The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

Guojing said:

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

Click to expand...

Not in dispute. Jewish Christians knew that remission came by baptism, a stark change from the Old Law. They didn't continue to offer animal sacrifice because they were taught a different law as evidenced by Peter's sermon and their obedience to this new law.

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

Click to expand...

That's exactly what he told them in his very first sermon. His response to their question "what must we do" was not to tell them to run out and grab a calf, sheep, goat or dove, it was to get in the water. Peter also told them in this first sermon that Christ was king. That God raised him up to sit on his throne. He did not offer them an earthly king but a heavenly one. Your narrative is in error.

jerry kelso said:

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

Click to expand...

Hi Jerry and in verse 47 , And that REPENTANCE / METANOIO is in the ACCUCATIVE CASE and means that ONLY Israel was to preached what is written in verse 47 as this CASE means LIMITED to Jews !!

The same goes for the Greek word REMISSION / APHESIS also LIMITED to Israel !!

Also the Greek word NATIONS / ETHNOS is also in the LIMITATION of the antion of Israel and see John 10 :48 , 50 , and 51 where NATION / ETHNOS is used !!

Hi and a corrction , from John 10:48 TO John 11:48 , 50 , and 51 !!

dan p

Dan Perez said:

Hi Jerry and in verse 47 , And that REPENTANCE / METANOIO is in the ACCUCATIVE CASE and means that ONLY Israel was to preached what is written in verse 47 as this CASE means LIMITED to Jews !!

Click to expand...

The accusative does not limit itself to a certain class of person or nation but of a certain object/verb combination in the sentence. Jesus said "all the nations beginning at Jerusalem." That means all. Every one.

The same goes for the Greek word REMISSION / APHESIS also LIMITED to Israel !!

Click to expand...

Please quote your source for this. Mounce? Roberston?

Also the Greek word NATIONS / ETHNOS is also in the LIMITATION of the antion of Israel and see John 10 :48 , 50 , and 51 where NATION / ETHNOS is used !!

Click to expand...

Context is key. The words "afar off" as used by Peter in Acts 2 was a euphemism for "Gentiles." The Gentiles were always meant to receive the gospel and remission.

Al Touthentop said:

The accusative does not limit itself to a certain class of person or nation but of a certain object/verb combination in the sentence. Jesus said "all the nations beginning at Jerusalem." That means all. Every one.



Please quote your source for this. Mounce? Roberston?

Click to expand...

Also the Greek word NATIONS / ETHNOS is also in the LIMITATION of the antion of Israel and see John 10 :48 , 50 , and 51 where NATION / ETHNOS is used !!
[/quote]

Context is key. The words "afar off" as used by Peter in Acts 2 was a euphemism for "Gentiles." The Gentiles were always meant to receive the gospel and remission.[/QUOTE]


Hi and I use MOUNCE and DANA & MANTEY page 67 !!

Are you saying that the ACCUCATIVE CASE , ENTHOS is not used in John 11:48 !!

Are Greek books INSPIRED ??

In Eph 4:5 it says One Lord , One Faith and One BAPTISM is the Greek word BAPTISM the correct to use HERE ??

Can you tell me what teh Greek word is used here as mI believe the correct Greek word there is BAPTISMA !!

What say you ??

dan p

Dan Perez said:

Are you saying that the ACCUCATIVE CASE , ENTHOS is not used in John 11:48 !!

Are Greek books INSPIRED ??

dan p

Click to expand...

I'm saying that the accusative case does not indicate that a word is directed to a certain nationality outside the context of the text. This passage has nothing to do with who it was who could receive salvation.

"If we let Him go on like this, everyone will believe in Him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” το εθνος

Technically, that should read "the nation" but it's clear from the context that they were speaking of their own nation. Ethnos is where we get our word ethnic. In most cases you'll find that it refers to foreign nations.

Al Touthentop said:

Not in dispute. Jewish Christians knew that remission came by baptism, a stark change from the Old Law. They didn't continue to offer animal sacrifice because they were taught a different law as evidenced by Peter's sermon and their obedience to this new law.



That's exactly what he told them in his very first sermon. His response to their question "what must we do" was not to tell them to run out and grab a calf, sheep, goat or dove, it was to get in the water. Peter also told them in this first sermon that Christ was king. That God raised him up to sit on his throne. He did not offer them an earthly king but a heavenly one. Your narrative is in error.

Click to expand...

Hi and I do not see water in Acts 2:38 BECAUSE the Greek WATER / HUDOR is not used in that verse !

Acts 2:38 means that they were to be BAPTIZED with the GIFT OF HOLY SPIRIT and since the Greek ARTICLE ( THE ) is not used before and written like THE HOLY SPIRIT , it means the POWER OF HOLY SPIRIT !!

dan p

Dan Perez said:

Hi and I do not see water in Acts 2:38 BECAUSE the Greek WATER / HUDOR is not used in that verse !

Acts 2:38 means that they were to be BAPTIZED with the GIFT OF HOLY SPIRIT and since the Greek ARTICLE ( THE ) is not used before and written like THE HOLY SPIRIT , it means the POWER OF HOLY SPIRIT !!

dan p

Click to expand...

The default medium is water. The word water does not have to be used with the word baptism for it to be talking about immersion in water.

The term "gift of the Holy Spirit" in this context means salvation. About 3000 people were immersed in water that day.

Dan Perez said:

Hi Jerry and in verse 47 , And that REPENTANCE / METANOIO is in the ACCUCATIVE CASE and means that ONLY Israel was to preached what is written in verse 47 as this CASE means LIMITED to Jews !!

The same goes for the Greek word REMISSION / APHESIS also LIMITED to Israel !!

