Paul had a new gospel by revelation from Christ Jesus.
And John didn't?
I always saw that passage as a sure fire refutation of a-millennialism and preterism.I did not see in the posts that I read a mention of:
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
This should be a flag that the twelve did not preach the cross as a good work for all of man since the kingdom being restored to Israel would not include non-jews as equals.
Christ died one time, for all mankind.
Paul taught the same Gospel the other Apostles taught.
Galatians 2: 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
If a man thinks the other Apostles, taught salvation through the works of the law, you make the Blood of Christ of no use.
Paul preached salvation to Jews as well, if a man does not like some of God's Word get over it.
There is a Hell, it is a destination for anyone who refuses the salvation of Christ.
Does this dispensationism teach another way for Jews ?
Does it make the Cross not for All?
This man made doctrine is outlandish, it is not a condition in Gods Word , just walk away.
Like I am no need reply, just walk away.
I did not see in the posts that I read a mention of:
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
This should be a flag that the twelve did not preach the cross as a good work for all of man since the kingdom being restored to Israel would not include non-jews as equals.
In other words, you read (red) into a thing, took it to be what had been asserted by us Dispys, and followed that with your responding...to what you read (red) into it.
Lol, give yourself a big fat "f."
Romans 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Because Romans 5:6-9 - in each...our stead.
The Word of God is not about clues to presumption, Peter preached salvation to the Gentiles.
Not Paul.
Paul began his commission much later.
Acts 10: 44. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
The only dispensation then and now is the Church age.
Following this will be the end of days and the return of Christ.
I always saw that passage as a sure fire refutation of a-millennialism and preterism.
I think it shows the dispensational view (in general) is correct with regards to God is not finished with national Israel and the disciples after spending 40 days with our Lord came away with that understanding.
<-- snip -->
The Word of God is not about clues to presumption, Peter preached salvation to the Gentiles.
Not Paul.
Paul began his commission much later.
Acts 10: 44. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
The only dispensation then and now is the Church age.
Following this will be the end of days and the return of Christ.
I'm not sure what the Veteran tag means but in my mind I put Acts 10:28 with 11:19 and consider Acts 15:7 to come to the conclusion that Peter did not minister much to the Gentiles. Gal 2:9 seals the deal with me.
Before and after Ac 10, there is no record of any of the 12 ever preaching anything to any Gentile. Therefore, we must assume that no gentiles were preached to by the 12. In Ac 10, it took 3 visions before Peter would minister to Cornelius. He obviously hated every minute of it.
"Church age" is a fake, unBiblical term, coined by denominational preachers who preach all-Israel Acts doctrine in the 1000s of Gentile synagogues. The fact is that the Gentile church of today, found only in Paul's epistles written after Acts, is totally different than the now defunct all-Israel church in Acts, which disappeared at the same time Israel was set aside in Ac 28:24-27, when Paul pronounced total spiritual blindness on Israel through Isa 6:9-10. Actually, when Israel was set aside, everything during Acts, all of which pertained to Israel only, was also set aside, until this 2000 year Gentile period is over and Israel is back on the scene -2063 is my guess.
The greatest proof of these 2 churches being different is that they had totally different callings. The calling all during Acts was the New Jerusalem (Gal 4:26 & Heb 12). the all-Israel city that comes down out of heaven and attaches to the New Earth - permanently, as far as we're told, The occupants of the New Jerusalem will make up Christ's Bride. The new church in Paul's after-Acts epistles have a calling of the highest heaven, where Christ now sits at the right hand of God - compare Eph 1:20 (Christ) and Eph 2:6 (Us). We in this new Church are Christ's actual Body, Eph 5:30, "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones", where Christ is the Head. We, Christ's body, are part of the Bridegroom, not the Bride
Well I consider the Church age to be the time between Christ's asending to The Father, and the end of time as we know it upon His return.
I could be wrong on the terminology, if so I stand corrected.
There were Gentiles who were patriarchs in the Old Testament.
Rahab and the crimision cord was a prophecy of Christ, and the Gentile believers.
In the Bloodline of Christ you will find Rahab the Harlot.
This was a sign Christ Blood was sinless and of the Father.
Refer to my responce to the OP.
I simply do not care to struggle about this doctrine.
In parting I do have one question:
Did this thelogy originate among the Baptist?
I know Schofeild was a forerunner and others years ago.
Goodness knows I do not remember where, but I once read the Word Church was added to the King James by a Catholic Bishop.
As the story goes He influenced the manuscript before it was printed.
It may be untrue I don't know, yet places of worship in Christ time were called temples.
But translation tells us it is a biblical name for assembly.