Was the gospel that Jesus preached different to Israel under the law of Moses different to the gospel Paul preached to the world under grace.

[JAL]

You don't preach to anyone today, that in him all the nations will be blessed correct?

Even if he somehow believes that today, he won't be saved

Actually he can be saved even on less details than that. Even a fetus can receive a vision/revelation of the Lord. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from the womb.

The reason we preach the gospel in more detail is twofold:
....(1) We depend on the Spirit, as Inward Witness, to convict/convince the unbeliever.
...(2) His acceptance of the details helps prove to us that he converted.

 

[Guojing]

Actually he can be saved even on less details than that. Even a fetus can receive a vision/revelation of the Lord. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from the womb.

The reason we preach the gospel in more detail is twofold:
....(1) We depend on the Spirit, as Inward Witness, to convict/convince the unbeliever.
...(2) His acceptance of the details helps prove to us that he converted.

There is only one gospel messge that saves today, which is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

 

[JAL]

There is only one gospel messge that saves today, which is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

Correct. There has always been one gospel - with many details (progressively revealed).

 

[Guojing]

Correct. There has always been one gospel - with many details (progressively revealed).

If you insist, there is no need for me to repeat the previous posts again

 

[JAL]

If you insist, there is no need for me to repeat the previous posts again

Do you know of any commentaries on Galatians written by a Hyperdispensationalist?

I won't read the entire commentary, but maybe I could look up a couple of verses to see where they stand.

I repeatedly asked you to inform me on such verses but didn't get much feedback from you.

 

[JAL]

If you insist, there is no need for me to repeat the previous posts again

Hyperdispensationalism seems to rest on an analysis too dubious to warrant throwing out 70% of the NT and thereby create division in the church. Two major problems:
...(1) If that 70% wasn't written for the church, for whom was it written? Only the church reads it!
...(2) What does HD contribute? They tell us to obey Paul, which we are already trying to do.

 

[JAL]

@Guojing,

As you know, Les Feldick is a popular Hyperdispensationalist. I downloaded a collection of his writings and searched for his comments on Romans 4 and Galatians 3. He seems to concur with me time and again. He admits that Abraham was saved by faith alone. On Rom 4:5 he writes:

"The most important part of the whole Old Testament is the Abrahamic Covenant. It is the very bench mark of everything on which you and I rest by faith, and faith alone."

He basically admits that the gospel was preached even to Adam:

"In the very center of this covenant that God makes with Adam is a promise of a Redeemer....Here God says, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; (here we pick up the seed of the woman from this who is Christ."


Feldick likes to refer to "faith alone" as "faith + nothing". On Gal 3:7 he comments:

"We [Gentiles] have entered in the faith way + nothing the same way that Abraham did."

So where is there a different gospel? Feldick doesn't seem very clear on that point. I guess he assumes that the Law temporarily suspended the Abrahamic Covenant of faith? But such an interruption is precisely what Paul repudiates:

"Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The [covenantal] promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed....17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the [Abrahamic] covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the [Abrahamic] promise."

If Feldick is trying to establish discontinuity, he seems to be doing a poor job of it.

 

[Guojing]

@Guojing,

As you know, Les Feldick is a popular Hyperdispensationalist. I downloaded a collection of his writings and searched for his comments on Romans 4 and Galatians 3. He seems to concur with me time and again. He admits that Abraham was saved by faith alone. On Rom 4:5 he writes:

"The most important part of the whole Old Testament is the Abrahamic Covenant. It is the very bench mark of everything on which you and I rest by faith, and faith alone."

He basically admits that the gospel was preached even to Adam:

"In the very center of this covenant that God makes with Adam is a promise of a Redeemer....Here God says, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; (here we pick up the seed of the woman from this who is Christ."


Feldick likes to refer to "faith alone" as "faith + nothing". On Gal 3:7 he comments:

"We [Gentiles] have entered in the faith way + nothing the same way that Abraham did."

So where is there a different gospel? Feldick doesn't seem very clear on that point. I guess he assumes that the Law temporarily suspended the Abrahamic Covenant of faith? But such an interruption is precisely what Paul repudiates:

"Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The [covenantal] promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed....17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the [Abrahamic] covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the [Abrahamic] promise."

If Feldick is trying to establish discontinuity, he seems to be doing a poor job of it.

You just need to accept that the word gospel simply means "good news".

When Les said Abraham was preached the gospel, he means he was preached the good news.

It does not mean Les is also saying he, nor Adam, was preached the good news that is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

 

[JAL]

You just need to accept that the word gospel simply means "good news".

