???

[billychum]

Can you become a dispensationalist by just simply reading the Bible?

Billy <><

 

[Dispy]

Can you become a dispensationalist by just simply reading the Bible?

Billy <><

The Bible should not just be read, it should be studied.

A dispensationalist is one who studies the Bible in the context it is written, paying particular attention to whom that particular passage was written to, and why. Also, one should never read future revelation into past events/time periods.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[eph3Nine]

Can you become a dispensationalist by just simply reading the Bible?

Billy <><

I know of some who have....but they , from reading it and comparing the scriptures, SAW the difference. Most dont read OR compare, they simply parrott what their pastor says from the pulpit without checking it out for themselves.

And Dispy is right...God TELLS us how to SEE dispensationalism...STUDY.

One can be saved without knowing dispensationalism...but one wont GROW in GRACE. Pauls gospel is the ONLY information by which we, the Body of Christ, is promised to become ESTABLISHED. WHY? Because it is Gods SPECIFIC information to the NEW CREATION (which IS the Body of Christ) as it was given to Paul.

 

[TheScottsMen]

Can you become a dispensationalist by just simply reading the Bible?

Billy <><

Yes. Anyone who takes the Bible for what it says, and who it is said to, and keeps those sayings in context, will become a dispensationalist.

 

[WAB]

Yes. Anyone who takes the Bible for what it says, and who it is said to, and keeps those sayings in context, will become a dispensationalist.

Indeed so... but not a HYPER-dispensationalist.

Any honest appraisal of the Old and New Testaments, and indeed the four Gospels, must come to the conclusion that until the Acts 2 recording of the happenings on the Day of Pentecost, the Old Covenant was in effect.

On that day, God entered into a new agreement with all of mankind. If one puts his/her trust in the FINISHED work of Christ on Calvary's Cross for their salvation.... they enter into that blessed position of being saved/born-anew for ETERNITY.

 

[eph3Nine]

Indeed so... but not a HYPER-dispensationalist.

LOL LOL...I love it...when someone simply doesnt understand what is being taught, they immediately go into the "slap a label on em" mode. HYPER dispensationalist is such a term.

Any honest appraisal of the Old and New Testaments, and indeed the four Gospels, must come to the conclusion that until the Acts 2 recording of the happenings on the Day of Pentecost, the Old Covenant was in effect.

On that day, God entered into a new agreement with all of mankind. If one puts his/her trust in the FINISHED work of Christ on Calvary's Cross for their salvation.... they enter into that blessed position of being saved/born-anew for ETERNITY.

This is where you missed it. ON the day of Pentecost it was a JEWISH feast day. NO gentiles were even around. its NOT the beginning of anything NEW, but the continuation of Israels program. There is NOT new agreement on Pentecost. It is still the OLD Covenant, and the NEW covenant never went into effect with Israel because of her unbelief. She lost her status as the favored nation and God began building a NEW CREATION...but its NOT found here in acts 2...no no no. NOT UNTIL PAUL is the NEW agreement made, and its got nothing to do with Israels covenant. This is a MYSTERY program...NOT a prophetic one.

Havent you ever asked yourself, WHY PAUL?

 

[WAB]

LOL LOL...I love it...when someone simply doesnt understand what is being taught, they immediately go into the "slap a label on em" mode. HYPER dispensationalist is such a term.



This is where you missed it. ON the day of Pentecost it was a JEWISH feast day. NO gentiles were even around. its NOT the beginning of anything NEW, but the continuation of Israels program. There is NOT new agreement on Pentecost. It is still the OLD Covenant, and the NEW covenant never went into effect with Israel because of her unbelief. She lost her status as the favored nation and God began building a NEW CREATION...but its NOT found here in acts 2...no no no. NOT UNTIL PAUL is the NEW agreement made, and its got nothing to do with Israels covenant. This is a MYSTERY program...NOT a prophetic one.

Havent you ever asked yourself, WHY PAUL?

The Acts 2 account is very clear, that instead of the Holy Spirit coming upon people chosen by God all through the O.T. and then leaving them for one reason or another, He took up residence within. "And they were filled with the Holy Ghost..." Acts 2:4a)

That is why David besought the Lord not to take His Holy Spirit from him.

By the time the book of Hebrews was written, (13:5,6) the Lord has promised that under the New Covenant, He will never depart from the true believer. "Let your conversation (lifestyle/manner of living) be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have; for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." The word "never" being the strongest negative in the Greek language.

p.s. "Dispy to the max!" equates to "hyper" in my book and your posts.

 

[Dispy]

LOL LOL...I love it...when someone simply doesnt understand what is being taught, they immediately go into the "slap a label on em" mode. HYPER dispensationalist is such a term.

