everyone who has every been saved has been saved through the Grace of my Lord Jesus Christ. To claim otherwise is to lie.

 

Of course it is and it was agreed upon by a convention of churches that are primarily DISPENSATIONALISTS! Good grief, how often does one have to be told before they actaully listen to what others actaully believe and not what that one continues to make up about it in their own mind.

You're as bad as some of the few non-cals who say they have studied extensively Calvinism and have come to the conclusion that all calvinism is nothing more than hyper-calvinism. For all their study they remain quite ignorant of the truth.

For a person who read as much as you it is amazing that you still don't get it. That is EXACTLY the dispensationists view. They are not 'forever' seperated but in fact all will eventually be One Church body, just not yet.

Yes, you quote him with seemingly little to no comprehension of what he is actually saying. Again it isn't that they never to be seen as one body in which all the saints of God are united together as one, just not yet. Walvoord states specifically in your quoted portion that he is speaking of 'during the tribulation' and not after the mil-reign.

You bold one portion which only speaks of those during the tribulationwhere are the bolded sections that speak to what happens 'after the mil-riegn'. It is at the 'end' of the millennial Kingdom in which in they all become one body/church. But of course you miss that part - all the time. And it is in that part in which dispensationalists agree with 'all the saints of all the ages' being called the church.

I am serious when I say that you are either sorely misinformed or poorly studied on what dispensationalists actually believe because you keep only putting half truths out there or half of their view. You have rarely get it right that I have ever seen. Again, you give only what he is speaking of in relation to the tribulation and the tribulation only, what about 'after the mil-reign'.

From George Ladd on his view (Historic Premil) from Moodys handbook on theologies:

I would give you the actaul sourse citation but my hyer-link in my Quickverse 08 program is not functioning properly (at all). I will get it for you as soon as I get my disc back from a friend.