Attn: All Dispensationals

Dear friend and brother ituttut - so many points I hardly know where to begin - also "past my bedtiime" after a day in Louisville and on the road (that's 5 hours east of here!). But the essential difference is that you have more than one way of salvation and I have only one for all ages. I cannot believe that baptism ever saved, or that law ever saved; surely if Romans 4 and Galatians 3 teach anything, it is that Abraham was saved in exactly the same way in which we are saved today. Yes, I preach "repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ," just as Paul did (Acts 20:21). The Greek (and even the
English carefully read) of Acts 2:38 does not place remission of sins in baptism, but in the NAME OF JESUS. The Gr. preposition is "in dependence upon" the Name. This is exactly the same message preached to a Gentile, Acts 10:43, by the same speaker, with no mention of baptism until after evident repentance and faith. Since Paul calls those who preach any other gospel "accursed," and insists that any other "gospel" is "not another," I am convinced that in all its forms it is one eternal gospel, always BY grace THROUGH faith based on the shed blood of Christ, whether looking forward dimly, or back (still without full understanding!) Yes, I am familiar with the interpretation that this only refers to "this age," but the choice of adjectives ("another of a different kind," "not another of the same kind," in Engl. paraphrase) says to me that any other thing called a "gospel" is not able to save in any age.

One other quick note before "I lay me down to sleep" - Mk. 1:14-15 does not say "repent ye sheep of mine" in any translation I've ever read. It is simply repentance and faith exactly as Acts 20:21. Quite clearly, with this significant difference at base, while we are both saved in the same way and therefore brothers, all the other details are very secondary to this one point, which will color any other subject.

By the way, for JackRUS quickly, I meant "post-mil" about W. Ramsey; did not say that was my view, just that he had some interesting things to say. I'm probably closer to "a-," but not satisfied with any of the standard theories.

Best to all - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

But what gospel did Christ preach while on the earth?

Brother in Christ, agreed we all today are saved in the same way, Peter agreeing with us, and also John, for Jesus had John to write his Epistles some 30 years after the death of Paul. Jesus had spoke many things not before reported, and had not been understood. I believe the writings of Peter, and John are for the most part of great benefit to the Jew today, for the Jew responds much better to what Jesus said while on earth. Christian faith, ituttut. Galatians 1:11-12

 

Dear friend and brother - While I "digest" your last letter, one simple question: where does the book of Hebrews fit in your approach? Is it for our age? To me, this book clearly teaches that "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin" (10:4) (10-4 on that?), and therefore He (Jesus) came into the world as the Lamb slain from the foundation, finished the work His Father gave Him to do, and sat down at the right hand of the Father until He returns. That is, "Salvation is one, Old Testament and New, Gentile and Jew." Is that not the teaching of Heb. 4:2 - the same "gospel was preached to us as well as to them . . . ."? That is, to Old Testament saints and New Testament saints, one everlasting gospel, always the same?
"The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, . . . ., prophesying of the Messiah Who would be Abraham's seed? (Gal. 3:8) As to coming "through," Heb. 11:33 & 39 both use
"dia" (through) with reference to OT saints. I'll try to absorb your post and respond ASAP; in the meantime, just something to "chew on" for a while.

Best in Him - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

If what you say is so then what Paul meant to say in Romans 3:30 was, ” Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision [/b[by[/b] faith, and uncircumcision by faith.” Or in his confusion ” Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision through faith, and uncircumcision through faith.” I personally believe it should be, by and through, to clear contradictions over this matter. Some believe Paul should have “ek’d" when he “dia’d”. In 3:8 we see the word “ek” is used, and in 3:30 “ek” = by for the circumcision, and “dia” = through (as in diameter) for the uncircumcision.

Hebrews 11:33, “[/I]Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.”[/I] Through faith in God their Father, Malachi 2:9, they did these things, and obtained promises. But I do not see “through faith” of Jesus Christ they believed they were saved. They did not know Him. In their belief they spoke to and of the Father. The knowledge of the “Son of God”, Jesus Christ was “hidden” from them. They didn’t know His name, by whom they must come. It is necessary they be Justified By faith as pointed out in Romans 3:30, so they lived and died By faith, being justified.

Verse 39 and 40, ”And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40. God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” Through faith they could not receive the promise of the Kingdom, and to date it still has not happened. So again they lived and died By faith. Today our promise through the faith of Christ, is to be in Him, but their promise of the kingdom is yet to come.

If we endeavor to “force” the belief it was possible for those before to come “through” faith of Jesus Christ in obeying His Father, what do we do with Romans 3:30?

It is God that sanctifies (sets us apart), and then He must justify. Christ Jesus revealed to Paul that By faith the circumcised is justified, and Through faith the uncircumcised is justified. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12. .