This is where you missed it. ON the day of Pentecost it was a JEWISH feast day. NO gentiles were even around. its NOT the beginning of anything NEW, but the continuation of Israels program. There is NOT new agreement on Pentecost. It is still the OLD Covenant, and the NEW covenant never went into effect with Israel because of her unbelief. She lost her status as the favored nation and God began building a NEW CREATION...but its NOT found here in acts 2...no no no. NOT UNTIL PAUL is the NEW agreement made, and its got nothing to do with Israels covenant. This is a MYSTERY program...NOT a prophetic one.

Havent you ever asked yourself, WHY PAUL?

The Acts 2 account is very clear, that instead of the Holy Spirit coming upon people chosen by God all through the O.T. and then leaving them for one reason or another, He took up residence within. "And they were filled with the Holy Ghost..." Acts 2:4a)

That is why David besought the Lord not to take His Holy Spirit from him.

How can you say what you said above in the 1st paragraph when Peter says to those Spirit filled listeners, in verse 16: "This is that which is spoken of by the prophet Joel." Then he continuses to quote Joel 2:28-32 almost word for word. Isn't Acts 2 a fulfillment of Joel's prophesy? If it isn't, then why would Peter quote it?

Joel, in 2:28-32, speaking of referring to the 70th week of Daniel 9, the Tribulation. The "last days that Peter is speaking of in Acts 2:17, is the Tribulation. The signs were beginning to appear.

By the time the book of Hebrews was written, (13:5,6) the Lord has promised that under the New Covenant, He will never depart from the true believer. "Let your conversation (lifestyle/manner of living) be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have; for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." The word "never" being the strongest negative in the Greek language.

The writer of the book of Hebrews is writing to Jewish believers, and explaining who Jesus was and what He had accomplished. It is not written specificly to members of the Body of Christ.

p.s. "Dispy to the max!" equates to "hyper" in my book and your posts.

I AM NOT A ULTRA/EXTREME/HYPER-DISPENSATIONALIST!!! However, I am not offended when I am refered to as one.

When I am asked my church affiliation, I usually respond by saying that I am what is refered to as a hyper/extreme dispensationalist. That brings on the responce "What's that?" that question give me the opportunity to present the gospel of the grace of God.

The following is taken from a past issue of the Berean Searchlight.

ARE WE HYPER-DISPENSATIONAILSTS:
By David M. Havard

Keywords: hyperdispensationalism, ultradispensationalism, dispensationalism, H. A. Ironside, Charles Baker, Pastor C. R. Stam, E. W. Bullinger, J. C. O'Hair, revelation of the mystery, body of Christ, Paul's gospel, gospel of the grace of God, Apostle Paul, rightly dividing the word of truth

Many years ago, H. A. Ironside (1) published a booklet entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth in which he threw Charles Baker and C. R. Stam into the same bucket as E. W. Bullinger. Ever since then, we have been labeled as having the same extreme views as Bullinger. Men who have never looked into what we really teach continue to spread the slander started by Ironside back in the 1930's. Besides, it's much easier to label us as "hyper" and dismiss us than it is to address us based on the Scriptures.

This was recently done again in the July/August 1999 issue of Uplook magazine (published by the Plymouth Brethren). In this their Dispensationalism Issues issue, they presented an excellent overview of dispensationalism. As a matter of fact, we would agree with the majority of what was written. But then, one writer had to add this statement:

"One final word. Like all good things, the study of dispensations can be abused. There are some Christians who carry dispensationalism to such an extreme that they accept only Paul's Prison Epistles as applicable for the church today. As a result, they do not accept baptism or the Lord's Supper, since these are not found in the Prison Epistles. They also teach that Peter's gospel message was not the same as Paul's&#8230;.These people are sometimes called ultra-dispensationalists or Bullingerites (after a teacher named E. W. Bullinger). Their extreme view of dispensationalism should be rejected."(2)

This article was then followed by the following excerpt from Ironside's book3)

"What is Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism? This system was first advocated some years ago by Dr. E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913), who was educated at King's College, London, and was a clergyman in the Church of England. These views have been widely spread through the notes of the Companion Bible which he edited. Dr. Bullinger's positions are glaringly opposed to what is generally accepted as orthodox teaching. This movement has been carried forth in our day by ardent proponents such as Cornelius Stam, J. C. O'Hair and Charles Baker.

"There are a number of outstanding tenets of Ultra-dispensationalism. First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church. Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul's Prison Epistles. Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body. All of the other epistles of Paul are relegated to an earlier dispensation and were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish Church of that time. Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.

"Beside these points, there are many other unscriptural things which are advocated by Bullingerism. Many boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, the universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit. All these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism."

