No covenanters allowed: A Question for Dispensationalists

[Iosias]

I do not agree that Pentecost was a classical dispensationalist. The classical dispensationalists were John Nelson Darby and his close associate, William Kelly.

Pentecost was a Revised Dispensationalist, having been in the Plymouth Brethren I still have works by Darby and Kelly on my shelves...somewhere!

 

[Terral]

Hi BibleWriter and Skull:

As to my 'teachers' -- I didn't have any one teacher. I was raised in a dispensational home, and grew up hearing and being taught pretty much everything you, et al (with the exception of Terral and his ilk), describe on this and other threads.

BibleWriter’s Reply >> I think very few even read his posts anymore. They are always long and complicated, and show a very bad attitude. When I do read an occasional one, I am amused by his continual references to dispensationalism as a "denomination."

If I ever mention either of you guys in the body of my work, then by golly your name will appear in the opening salutation. My amusement is derived from the many MYTHS (2Tim. 4:4) offered by professing Dispy’s who think Dispensationalism is anything but a manmade denomination. I wrote on this topic in Post #24 (here) back in 2007 where we find that others agree with my view:

Mtholyoke.edu

Dispensationalism:

The movement towards Fundamentalism began in the early 19th century in Great Britain, and was called dispensationalism. The first Dispensationalists were called the Plymouth Brethren and were led by John Nelson Darby, an Irish priest. The Brethren were tired of the traditionalism of the Anglican (and Catholic) Church, and founded a new denomination in which all were welcome, there was no caste of clergy, and there was no special order of service (the idea was to let the Holy Spirit lead the service). The denomination was called “Dispensationalism” because it divided time into 7 periods, or dispensations . . .

Darby is credited with starting a ‘new denomination designed to conform to New Testament church principles’ in conjunction with the “Brethren movement” (here) if anybody is interested. Here (link) is a leadershipfoundation.org article about how “a close friend and I formed a new denomination entitled “The Reformed Dispensational Baptists,” which became an offshoot of an already-existing denomination that adopted the Darby Dispensationalism Model. New denominations pop up all the time, which is the reason that the USA has over 2000 denominations of ‘professing’ Christians. BTW, I am also amused by the way many professing Dispy’s toss around the “Age of Grace” (Grace Age in OP of this thread) lingo, when nothing like that appears in your Bible anywhere and no such things even exists. :0)

The bottom line is that Roman Catholicism and Dispensationalism are manmade tags that men place upon themselves that DO NOT appear anywhere in Scripture. Hopefully one of these fine days I will click on one of your posts and find where either of you quoted Scripture to offer up a paragraph or two of thoughtful ‘rightly divided’ (2Tim. 2:15) commentary rather than insults and senseless boasting about how you guys ignore my work presented “with great patience and instruction” (2Tim. 4:2) for the benefit of these readers actually seeing ‘the truth’ of God’s Living Word.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Benefactor]

• Pierre Poiret - held to 7 dispensations 1646 - 1719
• John Edwards A Calvinist held to 6 dispensations 1637 -1716
• Issac Watts held to 6 dispensatons 1674 - 1748
• John Nelson Darby held to 7 dispensatoin 1800 - 1882
• C. I. Scofield who, according to Ryrie, patterened his dispensationalism more in line with Watts's, not Darby
• Charles Ryrie - Still Living

Click on the link and then scroll down to view their assessment of the trends of dispensationalism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

 

[Benefactor]

Hi Benefactor and TheScottsMen:Tribulation Saints? What In The Heck Is That? :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

6. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.
7. And it was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
8. And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9. If anyone has an ear, let him hear.

 

[skullkrusher]

Biblewriter (et al):

Thank you for the gracious response, and particularly for the clarification regarding classical v. revised Dispensationalism. I think its possible there has, at least in the past, been some difference of opinion as to the technical designations of various Dispensational views -- not an uncommom occurance in the theological realm. I will look into the classical view in more detail; but the primary disagreements I have with Dispensationalism apply to all forms of it, namely certain aspects of its hermeneutic and its absolute distinction between Israel and the Church.

In the next day or so I will post a more full critique regarding what I/we see as a critical aspect of hermeneutical weakness; for now, I want to state some positives:

For more than a centnury, from the early stages of the higher-critical movement through the rage and foment of the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy and on to the present, conservative evangelicals from the Reformed and the Dispensational camps together have held the line against compromise with liberalism. The Dispensational side being greater in number than the Reformed, we Reformed believers must be both willing and able -- I would go so far as to say eager -- to acknowledge the debt of gratitude we owe to our Dispensational brothers and sisters, and to thank our Lord and Master for you. An honest appraisal just of the numerical aspect would suggest that the comparatively small number of Reformed pastors and theologians may well not have been able to hold that ever-precious line alone. And so in spite of our disagreements, which are significant, I (and I am not alone) both admit and give thanks that the Word of God remains a strong and vibrant witness in our nation, not solely, yet largely due to the dilligent and faithful efforts of Dispensationalists who have contended for the faith for more than a century. For this every believer can and should have a deep sense of gratitude.

Grace & Peace, Brothers & Sisters,

SK

 

[Biblewriter]

I wrote on this topic in Post #24 (here) back in 2007 where we find that others agree with my view:

Mtholyoke.edu
Dispensationalism:

The movement towards Fundamentalism began in the early 19th century in Great Britain, and was called dispensationalism. The first Dispensationalists were called the Plymouth Brethren and were led by John Nelson Darby, an Irish priest. The Brethren were tired of the traditionalism of the Anglican (and Catholic) Church, and founded a new denomination in which all were welcome, there was no caste of clergy, and there was no special order of service (the idea was to let the Holy Spirit lead the service). The denomination was called “Dispensationalism” because it divided time into 7 periods, or dispensations . . .

