The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

i.e. there are different periods in the Bible.
Some people go along with some doctrines that include things not in the Bible. This is the heart of the problem. 'things not in the Bible'

So no matter what so-called group, test each point, every point, and if it is in harmony with the Bible,
if it is a Word from the Father,
then accept it as from Him.

If any point is not from the Father in heaven, then don't accept it as from Him.

Guojing said:

Your understanding here is strange. Just because Peter told the Jews that Jesus rose from the dead is not equivalent to preaching 1 Cor 15:1-4.

Peter used the resurrection as a proof that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah and Son of God to the Jews. He was not telling the Jews to trust in that work for justification for their sins.

Also, at no point of time did Peter ever told the Jews that they have died to the Law of Moses.

How can these 2 messages be the same?

Click to expand...

guoing,

1. You must have missed Luke 24:43-47 when Jesus told the disciples to Preach in the name of Jesus that he died, was buried, and rose again.
That is the same gospel as Paul preached. That is a scriptural fact!

2. You misunderstand about the law of Moses and what was happening back then.
I have to but, I should have time at lunch to explain. Jerry Kelso

Biblewriter said:

Actually, Darby was a latecomer in dispensational thinking. In his book titled "Dispensationalism Before Darby," William C. Watson conclusively proved that dispensational thinking was widespread during the 1600s and 1700s. And in my book "Ancient Dispensationa Truth," (by James C. Morris - me) I conclusively proved that it goes all the way back to the very beginnings of Christian teaching on eschatology. Both of these books are easily available at amazon.com .

Click to expand...

biblewriter,

1. Thanks for the information, I’ll have to look it up.
People misunderstand and make up terms that are either not true or else misunderstood etc.

2. What amazes me most is how much hatred for this position and making out like there is no truth to anything about it.
Usually most positions have a little truth in them.
Thanks again. Jerry Kelso

yeshuaslavejeff said:

i.e. there are different periods in the Bible.
Some people go along with some doctrines that include things not in the Bible. This is the heart of the problem. 'things not in the Bible'

So no matter what so-called group, test each point, every point, and if it is in harmony with the Bible,
if it is a Word from the Father,
then accept it as from Him.

If any point is not from the Father in heaven, then don't accept it as from Him.

Click to expand...

yeshuaslavejeff,

1. Good advice for all of us; precept upon precept............ Jerry Kelso

William Lefranc said:

So, what's your point, are you agreeing with me or not?

View attachment 267798

Click to expand...

Hi and disagreeing , as many Greek words have more than ONE meaning !!

The LUKE 16:2 , 3 , 4 is the OLD TESTAMENT and most students always miss it !!

The OT did not mend until Acts 28:28 !!

dan p

Biblewriter said:

Is is a "man made doctrine" that in the garden of Eden God related to mankind in a different way than how He related to them afterward?

Is it a "man made doctrine" that God made new laws for mankind after the flood of Noah?

Is it a "man made doctrine" that after God made His promises to Abraham, that his desendants were the children of a promise?

Is it a "man made doctrine" that at the time of Moses, God gave the children of Israel a new law that did not exist before that time?

Is it a "man made doctrine" that since Jesus died, we are no longer under the law?

Is it a "man made doctrine" that a time is coming when God will restore all things?

All of these changes are clearly taught in scripture. people who are called "Dispensationalists" call the period during which each of these changes was in effect a "dispensation," because when the doctrine became widespread, the KJV was the only widely used translation of the Bible. But rgardless of what these periods are called, they clearly exist in the Bible.

It is indeed true that the word rendered "dispensation" in the KJV actually translates as "administration." But whether you say "dispensationalism" or "admnistrationalism" is insignificant. The HARD FACT is that these different periods are CLEARLY set forth in the Bible. And, in order to deny that the ancient nation of Israel will indeed be physically brought back to its ancient homeland, and will there be blessed by God, you have to deny the truthfulness of a very large number of explicit statements of scripture.

Click to expand...