"But wait!" You're thinking, "I don't believe those things!" Well, neither do I, but these are their tactics. As far as most Acts 2 folks are concerned, we agree with Bullinger's far out views regarding soul sleep, annihilation of the wicked, universalism, and that the Body of Christ did not start until Acts 28. You either believe in their interpretation of dispensationalism or you are an extremist like Bullinger. They do not recognize any middle ground. This is what we are up against.

In the above quote, Ironside lists some the "outstanding tenets" of what he calls "ultra-dispensationalism." While this is a convenient label, it does not Biblically address the issues. Let us examine what Ironside said (and everyone else seems to repeat) and see if we agree or not.

"First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church": We do not believe that the four gospels have no real message for the church&#8212;Paul says that ALL Scripture is profitable. However, we do believe (because we hold to a literal historical interpretation of the Bible) that Christ's earthly ministry was in keeping with Israel's prophetic kingdom program (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24). We find application in the gospels to be sure, but to say that the basic message of the gospels is directed to the Body of Christ is not being consistent or literal. As Scofield says in his reference Bible, "The Epistles of the Apostle Paul have a very distinctive character....Through Paul alone we know that the church is not an organization, but an organism, the Body of Christ; instinct with His life, and heavenly in calling, promise, and destiny. Through him alone we know the nature, purpose, and form of organization of local churches, and the right conduct of such gatherings. Through him alone do we know that `we shall not all sleep,' that `the dead in Christ shall rise first,' and that living saints shall be `changed' and caught up to meet the Lord in the air at His return. But to Paul was also committed the unfolding of the doctrines of grace&#8230;Paul, converted by the personal ministry of the Lord in glory, is distinctively the witness to a glorified Christ, Head over all things to the church which is His Body, as the Eleven were to Christ in the flesh." And if, according to traditional dispensationalism, the Body of Christ started at Pentecost, how can it be found retroactively in the gospels? The message that Peter preached at Pentecost was an offer of the millennial kingdom to Israel (Acts 2:22) conditional upon their repentance and recognition of Jesus as their Messiah&#8212;something that we now know will not happen until after the tribulation.

"Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book, refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul's Prison Epistles": You'd think they would at least understand this! Regarding the assembly in the book of Acts, we have both "churches" mentioned, depending on the context. If you see the Body of Christ in the gospels, you are closer to a covenant position than a dispensational one. If the Body is found in the gospels, then to be consistent, it also has to be found in the Old Testament prophetic program as well. It was Bullinger (with whom we do not agree) who said that the Body of Christ did not start until the close of the book of Acts and that only Paul's prison epistles are for us today.

"Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body": We do not agree with Bullinger on this point either. We do say that Paul received a special revelation (Gal. 1:11-12), but we do not agree that only his prison epistles are applicable to us today. Paul began to receive his special revelation of the mystery upon his conversion in Acts 9.

"Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation": Regarding the "ordinances" of the church, there is no place in Scripture where water baptism and the Lord's supper are linked. The Lord's Supper is a memorial that we are instructed in I Corinthians 11 to keep "until He come." However, we do feel that water baptism is a Jewish ordinance and is something that was phased out during the transition period. It is also rarely pointed out that we are not unique in understanding that water baptism is not for today. Other groups throughout church history, such as the Quakers, have also come to this same conclusion.

"Many boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, the universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit. All these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism": This is the worst sort of guilt by association, but I'm sure you see the implication. If you believe in a mid-Acts position, then, according to them, you also believe in these extreme and unscriptural viewpoints as well. By associating us with these cult-like beliefs we can be discredited without ever having to answer our Biblical arguments.

This is what we are up against. These are the same battles, misunderstandings, and deliberate misrepresentations that Pastor Stam has had to fight against for over 60 years&#8212;and we must continue to do so today if the gospel of the grace of God is going to continue to go forward.

Yet rather than discourage us, these things should motivate us. We know what we have found. We know how confused we used to be. We can honestly say that this is a more consistent and literal approach to Scripture. We no longer have to explain away what the Bible clearly says in verses such as Acts 2:38. We know that by reading the Body of Christ back into the gospels, we rob them of their distinctive kingdom character. By not understanding the difference we either have to make the clear statements in the gospels (such as a distinction between Jew and Gentile and water baptism) conform to Paul's epistles (where he says there is no difference between Jew and Greek, and that he is the apostle to the Gentiles) by explaining them away or we have to read the gospels into Paul's epistles and make them conform to the message in the gospels (which is what John MacArthur has done with "Lordship Salvation").

We are not the wild-eyed radicals that the theological media tries to portray us as. We are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of traditional dispensationalism. Our two primary points of disagreement are that we see the Body of Christ starting with the conversion and call of the Apostle Paul and that water baptism is not a requirement for this dispensation.

