Yes, John, I was very careless in my use of the word "repentance" and I thank you for your correction. I am certain that we both are concerned that the way of salvation is made clear and that no confusion is introduced. It is this concern which led to my carelessness. As is pointed out in the verse you quote (Second Corinthians 7:10), repentance leads TO salvation. Unfortunately, too many soul-winners tend to include repentance as a part of the salvation process. In the altar call, the message is often to repent and trust in Christ. The new believer is often left with the question, "Did I repent enough?". If the Holy Spirit has been working with that individual, he is responding to the altar call because he has already repented. It must be made clear that salvation comes as a result of faith in Christ's crosswork and resurrection, and NOT faith in the respondent's ability to recall and repent of his sins.
I essentially agree with this as long as you don't excise repentance from salvation. The preacher may not use the word repentance, but the concept must be there: a change in fundamental thinking about sin, as evidenced by the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
Under the Dispensation of Law, the individual was justified by faith. Under this Dispensation of Grace, the individual is justified by faith (Romans 3:30). But, in what is that faith centered in each dispensation?
In the previous dispensation, that saving faith was centered on the prophesied future of the nation Israel. Salvation was "of the Jews" (John 4:22). If an individual was a Jew or a Jewish proselyte, his security rested in the promises made to the nation. He acknowledged his security by placing himself under the Law.
I agree with this as long as you stipulate that the faith was in the promises of the coming Messiah dating all the way back to the protoevangelium, and made more explicit in Isaiah 53. It was faith in the future of Israel as a nation that caused the Jews to reject the suffering Savior.
In this dispensation, saving faith is centered on the crosswork. Today, the believer's security rests on the fact that his sins are covered by the Blood. He acknowledges his security by allowing Christ to work through him in the "new man."
I certainly agree with this.
It follows, since the individual in the previous dispensation must be directed to place his faith in one direction, while the individual in this dispensation must be directed to place his faith in another, that the message...the gospel message...must be different.
Well of course.
So, at some point, the Dispensation of Law ended and the Dispensation of Grace began. Some teach that this was instantaneous and some teach that...like the disappearance of the sign gifts...there was a transitional period. In any event, that change should be captured within the book of Acts.
I too am a dispensationalist. But that is not how your OP started. By now we're quite a ways away from the topic you gave in the OP.
In view of the first 10 verses of Ephesians 3, Colossians 1:24-29, and Galatians 1:12 and 15-19, I find this conclusion difficult to comprehend. At least three times, Paul refers to his message as "my gospel." Can you imagine a pastor today claiming a message to be "his" gospel?
No, Paul's ministry was unique, both to himself and the time. His conversion, in Acts 9, marks the onset of the Dispensation of Grace.
This is a very general post and I'm not sure how to answer it. You mention a total of 12 verses, and then the only comment you make is about Paul referring to his message as "my Gospel." Not only that, the places Paul referred to "my Gospel" are three completely different passages! Since I can't respond to your casual reference to three passages, since you don't explain them, I'll respond to the "my Gospel" comment.
In Rom. 2:16 Paul refers to "my Gospel" as the way God will judge "the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." Do you suggest that in Peter's Gospel God will judge the secrets of men by some other Savior than Christ?
In Rom. 16:25 it says, "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ." Once again, did Peter fail to preach Jesus Christ?
In 2 Tim. 2:8 it says that "Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel." Did Paul's Gospel then differ from Peter's in that Peter did not preach the resurrection of Christ from the dead?
I have already shown that the Gospel Christ told the apostles to preach in Luke 24 was the same one that Paul defined in 1 Cor. 15. You have not dealt with that. I have asked you to prove how the Gospel changed from Peter's presentation in Acts 8 to Paul's in Acts 14. You have not done so. In order to be credible in your arguments, you really need to deal with these points. How was Peter's Gospel (preached all his life) different from Paul's? You give no hint.