Give me scriptures not opinions please. Where in the OT are dispensations taught? Where in the NT did Paul or John or Peter, etc. ever TAUGHT about the DISPENSATIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES????

The Bible is divided by two covenants, the old covenant that ended when the temple was destroyed and the new covenant that Jesus inaugurated with His blood. The Bible is full of covenants while I read nothing about dispensations.

If I'm not mistaken, dispensations were first taught coherently by the Plymouth Brethren in the 1600s and were later popularized in 1830 by apostates like John Darby and C.I. Scofield.

God is a God of covenants, the Bible is about covenants, and the people of God lived by either the old covenant or the new one which is everlasting.

Dispensations make a nice study bible that helps the student to understand timelines and epochs, but it not biblical. God does not relate to us via "dispensations" but via covenants.

By the way, the process of restoration began when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost. God is working out His plan of redemption from the inside out, not from the outside in. He starts with men and will finish once the church is complete. Once that takes place, the wicked will be judged while the curtains of time will be removed forever in order to open the doors to eternity.

Lastly, God made a covenant with Adam, then later on with Noah, Abraham, Israel until Jesus inaugurated the everlasting covenant with His blood.

Study covenants and you will learn what the Bible is really all about. Dispensations, on the other hand, is a deception that intends to separate what God united with the blood of His Son (Eph. 2:11-22).

William Lefranc said:

Give me scriptures not opinions please. Where in the OT are dispensations taught? Where in the NT did Paul or John or Peter, etc. ever TAUGHT about the DISPENSATIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES????

The Bible is divided by two covenants, the old covenant that ended when the temple was destroyed and the new covenant that Jesus inaugurated with His blood. The Bible is full of covenants while I read nothing about dispensations.

If I'm not mistaken, dispensations were first taught coherently by the Plymouth Brethren in the 1600s and were later popularized in 1830 by apostates like John Darby and C.I. Scofield.

God is a God of covenants, the Bible is about covenants, and the people of God lived by either the old covenant or the new one which is everlasting.

Dispensations make a nice study bible that helps the student to understand timelines and epochs, but it not biblical. God does not relate to us via "dispensations" but via covenants.

By the way, the process of restoration began when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost. God is working out His plan of redemption from the inside out, not from the outside in. He starts with men and will finish once the church is complete. Once that takes place, the wicked will be judged while the curtains of time will be removed forever in order to open the doors to eternity.

Lastly, God made a covenant with Adam, then later on with Noah, Abraham, Israel until Jesus inaugurated the everlasting covenant with His blood.

Study covenants and you will learn what the Bible is really all about. Dispensations, on the other hand, is a deception that intends to separate what God united with the blood of His Son (Eph. 2:11-22).

View attachment 267872

Click to expand...

The Bible most definitely teaches that God dealt with mankind in different ways at different times. You can deny this, but you cannot change it.

And these differences were clearly taught, and called "dispensatios," or rather, the Greek word we translate as "dispensations," in the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived to the present day. This was the last twelve chapters of the very famous five volume work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heresies," which is believed to have been written between the years 186 and 188 A.D. This was also taught by numerous other writers during the church's first four centuries, although it was given up in later centuries.

jerry kelso said:

guoing,

1. You must have missed Luke 24:33-37 when Jesus told the disciples to Preach in the name of Jesus that he died, was buried, and rose again.
That is the same gospel as Paul preached. That is a scriptural fact!

2. You misunderstand about the law of Moses and what was happening back then.
I have to but, I should have time at lunch to explain. Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

Hi Jerry and Luke 24:33-37 , I do not see where the disciples preached your point #1 !!

Have you given the right verse ??

dan p

jerry kelso said:

guoing,

1. You must have missed Luke 24:33-37 when Jesus told the disciples to Preach in the name of Jesus that he died, was buried, and rose again.
That is the same gospel as Paul preached. That is a scriptural fact!

2. You misunderstand about the law of Moses and what was happening back then.
I have to but, I should have time at lunch to explain. Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

You don't understand what I was saying?