Let us stand firm in proclaiming the unique message revealed to and through the Apostle Paul. It is like telling others about our faith in Christ. We know what it has done for us. We know that it has cleared away our confusion. Let us graciously and boldly share with others what this message has done for us.

Endnotes

1. If you can find someone who has a copy of The Controversy (it's now out of print), you can read more about Ironside's history as related to the Grace Movement.

2. William MacDonald, "Distinguishing things that differ," Up-look, July/August 1999, pp. 11-12.

3. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, H. A. Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers, New York, 1938.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Much and Love The Lord!

 

[WAB]

Question... what is wrong with fulfilled prophecy? Isaiah 53 is full of prophecy that was literally fulfilled at Calvary's Cross. For which, I praise God.

On a personal note: you quote my post re: "Dispy to the max!" as if it were directed to you. have a look at eph3Nine's posts: "Mid Acts, Pauline, Dispy to the max!"... right under her name.

Re : H. A. Ironside... I have read his work, and agree with his position, which obviously you do not.

You say that you do not agree with Bullinger, yet among mid-Acts dispensationalists he is revered and quoted repeatedly.

If water baptism (by immersion) was "phased out" and yet Paul himself baptized quite a number of new believers, did this new understanding come before or after the mysteries were revealed to Paul in their entirety?

If before, why did Paul baptize? And if after, then either the revelation he got to begin with was in error, or he was deliberately disobedient, for Paul did baptize.

Will take the space to relate personal experience we had while missionaries in the Sulu, which as you probably know is Muslim territory.

People who made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ were ignored by the so-called "radicals" unless they were baptized. If those new believers were baptized, (again, publicly, by immersion), then their lives were up for grabs. We were there when a believer was dis-membered in the marketplace. We were not in the marketplace itself, but fairly close by, and were told about it by a neighbor.

 

[Dispy]

Question... what is wrong with fulfilled prophecy? Isaiah 53 is full of prophecy that was literally fulfilled at Calvary's Cross. For which, I praise God.

There is nothing wrong with fulfilled prophesy. I too am thankful for the Cross of Christ, and what it did.

On a personal note: you quote my post re: "Dispy to the max!" as if it were directed to you. have a look at eph3Nine's posts: "Mid Acts, Pauline, Dispy to the max!"... right under her name.

I too consider myself a "mid-Acts dispy to the max," which you equate to hyper-dispensationalists. Was just trying explain my feelings as they agree with what David Havard wrote.

Re : H. A. Ironside... I have read his work, and agree with his position, which obviously you do not.

I have a first edition printing of Mr. Ironsides writing that I believe you are referring to. You are rigdht, I do not agree with his writing.

You say that you do not agree with Bullinger, yet among mid-Acts dispensationalists he is revered and quoted repeatedly.

I THANK GOD fro men like Bullinger for the many grace truths that he had uncovered. However, he is an Acts 28:28 dispy, and there are many areas in which we disgaree. Dr. Scolfield is an Acts 2 dispy. I use his study Bible as my primary Bible, and I enjoy many of his footnotes, but do not agree with all of them, however, I, and many other dispy writers, will quote from them. I THANK GOD for him also. Also for Martin Luther and his uncovering the FAITH ONLY]/b] truth. That does not make me a Lutheran.

I read many articles written by non-mid-Acts dispys with who I agree, but not everything they write. My Bible knowledge has been broadened by them.

If water baptism (by immersion) was "phased out" and yet Paul himself baptized quite a number of new believers, did this new understanding come before or after the mysteries were revealed to Paul in their entirety?

If before, why did Paul baptize? And if after, then either the revelation he got to begin with was in error, or he was deliberately disobedient, for Paul did baptize.

Yes Paul did baptize some, but not that many, BEFORE he received the full knowledge of the mystery.

From Acts 9, when he was converted, to Acts 28:28, there was a transition period from the dispensation of the Law to the dispensation of grace. During that period one will find, from the study of Acts, that as Paul gained in the revelation of the mystery, the Pentecostal signs gifts decreased, then finally vanished as Paul said they would in 1 Corinthians 13:8.

When one studies the writings of Paul, prior to acts 28:28, (1,2 Thess., Gal., 1,2 Cor. Rms [?]) one will find some reference to signs, Miracles, wonders, tongues, and legal ceremonies (including water baptism). When one studies his writing after Acts 28:28 (Eph., Col., Phi, Heb. [?], Phill., 1,2 Tim., Rms [?]) there are no mention of any of the above. (I placed [?] after Rms and Heb because is is debatable as to when Romans was written, and just who is the author of Romans. The majority view is that it was Paul.

Further, if one studies the books in the Bible that the disciples wrote, and placed after the book of Hebrews, there is also no mention of the above. I wonder why. Could it be that they had vanished?