When Les said Abraham was preached the gospel, he means he was preached the good news.

It does not mean Les is also saying he, nor Adam, was preached the good news that is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

Feldick confirmed we are all under one Abraham Covenant of faith alone.

All Feldick has established, then, is that we have more details via progressive revelation. (Something the whole church already knew).

Sorry that's not discontinuity.

 

[Guojing]

Feldick confirmed we are all under one Abraham Covenant of faith alone.

All Feldick has established, then, is that we have more details via progressive revelation. (Something the whole church already knew).

Sorry that's not discontinuity.

You were asking a question "So where is there a different gospel? Feldick doesn't seem very clear on that point."

I gave you the point he was making, he is clear, you just need to understand the scripture as it literally says.

If you don't want to accept it, I am fine

 

[JAL]

You were asking a question "So where is there a different gospel? Feldick doesn't seem very clear on that point."

I gave you the point he was making, he is clear, you just need to understand the scripture as it literally says.

If you don't want to accept it, I am fine

I found something.

WERE OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS REQUIRED TO HAVE WORKS FOR SALVATION?

A Clarification on Hyper (Mid-Acts) Dispensationalism by Dennis Rokser I am a Classic Dispensationalist theologically. This conviction is not the byproduct of embracing a doctrinal tradition but the result of interpreting the Bible with a normal, grammatical, historical, contextual hermeneutic...

www.gracegospelpress.org

Per my old notes on this article: Feldick is particularly unclear. For him, apparently, faith alone initially inducted OT saints into the Kingdom of God (it allowed them to meet the Savior) but ultimately did not save them. Thus Feldick agrees with the other hyperdispensationalists that OT saints were saved by faith-plus-works.

That position makes no sense to me. They call it faith-plus-works but it's actually just works (if you really think about it). After all, faith confers to us the atonement. If there is no atonement, it's really works-alone. Which is contrary to what Paul wrote:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law." (Rom 3:20).

"5To the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7“Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.” (Rom 4).

Hyperdispensationalism seems to fly in the face of everything Paul said. And contributes nothing particularly helpful to our walk with God today! Does such an incredibly dubious and unproductive exegesis warrant more dispute and division in the church? I mean, really?

 

[JAL]

Deleted.

 

[Guojing]

I found something.

WERE OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS REQUIRED TO HAVE WORKS FOR SALVATION?

A Clarification on Hyper (Mid-Acts) Dispensationalism by Dennis Rokser I am a Classic Dispensationalist theologically. This conviction is not the byproduct of embracing a doctrinal tradition but the result of interpreting the Bible with a normal, grammatical, historical, contextual hermeneutic...

www.gracegospelpress.org

Per my old notes on this article: Feldick is particularly unclear. For him, apparently, faith alone initially inducted OT saints into the Kingdom of God (it allowed them to meet the Savior) but ultimately did not save them. Thus Feldick agrees with the other hyperdispensationalists that OT saints were saved by faith-plus-works.

That position makes no sense to me. They call it faith-plus-works but it's actually just works (if you really think about it). After all, faith confers to us the atonement. If there is no atonement, it's really works-alone. Which is contrary to what Paul wrote:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law." (Rom 3:20).

"5To the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7“Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.” (Rom 4).

Hyperdispensationalism seems to fly in the face of everything Paul said. And contributes nothing particularly helpful to our walk with God today! Does such an incredibly dubious and unproductive exegesis warrant more dispute and division in the church? I mean, really?

Of course if you just want to disagree and paint it in a negative light, no one can stop you from doing that.

But if you are keen to understand, instead of just shoving your views down others' throat, let me know.

As the saying goes, when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

 

[HIM]

God's will is that we believe in Jesus, John 6:40.

The text does not say that. Most translations say believe on Him or in Him. Neither is correct. Green’s literal translation got it right though. We must believe into Him to have everlasting life and be raised the last day.

 

[JAL]

Of course if you just want to disagree and paint it in a negative light, no one can stop you from doing that.

But if you are keen to understand, instead of just shoving your views down others' throat, let me know.

As the saying goes, when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

That's not fair. I didn't launch an ad hominem attack. Rather I supplied both verses and reasons for my dissent.

 

[Hawkins]

The big picture is,
God's Ultimate Plan is to build a Heaven for angels and humans to live with Him forever. He thus sets up Law to define who is qualified to enter such a Heaven. Law is defined in accordance to the nature of a completely sin-incompatible God. Through Law God defines and distinguishes between the righteous and wicked.