Telling Jews that Jesus has risen again as proof that he is indeed the Son of God, is not equivalent to what Paul preached in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

At no point of time did Peter tell the Jews, "Trust in the resurrection as proof that you are now righteous before God."

Dan Perez said:

Hi Jerry and Luke 24:33-37 , I do not see where the disciples preached your point #1 !!

Have you given the right verse ??

dan p

Click to expand...

danperez,

1. Sorry, I was in a hurry at work.
The scripture is Luke 24:44-47.

2. Jesus is going back through the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms that were fulfilled concerning the Messiah and his death, burial and resurrection and that repentance and remission of sins should be “Preached” in his name among all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

3. He was commanding his disciples and happened on this Day of Pentecost after they received the Holy Spirit and in Peter’s sermon; this the leaders were upset they preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
Thanks for letting me know.
Jerry Kelso

Guojing said:

You don't understand what I was saying?

Telling Jews that Jesus has risen again as proof that he is indeed the Son of God, is not equivalent to what Paul preached in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

At no point of time did Peter tell the Jews, "Trust in the resurrection as proof that you are now righteous before God."

Click to expand...

guojing,

1. Luke 24:44-47 Jesus literally and directly tells the disciples to preach in the name of Jesus the message of how it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.
And that repentance and remission of sins should be “Preached” in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
This is the New Covenant which had already happened at the cross and Jesus completed by his resurrection.
Actually when he said “it was finished” redemptions work was done and the resurrection was guaranteed and completed by physical resurrection because he is the God of the living.

2. You are trying to use reasoning that because he didn’t make a direct statement of trusting in the resurrection to be saved.
Hebrews 8:6-7 says the old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant which was Jesus death, burial and resurrection.
Matthew 26:28: For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
This is the New Covenant about the power of the blood that saves.
John 11:25-26 is about Christ being the resurrection and life and those that believe in the Messiah though he were dead yet shall he live.
And whosoever believeth In me shall never die. Believeth thou this? This was prophetic to the cross and resurrection.
Martha had no clue what he was saying.
This was before the cross.

3. In Jesus day as in every age every person had to believe even in the New Covenant Romans 10:9-10.
The difference was their revelation of redemption of salvation of man’s soul which was gradual from Adam and Eve and the antediluvian period until the Cross came to pass.

4. Being righteous before God under the law of Moses is found in Romans 10:5 and is contrasted with verse 6-10 of the righteousness of faith.
Verse 10 we have to believe unto righteousness.
Go back to verse 4 says Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.
The law was satisfied and abolished at the cross 2 Corinthians 3:13.
To everyone who believeth is the second part which is conducive to verse 10 of the heart believing unto righteousness.
Verse 11: For the scripture saith, “Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. This is about the New Covenant.

5. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the same as Jesus preached in Luke when he was telling the disciples what they were to preach to all the nations.
So why would Peter disobey Christ command and contradict the Apostle Paul?

6. Acts 2:21; calling on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Acts 2:24; whom God raised up (Jesus)
having loosed the pains of death (resurrection).
Acts 25:34 is about David who died and saw corruption, but not Christ who Paul said was the first fruits of the resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:23.
Acts 2:31: He seeing this before spake of the “RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, that his soul was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Verse 32: This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof “WE ALL ARE WITNESSES”!!!!!

7. I am sorry, but context and plain statement of Peter’s sermon show that they preached the resurrection and we know that Christ had to suffer and die and buried to be resurrected.

8. And to say it is not equivalent to Paul’s gospel of redemption makes no sense.
Jerry Kelso

jerry kelso said:

guojing,

5. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the same as Jesus preached in Luke when he was telling the disciples what they were to preach to all the nations.
So why would Peter disobey Christ command and contradict the Apostle Paul?