IMHO had Paul water baptized after he had received the full knowledge of the mystery, he would have been in error.

Will take the space to relate personal experience we had while missionaries in the Sulu, which as you probably know is Muslim territory.

People who made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ were ignored by the so-called "radicals" unless they were baptized. If those new believers were baptized, (again, publicly, by immersion), then their lives were up for grabs. We were there when a believer was dis-membered in the marketplace. We were not in the marketplace itself, but fairly close by, and were told about it by a neighbor.

The personal experience that you wrote about is tragic, however, it is not proof that water baptism is for today in this dispensation of grace.

God Bless.
LIve Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[WAB]

There is nothing wrong with fulfilled prophesy. I too am thankful for the Cross of Christ, and what it did.



I too consider myself a "mid-Acts dispy to the max," which you equate to hyper-dispensationalists. Was just trying explain my feelings as they agree with what David Havard wrote.



I have a first edition printing of Mr. Ironsides writing that I believe you are referring to. You are rigdht, I do not agree with his writing.



I THANK GOD fro men like Bullinger for the many grace truths that he had uncovered. However, he is an Acts 28:28 dispy, and there are many areas in which we disgaree. Dr. Scolfield is an Acts 2 dispy. I use his study Bible as my primary Bible, and I enjoy many of his footnotes, but do not agree with all of them, however, I, and many other dispy writers, will quote from them. I THANK GOD for him also. Also for Martin Luther and his uncovering the FAITH ONLY]/b] truth. That does not make me a Lutheran.

I read many articles written by non-mid-Acts dispys with who I agree, but not everything they write. My Bible knowledge has been broadened by them.



Yes Paul did baptize some, but not that many, BEFORE he received the full knowledge of the mystery.

From Acts 9, when he was converted, to Acts 28:28, there was a transition period from the dispensation of the Law to the dispensation of grace. During that period one will find, from the study of Acts, that as Paul gained in the revelation of the mystery, the Pentecostal signs gifts decreased, then finally vanished as Paul said they would in 1 Corinthians 13:8.

When one studies the writings of Paul, prior to acts 28:28, (1,2 Thess., Gal., 1,2 Cor. Rms [?]) one will find some reference to signs, Miracles, wonders, tongues, and legal ceremonies (including water baptism). When one studies his writing after Acts 28:28 (Eph., Col., Phi, Heb. [?], Phill., 1,2 Tim., Rms [?]) there are no mention of any of the above. (I placed [?] after Rms and Heb because is is debatable as to when Romans was written, and just who is the author of Romans. The majority view is that it was Paul.

Further, if one studies the books in the Bible that the disciples wrote, and placed after the book of Hebrews, there is also no mention of the above. I wonder why. Could it be that they had vanished?

IMHO had Paul water baptized after he had received the full knowledge of the mystery, he would have been in error.




The personal experience that you wrote about is tragic, however, it is not proof that water baptism is for today in this dispensation of grace.

God Bless.
LIve Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

Hi Dispy... much of what you have posted here I would agree with. Believe it or not, I probably fall into the category of an Acts 2 dispy as you describe Scofield.

He did have some very valid observations re the Scriptures, but he also was in left field in some, such as claiming there is a "gap" between verses 1 & 2 of Gen. chap.1.

That aside.... agree that there was a progression of growth in grace and knowledge for all the Body-of-Christ/Church from Acts 2 through not only to Acts 28:28 (more on that in a bit) but that it is continuing to this day.

You say, that if Paul had baptized "...after he had received the full knowledge of the mystery..."
that he "...would have been in error." So the crucial question arises... WHEN did Paul receive the full knowledge of the mystery?

From many of the posts in this neck of the woods it has been postulated that the Apostles, prophets, elders and members of the church in Jerusalem were preaching the kingdom gospel, and not the same gospel that Paul was preaching.

That fact leads us back to Acts chap.28... where in verse 20 Paul states that it was "....for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain." Paul never gave up on trying to persuade Jews to put their faith in Jesus Christ who was/is their Messiah.

Then in verse 23 Paul "...expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening."

And as a result... "...some believed the things which were spoken (by Paul) and some believed not."

As an aside... if five point calvinism were correct, Paul's lengthy efforts to persuade his fellow Jews to believe was all wasted time, and somehow Paul had not had that part of the mysteries revealed to him.

Now to verse 28, which if I understand you correctly, was the point at which Paul had received all the revelation of the mysteries.

"Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it."

But guess what? Paul was a prisoner of Rome, and he died there (some say by the same means as Peter) and so Paul was restricted to sharing the gospel with those who were able to visit him. And.. just what did Paul preach?

Acts 28:30,31... "And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in to him. Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."