Also the Greek word NATIONS / ETHNOS is also in the LIMITATION of the antion of Israel and see John 10 :48 , 50 , and 51 where NATION / ETHNOS is used !!

Hi and a corrction , from John 10:48 TO John 11:48 , 50 , and 51 !!

dan p

Click to expand...

danperez,

1. It seems Al Touthentop already answered for me and I appreciate it.
He is right the context in John 11:48-52 use the singular “nation”.
The context are the chief priests and the Pharisees who formed a council trying to combat Jesus who did many miracles.
They were worried about themselves and their place in the nation of Israel.
Caiaphas said they didn’t know anything and it was expedient one should die for the people so the whole nation wouldn’t perish.
This was speaking of the planning of Jesus crucifixion.
The ones scattered abroad was the other part of the fold; the lost sheep of Israel Matthew 10:6-7.
After John 11:52 Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews (Jewish Leaders).

2. Jesus used “nations” plural in the light of preaching the New Covenant beginning at Jerusalem.
The parallel New Testament in Greek and English and the Complete Jewish Bible and one of the foremost Greek scholars in our generation Kenneth Weiss don’t agree with your Greek which is just pick and choose to prove your argument.
At least that is the perception for you didn’t give a source.

3. I am sure those who believe Israel was given a second chance to receive the Kingdom of Heaven would like this rendering though the scripture proves this wrong.
So context and Greek and Hebrew scholars are not on your side. Jerry Kelso

jerry kelso said:

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

Click to expand...

You are correct about Paul's motivation for following the Law in Acts 21 but we are not discussing that point here.

The point is that Peter, at no time in early Acts, was preaching that the Law of Moses is no longer relevant to the Jews.

1. You cannot find in the Scripture Peter ever saying that. All the Jews throughout Acts continue to be known for keeping the Law. Acts 21:20 and Acts 22:12
2. The resurrected Jesus did not tell them that, instead he instructed them to teach others "to follow everything he has commanded them" (Matthew 28:20).
3. Peter's responses to God and Cornelius in Acts 10 showed that.
4. Acts 15 and Acts 21:25 only exempted Gentile believers from following the Law.

You are reading into Acts, reading Paul's epistles into Acts, to be able to conclude that.

But I can understand your mind is set on this doctrine, so let us agree to disagree here. Cheers.

Al Touthentop said:

Not in dispute. Jewish Christians knew that remission came by baptism, a stark change from the Old Law. They didn't continue to offer animal sacrifice because they were taught a different law as evidenced by Peter's sermon and their obedience to this new law.



That's exactly what he told them in his very first sermon. His response to their question "what must we do" was not to tell them to run out and grab a calf, sheep, goat or dove, it was to get in the water. Peter also told them in this first sermon that Christ was king. That God raised him up to sit on his throne. He did not offer them an earthly king but a heavenly one. Your narrative is in error.

Click to expand...

You are reading into Acts 2:38. Peter told them they are to repent from crucifying Jesus on the cross and they are to change their mind about Jesus, he is their promised Messiah.

At no time did Peter tell them, "You are now dead to the Law of Moses". As I have explained in the previous post to Jerry, all the Jews still have to keep the Law, and are shown to be devout to the Law, throughout Acts

Biblewriter said:

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.

Click to expand...

All it matters is that the LIE of dispensations is not found in the Bible. I don't care what Iraenous may have believed or not. I'm sure all you have is scraps of what he might have believed.

William Lefranc said:

All it matters is that the LIE of dispensations is not found in the Bible. I don't care what Iraenous may have believed or not. I'm sure all you have is scraps of what he might have believed.



View attachment 267917

Click to expand...

What REALLY matters is that all of the changes that I have pointed out, in the way God has dealt with mankind, and will in the future deal with mankind, are CLEARLY taught in the Bible. And nothing you say can change that HARD FACT.

Dale said:

Guojing: "My point was that Gentiles could be blessed by God in the OT, as well as the 4 Gospels which are technically still OT, but only thru the Jews."

On the Gospels, or most of them, still being under the OT dispensation, L. S. Chafer said something like that, and I quoted it earlier. He said it but it makes no sense. Why are blessings "only thru the Jews?" For centuries the Jews were the only ones who trusted God or prayed to the One True God. Outside of that, there is no limitations on God's blessings or who can receive them.

Click to expand...

Actually, I would say, since the tower of Babel incident, which was way back in Genesis 11, God decided to narrow his blessings only to Abraham and his descendants.

So technically, Genesis 12 onward all the way to when Paul was raised by God to reach us, we Gentiles were truly without God and excluded from the covenant (Ephesians 2:11-12)

Dale said:

Guojing: "Once the nation rejected Christ for final time by stoning Stephen, God ushered in the grace dispensation."


Did one of the famous Dispensationalists say this? I'd like to know where. I've never heard anything like it.

Click to expand...

Not too sure, maybe CR Stam or Les Feldick?

The basic theology was that God gave the Jews 1 more year after the Crucifixion to accept his Son, and they still refused (Luke 13:6-9), the end of that 1 year after is supposedly at around the time Stephen was stoned.

Dale said:

The Book of James says nothing about animal sacrifice and we hear nothing about it in Acts 15.

You are misunderstanding why James refers to Moses. The only reason that James mentions Moses is to back up the importance of emphasizing sexual morality and abstinence to strangled meat. I take the last point to be a matter of kindness to animals.

Click to expand...

First, the book of James was written before the events took place in Acts 15.

Next, you must have missed Acts 21:20 when all the Jews who believed were zealous for the Law.

If they were still carrying on the Nazarite shaving of the heads ceremony in Acts 21, you really want to believe that animal sacrifices have stopped then?