6. Acts 2:21; calling on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Acts 2:24; whom God raised up (Jesus)
having loosed the pains of death (resurrection).
Acts 25:34 is about David who died and saw corruption, but not Christ who Paul said was the first fruits of the resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:23.
Acts 2:31: He seeing this before spake of the “RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, that his soul was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Verse 32: This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof “WE ALL ARE WITNESSES”!!!!!

7. I am sorry, but context and plain statement of Peter’s sermon show that they preached the resurrection and we know that Christ had to suffer and die and buried to be resurrected.

8. And to say it is not equivalent to Paul’s gospel of redemption makes no sense.
Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

So to sum up, you believe that when Peter told the Jews to repent and be baptized in Acts 2:38, Peter is telling the Jews the equivalence of the mystery that Paul revealed in his epistles, that they are

1. Dead to the Law of Moses and
2. To trust ONLY in Jesus's death burial and resurrection to justify them from their sins, as 1 Cor 15:1-4?

Dale said:

Al T: "It was established by force by England mainly and the US in cooperation with them during WWI. Europe was eager to rid itself of Jews - and of course, because of Theodore Hertzl's establishment of the Zionist movement and the later illegal activities of Justice Brandais, America was drawn into WWI to help establish Zion. (https://www.amazon.com/Against-Our-Better-Judgment-history-ebook/dp/B00J0LXYLM)"

This is a conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. It's history. Documented fact. Read the book. The sources are irrefutable.

I'm not the one who says the Temple will be rebuilt. I did a thread recently:

Israel Can't Make a New Ark for a New Temple.
Israel Can't Make a New Ark for a New Temple

Click to expand...

They can't even assign proper Levite priests. Modern day Israel is not the kingdom of Israel. It wasn't built in a day and the prophecy which talks about a nation built in a day was about Jesus and his kingdom, not the events of 1948. If God is that sloppy in his prophecy, then we may as well claim Nostradamus is a prophet because every decade somebody writes a book claiming his prophecies have come true AGAIN.

Guojing said:

You don't understand what I was saying?

Telling Jews that Jesus has risen again as proof that he is indeed the Son of God, is not equivalent to what Paul preached in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

At no point of time did Peter tell the Jews, "Trust in the resurrection as proof that you are now righteous before God."

Click to expand...

Correct. But this is a strawman. What he said was, trust that Jesus is the Messiah because God raised him from the dead. Then repent and wash away your sins by being baptized, calling on his "name" ονομα or authority, which was given to him by God as your heavenly king and savior.

You say that they couldn't have known that there was a new law from Peter's sermon. But they all KNEW what the old law required for remission, it was the sacrifice of an animal. Here's Peter telling them that in order to obtain remission, they had to do this NEW thing, not prescribed by the old law that would accomplish what the sacrifices did (and more). That in itself is a major change. Many Jews accepted this new law and obeyed it. The sacrifices ceased (effectiveness) and later were made impossible. From that day forward, animal sacrifices no longer brought remission. You think that these people weren't aware how significant a change this was?

Al Touthentop said:

Correct. But this is a strawman. What he said was, trust that Jesus is the Messiah because God raised him from the dead. Then repent and wash away your sins by being baptized, calling on his "name" ονομα or authority, which was given to him by God as your heavenly king and savior.

You say that they couldn't have known that there was a new law from Peter's sermon. But they all KNEW what the old law required for remission, it was the sacrifice of an animal. Here's Peter telling them that in order to obtain remission, they had to do this NEW thing, not prescribed by the old law that would accomplish what the sacrifices did (and more). That in itself is a major change. Many Jews accepted this new law and obeyed it. The sacrifices ceased (effectiveness) and later were made impossible. From that day forward, animal sacrifices no longer brought remission. You think that these people weren't aware how significant a change this was?

Click to expand...

Animal sacrifices continued in the temple all the way throughout Acts.

Peter did not tell the Jews that anything has changed in the Law of Moses. (Acts 21:20, Acts 22:12)

Guojing said:

So to sum up, you believe that when Peter told the Jews to repent and be baptized in Acts 2:38, Peter is telling the Jews the equivalence of the mystery that Paul revealed in his epistles, that they are

1. Dead to the Law of Moses and
2. To trust ONLY in Jesus's death burial and resurrection to justify them from their sins, as 1 Cor 15:1-4?