Strange that Paul would preach "...the kingdom..." after receiving the totality of the revelations of the mysteries, if the said kingdom was only for the Jews.

My belief is that Paul had received the complete revelation of the mysteries long before Acts 28, in fact before he baptized those new believers. to support that position would take quite a bit more space, so maybe at a later time.

God bless.... and hope you do not mind me calling you brother.

 

[Dispy]

Hi Dispy... much of what you have posted here I would agree with. Believe it or not, I probably fall into the category of an Acts 2 dispy as you describe Scofield.

He did have some very valid observations re the Scriptures, but he also was in left field in some, such as claiming there is a "gap" between verses 1 & 2 of Gen. chap.1.

It comes as a surprise to me thqt you agree with much of what I posted. I really didn't expect that.

Have read several articles, based on Scripture, for the pro and con on the gap theory. Part of me says yes there was, and the other part of me so no there wasn't.

I really don't think about it that much being just what I believe in that area has no bearing on my salvation, and the Lord will get me straight on that issue when I get to heaven.

That aside.... agree that there was a progression of growth in grace and knowledge for all the Body-of-Christ/Church from Acts 2 through not only to Acts 28:28 (more on that in a bit) but that it is continuing to this day.

I am considered a mid-Acts dispy because I do not believe the Church, the Body of Christ, started at Pentecost, in Acts 2.

The Church, the Body of Christ, consists of Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction, and not under the Law. There was no such Church at Pentecost. Pentecost was a Jewish feast day, and there were only Jews and proselytes present (Acts 2:9-11).

The Church, the Body of Christ was not formed until after the setting aside of the nation of Israel, and the raising up of Saul/Paul in Acts 9.

In Acts 10 we find that God has shown Peter, through a vision, that he is no longer to consider the Gentiles "unclean." That tells me that the Jew and the Gentile are now on equal footing, and without distinction. Which also, I conclude, mean that Israel is now in a "set aside" condition, just as the Gentiles were back at the Tower of Babel; in Genesis 11.

You say, that if Paul had baptized "...after he had received the full knowledge of the mystery..."
that he "...would have been in error." So the crucial question arises... WHEN did Paul receive the full knowledge of the mystery?

It is believed by the far majority of mid-Acts, Acts 28:28 dispies, that Paul recieved the full knowledge while he was in prision. That is where he was when he wrote the letters after Acts 28:28 that I mentioned earlier. One cannot find where he water baptized anyone.

In Paul's letter to the Colossians he writes in 1:25, 26 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill (make full/complete) the word of God; the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generation, but now is made manifest to his saints:" (The word "even" in vers 26 is not in the original.)

From that I must conclude that everthing that God wants us to know can be found in the Bible. There are no new revelations needed. Those that are claiming to revelations to them, to me would be adding to the Scripture.

From many of the posts in this neck of the woods it has been postulated that the Apostles, prophets, elders and members of the church in Jerusalem were preaching the kingdom gospel, and not the same gospel that Paul was preaching.

Jesus and the 12 were commissioned to preach "the gospel of the kingdom." Israel, as a nation, rejected thier King and His Kingdom. How can the 12, and Israel, as a nation, fulfill the promise to Abram, back in Genesis 12:1-3, that the the nations of the earth will be blessed through them. That ended the efforts of the 12 to carry out the "so called" great commission given to them by Christ. They were to go to all the world.

When we get to Galatians 2:9, they must have recognized that the "so called" great commission could not be carried out because we read: "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, preceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go to the heathen (Gentiles), and they unto the circumcision (Jews).

The disciples stayed with the kingdom saints, and Paul went on to preach, not the gospel of the kingdom, but the gospel of the grace of God based upon "...the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" (Romans 16:25).

That fact leads us back to Acts chap.28... where in verse 20 Paul states that it was "....for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain." Paul never gave up on trying to persuade Jews to put their faith in Jesus Christ who was/is their Messiah.

Then in verse 23 Paul "...expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening."

And as a result... "...some believed the things which were spoken (by Paul) and some believed not."

As I said earlier, Paul did not receive the full knowledge all at one time. He even states in 2 Corinthians 12:1 "...I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord."

Paul had a great love for his fellow countrymen. In his early ministry, before he had received the full knowledge of the mystery, he did go to the Jews and show them, from the OT Scriptures, that Jesus was the Christ, who the OT prophets spoke of. As he gained in knowledge of the mystery, he spoke of the Law being set aside, and that circumcision was no longer required, as under the Law.

It was the Judaizers that did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, and wanted the Jews to remain under the Law, that had Paul bound in chains.

As an aside... if five point calvinism were correct, Paul's lengthy efforts to persuade his fellow Jews to believe was all wasted time, and somehow Paul had not had that part of the mysteries revealed to him.

I agree with what you said above.

