On request, Different Gospels -#2.

Brother, this is absurd. Historic premillinnialism is HEAVILY covenantal.

 

The writings of Paul led me out of not only dispensationalism, but mormonism and charismania.

 

I know and have wondered. I finally came to the conclusion that it must have been Divine intervention that resulted in that statement in the BF&M; particularly since it is contrary to the dispensational definition of the Church.

I did not make up the dispensationalist definition of the Church. I have used quotes from Chafer, Ryrie, and Walvoord for their grossly incorrect definition. If you have a problem with their definition take it up with them; don't make false accusations about me.

You know very well that dispensationalists teach that the church is limited to those saved during the so-called dispensation of grace.

 

You are correct but apparently the dispensationalists like to claim affinity with covenant premillennialists to lend a little respectability to their doctrine.

 

That is not what Ryrie and Chafer say.

Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ] Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.”

 

Frankly I think Walvoord is confused but I could say that about dispensationalism in general.

I do give references to my quotes!

 

Those who believe we under the dispensation of grace need to be reminded that grace is a big thread that runs throughout all of scripture which includes both the OT and NT.

I wonder which dispensation the intertestamental period represents?

 

Many dispensationalists today are not old enough to remember that, nor have they studied historical dispensationalism enough to know those facts.

 

ituttut

I don't know if I can answer that, I am not sure I even understand what you are saying for certain.

I will say this, your belief is very flexible. It is difficult (actually, impossible) to argue against doctrine that conveniently evolves to suit any argument presented against it.

I perceive you are a dispensationalist. I don't pretend to know everything about this persuasion, and from limited experience I know that there are many various beliefs among dispensationalists.

One thing I have heard that most dispensationalists seem to agree on is that the Jews had to be baptized to be saved and receive the Holy Ghost. But there is scripture contrary to this.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

This was Jesus speaking to Jews only. What dispensation was this? They were still under the law. But notice Jesus tells these Jews that they will receive the Holy Ghost by believeing on him. No mention of baptism whatsoever. And vs. 39 informs us that the only reason those Jews who believed on Jesus at this time had not received the Holy Ghost is because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Now, if the Jews had to be baptized to receive the Holy Ghost, then Jesus left out a mighty important detail, didn't he? Of course, if the Jews only need believe on Jesus to receive the Holy Ghost, then Jesus did not leave out anything.

Decide for yourself.

Now, go to Acts 2

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

How many people were present here? About 120 (Acts 1:15).

How many were baptized? If you are honest you will answer that you do not know. I don't know, and I do not know of any scripture that tells us that these 120 were all baptized. So you cannot assume they were. I am sure many were, and maybe all, but no one knows for sure.

One thing I do know though, these all received the Holy Ghost and baptism is never mentioned.

As for the church, show me even one scripture that distinguishes the church that started here at Pentacost with the Jews from any other church. I can show you scripture that says that they are one.

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

I have to get off the computer soon, so that is enough for now. Post your answer and I will be back soon.

 

As far as the thread of grace throughout all of Scripture W. A. Criswell wrote a treatise on the Scarlet Thread of Redemption [printed in the Open Bible]. Though Criswill was unfortunately a dispensationalist I believe that his Scarlet Thread must presuppose the grace of God throughout all Scripture.

Perhaps the dispensation of confusion, or does that describe all of them.

 

Sadly the only thing many dispensationalists know about dispensational theology is that the Church will be raptured out and they won't have to face death or the GRRrreat Tribulation.

 

Ituttut
Unless i am badly mistaken you have not yet responded to the questions I posed in my posts 48 and 79. I repeat them for your edification with some Scripture to aid you.

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

Question #2: 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 #3: 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.

 

Yes, no problem here.

But what do that state is the dispensational belief 'after the mil-reign'. What you quote refers to what God has done is and is going to be doing up till that point. You never go further, why??? Because we hold they will all become one body, one group, one church - AFTER the Mil-reign.

 

I didn't say you hadn't given references. (?)
What's your point.

 

No, even Paul distinguishes it and this time from the others. It run through all of the scriptures of course, but 'now' it is different from all the other times in scripture as it is now in the forefront.

Intertestamental - Law and the Prophets.

 

See, there you go again, pretending you understand something you are absolutely clueless about. It would be most benifial to you if you just stick to talking about what you believe because you have a hugely limited understanding of what dispensationalists 'actaully' believe. Even when we tell, state it in the BF&M and declare it their theological works on their views of eschetology - you still don't believe it and will not recant what you willingly disbelieve (even when told you are wrong) and then go on to perpetuate those untruths about what we believe.

I have absolutely no problem with their defination nor the BF&M.
The problem I have is with 'your' inability to acknowledge you absolute incorrectness on the issue. They give a very staunch and biblical definition of the church and it is believed, understood, and agreed upon by those who not only hold the dispensational view but have also studied/s it in depth and still agree. It is you, not them nor I who am wrong about what 'we' believe.

No one said that is wasn't, in 'this dispensation of grace'. However that does not negate the 'fact' that we also believe 'after' the mil-reign they both will become one - the 'Church'.

 

Do you remember how they dealt with the intertestamental period? What dispensation did they name that.

 

In what way? Jesus did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil. How does that separate the OT grace from NT grace.


Intertestamental - Law and the Prophets.[/quote]That includes about 2/3 of the MT. I am unable to find anywhere among Jewish writings when any of them write about dispensationalism.

Do you have a reference from Irenaeus in regards to dispensationalism?