Click to expand...

Guojing,

1. The salvation at the cross and the mystery of the church are two separate issues.

2. They were both ratified at the cross.

3. Salvation under the New Covenant has to be the rule of life because the blood of bulls and goats were no good and Christ fulfilled the law of Moses and completed redemption by the cross.

4. The law was forever for the Jews but not under Moses law because it was abolished after Christ fulfilled it.
2 Corinthians 3:13-16.
Earlier in the chapter it talks about the law of Moses being the ministration of death.
This doesn’t mean the Jews couldn’t still retain their Jewish culture at all otherwise they would stop being Jews.
Look at the difference between Messianic Judaism who basically believe in the New Covenant to be saved and secular Judaism who don’t.

5. The Jews under Moses Law before the cross had types and shadows and everything had to be done and believed in to be righteousness. Romans 10:5 about the righteousness of the law of Moses was those who do them shall live in them.
I don’t believe it is wrong to abstain from pork which is contained in the old covenant as long as you’re not looking to salvation for it because Christ has come or because you have to keep it or have a punishment for it as in not being blessed.
It is smart nutritionally.
Jews can still practice Judaism and retain their culture as Jews and be New Covenant believers.
Read the book of Hebrews and you will see the contrast between the old and new covenants written to Jews.
There is only way to be saved for remission of sins was through Jesus the final sacrifice, the death of the testator who died for the sins of those under the Old Testament Hebrews 9:15-17. Just because it says for the transgressions under the Old Testament in that passage doesn’t mean gentiles were left outJohn 3:16.
The Jews and gentiles were completed in redemption together at the cross Hebrews 11:40.

6. The mystery of the church was Jew and Gentile in one body alike on the same playing ground to make one new man Ephesians 2:14–15.
It was ratified at the cross but didn’t manifest until Acts 10 when Peter received the Vision of the clean and unclean and Paul brought it out clearer in Ephesians and his other epistles.
Jews still had the kingdom mentality concerning their covenants and knew Jews were to be saved but under their propagating the gospel.
Most likely they were still proselytizing in the early church till Peter got the vision.
This is part of gradual revelation but as far of the revelation of salvation of the cross it is plain and contextual that Peter preached the New Covenant Luke 24:44-47; Acts 2 and 4:2. Jerry Kelso

jerry kelso said:

Guojing,

3. Salvation under the New Covenant has to be the rule of life because the blood of bulls and goats were no good and Christ fulfilled the law of Moses and completed redemption by the cross.

This is part of gradual revelation but as far of the revelation of salvation of the cross it is plain and contextual that Peter preached the New Covenant Luke 24:44-47; Acts 2 and 4:2. Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

As I have mentioned earlier to another, animal sacrifices continued in the temple all the way throughout Acts.

Acts 21:20, Acts 22:12 confirms that your conclusion is not "plain and contextual". The Jews who sat under Peter and the other 11 preaching could not be concluding the way you are concluding.

Guojing said:

As I have mentioned earlier to another, animal sacrifices continued in the temple all the way throughout Acts.

Acts 21:20, Acts 22:12 confirms that your conclusion is not "plain and contextual". The Jews who sat under Peter and the other 11 preaching could not be concluding the way you are concluding.

Click to expand...

guojing,

1. Yes that is true but this is not because they weren’t supposed to seek salvation by animal sacrifices.

2. Paul only did it to be all things to all men including the Jews 1 Corinthians 9:20.
He said the gentiles were not under this a few scriptures after.
If Paul was doing this concerning the ritual laws which included Old Testament Water Baptism Paul would have sinned and James and the rest would have sinned because they asked him to do it.
These Jews were zealous and they couldn’t grasp what all had transpired.
I have to stop for now. I’ll have more time at lunch. God bless Jerry Kelso