I was reared in a small Calvinist community, and come from a strong Calvinist family, and educated in the "Christinan School." Even 2 of my dad's first cousins were professors at Calvin College. One was even honored by having a "house" named after him.

As you can probably understand, I now reject in total the Calvinist doctrine.

Now to verse 28, which if I understand you correctly, was the point at which Paul had received all the revelation of the mysteries.

"Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it."

It is my belief that Paul received the full knowledge of the mystery while he was in prison in Rome. It could very well have been early in his imprisonment, before he wrote Acts 28:28. Acts 28:28 happens to be the last time he wrote that he was now turning to the Gentiles.

But guess what? Paul was a prisoner of Rome, and he died there (some say by the same means as Peter) and so Paul was restricted to sharing the gospel with those who were able to visit him. And.. just what did Paul preach?

Acts 28:30,31... "And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in to him. Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."

Strange that Paul would preach "...the kingdom..." after receiving the totality of the revelations of the mysteries, if the said kingdom was only for the Jews.

The kingdom of God is all of God's creation. It includes everything above the earth, on the earth, and under the earth. The Jews will inherit that kingdom which is on the earth, the Body of Christ will inherit the kingdom which is above the earth, and the unsaved will inherit that kingdom below the earth. In all three kingdoms the inhabitants will bow on their knees and proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord.

Don't believe that Paul is speaking of the kingom on the earth specifically.

My belief is that Paul had received the complete revelation of the mysteries long before Acts 28, in fact before he baptized those new believers. to support that position would take quite a bit more space, so maybe at a later time.

During Paul ministry (prior to imprisionment) he was given visions and revelation right along, as he said in 2 Cor.12:2. So it's pretty hard to pinpoint the exact time he did receive the full knowledge. However, it is believed that by the time he was in prision, he had received it. His imprisonment gave him plenty of time to write the letters he did.

God bless.... and hope you do not mind me calling you brother.

Don't mind at all BROTHER. Looking forward to your reply.

BTW, I do have a book that I would like to send you, AT MY EXPENSE, which pretty much explains my dispensational positions. It is a very easy read, and the title of the book is The MYSTERY by Joel Finck. This book cannot be found in book stores being the author is his own publisher. He does this in order to keep the costs of the book down. Sever, like myself, buy his books as another means of supporting his ministry, and just give them away.

If you would like the book, just e-mail me your mailing address, and I will send it. I PROMISE to keep that information secret, and not send any other unrequest materials.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[WAB]

It comes as a surprise to me thqt you agree with much of what I posted. I really didn't expect that.

Have read several articles, based on Scripture, for the pro and con on the gap theory. Part of me says yes there was, and the other part of me so no there wasn't.

I really don't think about it that much being just what I believe in that area has no bearing on my salvation, and the Lord will get me straight on that issue when I get to heaven.



I am considered a mid-Acts dispy because I do not believe the Church, the Body of Christ, started at Pentecost, in Acts 2.

The Church, the Body of Christ, consists of Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction, and not under the Law. There was no such Church at Pentecost. Pentecost was a Jewish feast day, and there were only Jews and proselytes present (Acts 2:9-11).

The Church, the Body of Christ was not formed until after the setting aside of the nation of Israel, and the raising up of Saul/Paul in Acts 9.

In Acts 10 we find that God has shown Peter, through a vision, that he is no longer to consider the Gentiles "unclean." That tells me that the Jew and the Gentile are now on equal footing, and without distinction. Which also, I conclude, mean that Israel is now in a "set aside" condition, just as the Gentiles were back at the Tower of Babel; in Genesis 11.



It is believed by the far majority of mid-Acts, Acts 28:28 dispies, that Paul recieved the full knowledge while he was in prision. That is where he was when he wrote the letters after Acts 28:28 that I mentioned earlier. One cannot find where he water baptized anyone.

In Paul's letter to the Colossians he writes in 1:25, 26 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill (make full/complete) the word of God; the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generation, but now is made manifest to his saints:" (The word "even" in vers 26 is not in the original.)

From that I must conclude that everthing that God wants us to know can be found in the Bible. There are no new revelations needed. Those that are claiming to revelations to them, to me would be adding to the Scripture.



Jesus and the 12 were commissioned to preach "the gospel of the kingdom." Israel, as a nation, rejected thier King and His Kingdom. How can the 12, and Israel, as a nation, fulfill the promise to Abram, back in Genesis 12:1-3, that the the nations of the earth will be blessed through them. That ended the efforts of the 12 to carry out the "so called" great commission given to them by Christ. They were to go to all the world.

When we get to Galatians 2:9, they must have recognized that the "so called" great commission could not be carried out because we read: "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, preceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go to the heathen (Gentiles), and they unto the circumcision (Jews).