In the end, there will be 2/3 angels pass the Final Judgment of this Law to enter Heaven, as hinted in the book of Revelation. Also as hinted by the story of Eden, under the influence of the much more crfaty fallen angels, no humans can pass the same Judgment. Jesus is thus needed for the salvation of human beings.

Since for the time being, when humans are put to a realm under Satan's influence, we can't possibly know God's Law which now only the angels are abiding by. God thus shows through the Mosaic Law to tell humans what God's Law could mean. Mosaic Law is a set of Law under a forever Jewish covenant. It's part of the deal God made with the Jews. It is on the one hand a promise to the Jews and on the other a demonstration of how strict God's Law could mean, such that today's humans can understand how graciful God's New Covenant is through Jesus Christ.

So the New Covenant is covenant of God's Grace, it is a judgment on humans' Faith in Jesus Christ. While the Jewish covenant with Mosaic Law is a covenant basically to the Jews and legitimate converts. It's not for the gentiles. To the gentiles, the Jewish covenant serves as a demonstration of how strict God's Law is.

Paul, as a Law expert, on the other hand is to interpret the New Covenant at the theological level of which today's Christianity is rooted. He preaches the same gospel of Jesus, but rather at a theological level. While Jesus' direct disciples are to witness Jesus' deeds and speeches with much less theological interpretation.

In short, there is a fundament difference between the old covenant and New Covenant. There's no difference between what Jesus' preached and for the disciples to witness, and what Paul preached for us to understand it at the theological level.

 

[JAL]

Of course if you just want to disagree and paint it in a negative light, no one can stop you from doing that.

But if you are keen to understand, instead of just shoving your views down others' throat, let me know.

As the saying goes, when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

You seem to have the attitude that anyone who objects to Hyperdispensationalism - even on an exegetical basis - is necessarily unteachable. Effectively, that assumption makes you yourself unteachable.

 

[JAL]

The big picture is,
God's Ultimate Plan is to build a Heaven for angels and humans to live with Him forever. He thus sets up Law to define who is qualified to enter such a Heaven. Law is defined in accordance to the nature of a completely sin-incompatible God. Through Law God defines and distinguishes between the righteous and wicked.

In the end, there will be 2/3 angels pass the Final Judgment of this Law to enter Heaven, as hinted in the book of Revelation. Also as hinted by the story of Eden, under the influence of the much more crfaty fallen angels, no humans can pass the same Judgment. Jesus is thus needed for the salvation of human beings.

Since for the time being, when humans are put to a realm under Satan's influence, we can't possibly know God's Law which now only the angels are abiding by. God thus shows through the Mosaic Law to tell humans what God's Law could mean. Mosaic Law is a set of Law under a forever Jewish covenant. It's part of the deal God made with the Jews. It is on the one hand a promise to the Jews and on the other a demonstration of how strict God's Law could mean, such that today's humans can understand how graciful God's New Covenant is through Jesus Christ.

So the New Covenant is covenant of God's Grace, it is a judgment on humans' Faith in Jesus Christ. While the Jewish covenant with Mosaic Law is a covenant basically to the Jews and legitimate converts. It's not for the gentiles. To the gentiles, the Jewish covenant serves as a demonstration of how strict God's Law is.

Paul, as a Law expert, on the other hand is to interpret the New Covenant at the theological level of which today's Christianity is rooted. He preaches the same gospel of Jesus, but rather at a theological level. While Jesus' direct disciples are to witness Jesus' deeds and speeches with much less theological interpretation.

In short, there is a fundament difference between the old covenant and New Covenant. There's no difference between what Jesus' preached and for the disciples to witness, and what Paul preached for us to understand it at the theological level.

So OT saints were saved by observing the Law and thus by good works?

 

[Hawkins]

So OT saints were saved by observing the Law and thus by good works?

So no OT humans being saved? All the Jews ended up in Hell?

Even Jesus said this,

John 5:45 (NIV)
But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.

He never said that the Jews before Jesus and in Jesus' days would all wind up in Hell.

To me it says, the Law is set up by Moses, so their fate is in the hand of Moses.

 

[JAL]

So no OT humans being saved? All the Jews ended up in Hell?

Huh? Where did I say that? I believe that OT and NT saints are justified by faith on account of the (retroactive) cross.

Even Jesus said this,

John 5:45 (NIV)
But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.

He never said that the Jews before Jesus and in Jesus' days would all wind up in Hell.

To me it says, the Law is set up by Moses, so their fate is in the hand of Moses.

So one day Moses will personally decide which Israelites enter heaven? At the Judgement Seat of Moses?

On what basis will he decide? On the basis of their observation of the Law and thus by their good works?