 

First I think I should compliment the spirit of this thread by everybody involved.This is truly one of the more civil discussions I have seen on the board by what could be a highly contentious set of subjects D vs C. .I read the whole article and the entire thread and found it quite interesting. I have always thought that studying the dispensations as well as the covenants was useful in Biblical interpretation and have thought it silly that anybody would think that one side or view would be an answer to all.My experience has followed that of Bapmom and Humblesmith so far as what I have heard taught in church.

 

POB - Thanks for the good word there. Believers should be able to be civil with one another!

Friend and Brother Ituttut - So many invididual points, yet it boils down to one simple idea: you have several "gospels" and I see one "everlasting
gospel" for all ages, expressed more fully after the death/burial/resurrection actually took place.

A few specifics from your earlier posts; you have read the same passages of Scripture I have, and you obviously are aware of any Scripture I would cite. But on an earlier post re Lk. 16:16 you wrote, "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the kingdom . . . .", and then wrote:
"We see the gospel is changed." "Law & prophets" were never "gospel." We see the old covenant coming to an end to make way for the new, as is stated in Hebrews 8:7-13 and II Cor. 3:7-11.

In Acts 15:9, Peter is quite clear: There is no distinction between Gentile and Jew, "purifying their hearts by faith" (no written preposition, but Locative Case, not Genitive). And v. 11 is equally clear; please endure my translation. BUT
through (dia) the grace of the Lord Jesus we believe to be saved in the same manner as they.
And this is Peter, a Jew, speaking of Jew and Gentile believing and being saved in the same manner. Yes, it is after the Damascus Road experience, and Cornelius; but James immediately concurs (no conflict between their messages) by quoting Amos as the justification for this view!

In the Romans 3 passage; yes, v. 30 does use "ek" (out of) referring to Jews, "dia" for Gentiles; but reading on down, is it not clear that both Abraham and David were just as justified as Paul or us? And not by works, law, animal sacrifice, but "by grace through faith." 4:12 states plainly
that is the father not only of the circumcision, but of "those who walk in the steps of the faith which A. our father had while still uncircumcised." Isn't that one way of salvation?

And back to 3:22: "Even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe; for there is no difference."

In Acts 13, Paul, speaking to Jews in the presence
of Gentiles, quotes Isa. 49:6 to remind the Jews that God always intended to save Gentiles.

In your discussion of the Gadarene demoniac, you do believe (by your post) that he was a "heathen" and yet is he not saved? When we put the gospels together, we find Jesus returning to Decapolis (Mark 7:31-8:1) and being received by great crowds. Evidently "Legion" had done his mission work well! You are on target in saying he could not go with Jesus because of Jewish feelings against Gentiles, but it was more important for him to be a home missionary! It is difficult to believe that no Gentiles heard the message of Jesus in these heavily Gentile areas, especially
"Galilee of the Gentiles" where the folks in His home town wanted to stone him, throw Him off the cliff, and His response was to point out the work of Elijah with Gentiles! What was their point of opposition? Evidently that Jesus was speaking to and including non-Jews!

One last "quickie" - do you really believe that Rev. 13:8 and 17:8 have nothing to do with us? Is not Jesus the "Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world" slain from the foundation? "His own" probably has more to do with "His chosen" than with "the seed of Abraham."

Well, it's tired and I'm late; this is, as noted by POB above, a very pleasant discussion, for which I'm grateful. If we wind up "agreeing to disagree," we'll visit in glory and forget the issues, I believe. Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

Appreciate the kind words (doubt you have read all of my posts) POBill. When someone smiles at me, I smile back. Some do not return the smile. There are “dispensationalists”, and there are “dispensationalists”. There are “faiths”, and there are “faiths” – (ASV)Romans 1:17, ”For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.” I believe we in this dispensation, including B&H and all Christians live by “faith” in our Savior Father God, through faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To RCB: We hit the road in the morning to see some shut-ins. Tuesday evening before I can take a good look at your last. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Actually I did read all of your posts on this thread.You all have done well.Although there were'nt smiles everywhere I did'nt see the hostilility that is common to some of these discussions.While I do see dispensations and covenants in the Bible I don't make a theology out of them.I see them as useful tools for Biblical interpretation and no more.

 

I also enjoy/ed? I see you love His Word as do I. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

My dear friend and brother: If you really feel that Rev. 13:8 and 17:8 have nothing to do with us, just because of the book and portion of that book where they are found, then we had best
"agree to disagree" in Christian friendship, and let me leave you with this benediction:

"Jesus Christ the same, yesterday and today, and for ever. . . . Now the God of peace, Who brought again from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep with the blood of an eternal covenant, our Lord Jesus, make you perfect in every good thing todo His will, working in us that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ; to Whom the glory for ever and ever. . . . Grace be with you all. Amen." (Heb. 13:8, 20-21, 25)