The disciples stayed with the kingdom saints, and Paul went on to preach, not the gospel of the kingdom, but the gospel of the grace of God based upon "...the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" (Romans 16:25).



As I said earlier, Paul did not receive the full knowledge all at one time. He even states in 2 Corinthians 12:1 "...I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord."

Paul had a great love for his fellow countrymen. In his early ministry, before he had received the full knowledge of the mystery, he did go to the Jews and show them, from the OT Scriptures, that Jesus was the Christ, who the OT prophets spoke of. As he gained in knowledge of the mystery, he spoke of the Law being set aside, and that circumcision was no longer required, as under the Law.

It was the Judaizers that did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, and wanted the Jews to remain under the Law, that had Paul bound in chains.



I agree with what you said above.

I was reared in a small Calvinist community, and come from a strong Calvinist family, and educated in the "Christinan School." Even 2 of my dad's first cousins were professors at Calvin College. One was even honored by having a "house" named after him.

As you can probably understand, I now reject in total the Calvinist doctrine.



It is my belief that Paul received the full knowledge of the mystery while he was in prison in Rome. It could very well have been early in his imprisonment, before he wrote Acts 28:28. Acts 28:28 happens to be the last time he wrote that he was now turning to the Gentiles.



The kingdom of God is all of God's creation. It includes everything above the earth, on the earth, and under the earth. The Jews will inherit that kingdom which is on the earth, the Body of Christ will inherit the kingdom which is above the earth, and the unsaved will inherit that kingdom below the earth. In all three kingdoms the inhabitants will bow on their knees and proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord.

Don't believe that Paul is speaking of the kingom on the earth specifically.



During Paul ministry (prior to imprisionment) he was given visions and revelation right along, as he said in 2 Cor.12:2. So it's pretty hard to pinpoint the exact time he did receive the full knowledge. However, it is believed that by the time he was in prision, he had received it. His imprisonment gave him plenty of time to write the letters he did.



Don't mind at all BROTHER. Looking forward to your reply.

BTW, I do have a book that I would like to send you, AT MY EXPENSE, which pretty much explains my dispensational positions. It is a very easy read, and the title of the book is The MYSTERY by Joel Finck. This book cannot be found in book stores being the author is his own publisher. He does this in order to keep the costs of the book down. Sever, like myself, buy his books as another means of supporting his ministry, and just give them away.

If you would like the book, just e-mail me your mailing address, and I will send it. I PROMISE to keep that information secret, and not send any other unrequest materials.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

Thank you much for the offer. I genuinely appreciate it. What comes next may make you think the above is hypocritical, but it is not; I just would much rather we share Scriptural evidence as to our doctrinal positions.

May God bless you... like your sign-off

Edit p.s. You mention that Paul never baptized anymore subsequent to Acts 28... Guess why?? He was a prisoner and had no access to water sufficient for immersion.

 

[Dispy]

Edit p.s. You mention that Paul never baptized anymore subsequent to Acts 28... Guess why?? He was a prisoner and had no access to water sufficient for immersion.

That is very true, but, Can you quote me just ONE verse of Scripture that commanded anyone to be baptized?

Can you show me anywhere in the Letters that the disciples wrote, after the book of Hebrew in the Bible, that required anyone to be baptized or that they baptized anyone? Could that possibly mean that it was not longer practised by them?

Still waiting to hear a response the rest of what I posted. I responded to everthing you postee.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[WAB]

That is very true, but, Can you quote me just ONE verse of Scripture that commanded anyone to be baptized?

Can you show me anywhere in the Letters that the disciples wrote, after the book of Hebrew in the Bible, that required anyone to be baptized or that they baptized anyone? Could that possibly mean that it was not longer practised by them?

Still waiting to hear a response the rest of what I posted. I responded to everthing you postee.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

Will attempt to answer two at once.

Indeed "...the Jew and the Gentile are now on equal footing, and without distinction."

That is, if they are not "in Christ" they are equally lost and headed for hell. If they are "in Christ", then again, there is no difference for we are indeed all one in Him, individually.

That is not to say that Israel as a nation will not (at the time of God's choosing) all become believers, see Romans chap. 11, which as you know... Paul wrote.

As to water baptism... You ask me to show you "...anywhere in the Letters that the disciples wrote, after the book of Hebrew in the Bible, that required anyone to be baptized or that they baptized anyone?"

Well.... since the book of Hebrews was written shortly before 70 AD (i.e. before the destruction of the Temple, see Heb. 10:11), guess there was not a whole lot of time for them to write such. But how about from Acts 28 till Hebrews? Including that which was written by Paul?! After all, there has been lots of declarations that the mysteries had all been revealed by at least the time of Acts 28...

God bless... WAB