On request, Different Gospels -#2.

Well, you are incorrect. I am dispensantional through intensive biblical study. And that before I even knew what it was. But I would suggest you read quite a bit more since dispensational view did not start with Scofield but actaully all the back to Irenaeus (2nd century) who spoke of dispensations in the OT and our new dispensation. God's working vai different means but the same way - by grace through faith. You can even find many others prior to Scofield and Darby espousing as back as 300 years prior to them. :thumbs: Keep studing though.

 

The early Orthodox Church Fathers believed and taught that the Church is Spiritual Israel.Also the mention of dispensations by early church fathers was not in the scofield idea of the term.Nevertheless I continue with my studies.

Dispensationalism as it is today futurism came about after the 1500`s and went from Darby to Scofield etc.

Joseph Canfields book the incredible scofield and his book shines light on scofield and his life and theology as no other with documented un-refutable facts.

God bless you in Jesus.

Steven

 

No Ituttut it is you who need a little understanding not only of the Samaritans but of the entire Bible.

If you will study the Old Testament a little you will find that most of the people of the Northern Kingdom were carried into captivity by Assyria never to return. These captives were replaced by non-israelites who intermarried with the Israelites. You should read the Book of Ezra to understand the animosity between the Samaritans and the Jews returning from captivity in Babylon. I remind you that devout Jews of that time would not travel through Samaria.

It is evident from a study of Scripture and history that the Samaritans must be considered Gentiles. They were considered by the Jews to be a mongrel peoples.

John Gill writes of the Samaritans, commenting on Verse 4:9 as follows:

"Ver. 9. Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, &c.] In a scoffing, jeering way,

how is it, that thou being a Jew; which she might know, by his language and his dress:

askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? [not that the waters of Samaria were unlawful for a Jew to drink of; for as

``the land of the Cuthites (or Samaritans), was pure, or clean,
so, hytwqm, "their collections of water", and their
habitations, and their ways were clean ,''

and might be used; but because the Jews used no familiarity with the Samaritans, nor would they receive any courtesy or kindness from them, as follows:

for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans: some take these to be the words of the evangelist, commenting upon, and explaining the words of the woman; but they seem rather to be her own words, giving a reason why she returned such an answer; and which must be understood, not in the strictest sense, as if they had no dealings at all with them: indeed in some things they had no dealings with them, and at some certain times; hence that discourse of the Samaritans with a Jewish Rabbi .

``The Cuthites (or Samaritans) inquired of R. Abhu, your
fathers, Nyqptom wyh, "used to deal with us" (or minister
to us, or supply us with necessaries), wherefore do not ye
deal with us? (or take a supply from us he replied unto
them, your fathers did not corrupt their works, you have
corrupted your works.''

They might not use their wine and vinegar, nor admit them to their tables; they say of a man ,

``because the Cuthites (or Samaritans) ate at his table, it
was the reason why his children went into captivity--and
further add, that whoever invites a Cuthite (or Samaritan)
into his house, and ministers to him, is the cause of
captivity to his children.''

And they forbid a man to enter into partnership with a Cuthite (or Samaritan ) and particularly,

``three days before the feasts of idolaters (for such they
reckoned the Samaritans, as well as others), it is
forbidden to have any commerce with them, to borrow of
them, or lend to them &c.''

But then at other times, and in other respects, they had dealings with them; they might go into their cities and buy food of them, as the disciples did, Joh 4:8; they might send their wheat to a Samaritan miller, to be ground ; and as it appears from the above citations, their houses and habitations were clean, and might be lodged in, with which compare Lu 9:52; the poor of the Samaritans were maintained with the poor of Israel ; wherefore the sense is, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, that the Jews refused to receive the least favour or kindness at the hand of a Samaritan; and therefore the woman might justly wonder, that Christ should ask so small a favour of her, as a little water. The reason of this distance and aversion, was religion; and so the Ethiopic version, rather paraphrasing than translating, renders the words, "the Jews do not agree in religion, nor do they communicate with the Samaritans, nor mix together": and this was of long standing, and had been occasioned and increased by various incidents; for when the ten tribes revolted in Jeroboam's time, the calves were set up in Dan and Bethel, in order to draw off the people from worship at Jerusalem, which gave great umbrage to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and when the ten tribes were carried away captive by the king of Assyria, he planted the cities of Samaria with colonies in their room, consisting of Heathenish and idolatrous persons, brought from Babylon, and other places; to whom he sent a priest, to instruct them in the manner of the God of the land; but with these instructions, they still retained their idols, and their idolatrous practices; see 2Ki 17:24-41, which must render them odious to the Jews: and these were the principal adversaries of the Jews, after their return from captivity; and discouraged them, and weakened their hands, in the building of the second temple: but what latest, and most of all had fixed this aversion and enmity, was this; Manasseh, brother to Jaddua the high priest, having married Sanballat's daughter, governor of Samaria, was for it removed from the priesthood; who applying to his father-in-law, he proposed building for him a temple on Mount Gerizim, and making him an high priest; for which he obtained leave of Alexander the Great, and accordingly built one, and made his son-in-law high priest; which drew a great many profligate Jews over to him, who mixing with the Samaritans, set up a worship, religion, and priesthood, in distinction from the Jews; and this was ever after a matter of contention and quarrel between these people, and the reason why they would have no dealings with them.":wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

From the following quote it appears that you do not know that Jesus Christ is the Messiah since you say that it is heresy for Israel to believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah.

:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

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:

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

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.

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.

 

Do you have a reference from Irenaeus for that?

For 14 years I attended a dispensational church and never found one person who could explain Larkin's charts so even they understood them. I bought all of Larkin's books and many of Chafer's books and the more I read in them the more I found holes in their theology. The more questions I asked of those who graduated from dispensational theological schools the more I uncovered their lack of knowledge about dispensationalism and the more I saw their lack of answers. For years I heard many dispensationalists teach that because we are under grace there is no need for the OT. When I read in the Bible that Jesus did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill (Mt. 5:17), and when I asked them about it, it was as if they never saw it. They were taught to interpret scripture through the filter of dispensational theology. The only problem is that theology keeps changing.

I find it interesting that Baptists are becoming more dispensational while DSTS is becoming more like the Baptists of years ago. I do not find it encouraging to have a theology that is constantly under change. Just in my lifetime I have seen the dispensational teaching of C.H. McIntosh, Scofield, and Larkin to Ryrie and Walvoord then onto progressive dispensationalism. The dispensationalists of today egt some new revelations? The fact is that the dispensationalists of today believe very little of what the professors at DTS did of just a few years ago.

 

Romans 4:2-3, "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

James 2:21-25, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?"

 

It is also worth noting that the Apostle Paul states:

Galatians 3:7-9
7. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Now what Gospel was preached to Abraham? The one and only Gospel which Paul calls: the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;

Romans 1:16, 17
16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

Can you point to Scripture in the Old Testament that identify the dispensations?

 

I escaped dispensationalism by studying the writings of Paul.

 

Dispensationalism put me in bondage until I studied scripture in light of its historical context and haven't found too many theological isms to conform to the interpretation of scripture in light of its historical context since.

So many theological isms are nothing more than a man made filter in an effort to solve a seemingly difficult situation with very little study.

 

I can testify that since I have claimed the promises that dispensational Scofield and Clarence Larkin says I have no right to claim since they are for the Jew my life has been more blessed than when I lived under the deception that I have no right to them.


There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free there is neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.And if ye are Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and HEIRS according to the promise.{Gal 3:28-29}KJB

Dispensationalism says there is a difference and there is a different plan for Jews in the coming tribulation while the church is gone to heaven.No God`s word says different.

In Jesus love.

Steven.

 

You need to keep on studying. Here is a good link to help you.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1344687&postcount=4

It is a post by Fred Moritz who says:

 

Bro,

The early Church fathers (some of them) taught historical premillenialism, which is distinctly different from dispensational premillenialism. NONE of the early Church fathers taught dispensationalism. In fact, I cannot bring to mind a single quote of any Church father from the first two centuries, that says the Church is anything but a direct continuation of Israel.

 

Peter did not preach the restoration of the kingdom in Acts.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Here is the one and only mention of the restoration of the kingdom in Acts. The apostles asked Jesus directly if he would restore the kingdom "at this time". And Jesus answered that it was not for them to know when this would take place. But note, that Jesus also mentioned "the times" or "the seasons" which the Father hath put in his own power.

Now how can a dispensationalist miss that? There are going to be at least two times or ages before Jesus returns to reestablish the kingdom. And this is shown again in Acts 3.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

First, notice Peter was preaching receiving Jesus for the forgiveness (remission) of sins. This is the gospel.

Second, notice that Peter does indeed mention Jesus returning, but the heaven must receive him until the "times" of restitution of all things.

So, you believe in dispensationalism? How can you overlook these "times" mentioned in Acts 1 and 3?

We also know the Gospel that John the Baptist preached.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

John the Baptist preached that people should believe on him which should come after him, that is, Christ Jesus.

This is the same gospel that Paul preached. And as has been shown, Paul verifies that the same gospel he preached was preached to Abraham. And Jesus verifies this himself.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Abraham knew about Jesus, Jesus said so himself.

My experience with dispensationalists is that instead of helping to understand the scriptures, it accomplishes the exact opposite. Those of this persuasion tend to interpret scripture to fit these pre-conceived ages, instead of understanding the clear, straightforward, and often simple scriptures.

 

Premillennialism, as well as a belief in a literal Millennial Kingdom (which they did have) lends itself to dispensationalism. You can't have it any other way.

 

Historical premillenialism is distinctly different than interepting scripture through the filter of dispensationalism and coming up with something entirely different. To say that historical premilenialism is much the same thing as dispensational premillenialism is much the same as saying that dispensationalism is much the same as evolution in that is it always evolving.

The dispensationalists are trying to cover their new dispensational theology through the new progressive dispensationalism in an effort to keep their dispensationalism when there was not any effort to change the dispensationalism of Larkin, Darby, C.H. McIntosh and Scofield until just a few years ago.

Progressive dispensationalism is very similar to Mormonism in that there is an evolving, ever changing, progressive, rationalistic, (patterned after German Rationalism) theology.

The one question I always like to ask the rationalists is to explain God rationally.