Darby is credited with starting a ‘new denomination designed to conform to New Testament church principles’ in conjunction with the “Brethren movement” (here) if anybody is interested. Here (link) is a leadershipfoundation.org article about how “a close friend and I formed a new denomination entitled “The Reformed Dispensational Baptists,” which became an offshoot of an already-existing denomination that adopted the Darby Dispensationalism Model. New denominations pop up all the time, which is the reason that the USA has over 2000 denominations of ‘professing’ Christians. BTW, I am also amused by the way many professing Dispy’s toss around the “Age of Grace” (Grace Age in OP of this thread) lingo, when nothing like that appears in your Bible anywhere and no such things even exists. :0)

I don't care where you explained your view, or who agrees with you, dispensationalism is, by definition, an "ism." A denomination is a specific group organized for a specific purpose. Many different denominations believe in the "ism" of dispensationalism. But an ism is not an organized group.

Your source is also inaccurate in stating that the Brethren started a new denomination. Their stans was based on the precept that denominationalism was inherently evil, and that all the various divisions between Godly Christians were wrong. They very specifically and emphatically refused to even call themselves by a name. their largest congregation was in Plymouth, England, ans others began to call them "the Brethren from Plymouth." This was soon changed to "Plymouth Brethren," but they never accepted the name. Even to this day, almost 200 years later, most of them continue to reject the name and continue to deny that they are a denomination.

 

[skullkrusher]

You tell 'im BW!
GOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLL!!!!!

 

[Terral]

Hi Benefactor:

Hi Benefactor and TheScottsMen:Tribulation Saints? What In The Heck Is That? :0)

Benefactor’s Reply >> 6. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.
7. And it was granted to him to make war with the SAINTS to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
8. And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9. If anyone has an ear, let him hear.

What you are calling ‘Tribulation Saints’ are Kingdom Disciples from Elijah’s “Late Rains” (James 5:7) Kingdom “Bride” (added to Church #1) called to God through obedience to the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Matt. 24:14) leading up to the END of the Age. Christ makes mention of them in Matthew 24:9 saying that “they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you,” so they appear on the ‘sea of glass’ (Rev. 4:6, 15:2*) with Peter, John and James standing ‘before the throne’ in Revelation 7 and singing the "Song of Moses/Eve" (Rev. 15:3*):

“Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?" I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the Great Tribulation [Matt. 24:21], and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. For this reason, they are BEFORE THE THRONE; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them. They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat . . .”. Revelation 7:13-16.

God gathered Peter’s “Early Rains” Kingdom “Bride” (John 3:29 = Church #1 here) 2000 years ago through the ministry of John the Baptist, Christ and the Twelve (diagram = yellow, red and blue) preaching the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Gospel #1 here), until the Kingdom Dispensation was “cut off” (Rev. 20:4 = pelekizo #3990 = mistranslated 'beheaded') during the “Dispensational Shift” (diagram) where God began calling the members of “Christ’s Body” (Church #2 = that's us) through Paul’s “Word of the Cross” (Gospel #2) and Peter’s Bride began to ‘decrease.’ We saw the same decrease with John the Baptist (John 3:30), when Jesus Christ received the Holy Spirit from him in the Jordan River at His baptism (Matt. 3:15-16) where Christ began to ‘increase.’

Our Mystery Rapture will ‘start’ the 1000 Year Day of the Lord (my thread = someone try to challenge my OP thesis), then Elijah/David/Adam will return as the ‘prophet’ of Acts 3:22-23 to begin the process restoring ‘all things’ (Matt. 17:10-11 = including the "Tabernacle of David/Adam" = diagram) by preaching the “Gospel of the Kingdom,” because the time for gathering the “Body of Christ” will at that time be OVER. The “Gospel of the Kingdom” will be the “Gospel of God” (like Mark 1:14-15) for the entire 1000 Years contained inside the 1000 Year Day of the Lord (in blue), until the disciples of the “Late Rains” Kingdom Bride become your ‘Tribulation Saints’ just about 1000 years from today. Now we can go back to Post #21 and find the context of our discussion:

SK,

I find that a lot of believers share your concern about the tribulation saints. If I understand you correctly you believe that Dispensatonalist teach that the Jews after the rapture revert back to OT Law.

The “Tribulation Saints” are MARTYRED some 1000 years from now very near the END of the Age (Matt. 24:21+), but our mystery rapture (1Thes. 4:17) will START the 1000 Year Day of the Lord (in blue again) very soon in the very near future. We (Body of Christ) will already be with the Lamb in “His Heavenly Kingdom” (2Tim. 4:18) for 1000 years, BEFORE the Great Tribulation even begins ‘and’ these disciples of the “Gospel of the Kingdom” are martyred to join Peter, James and John (see blue arrow from right) at the ‘right hand’ of the Lamb serving ‘before the throne.’ Then the ‘eternal gospel’ (Rev. 14:6) will be preached to the entire world from mid-heaven, so that “The Elect” (Matt. 24:30-31) can then be gathered when ‘we’ (Body of Christ) return with Christ in glory (Col. 3:4) at the END of the Age.

The Kingdom Disciples obeying the Gospel of the Kingdom (your Tribulation Saints) will take part in the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:5-10), along with Peter, John and James, until they put on their white garments and return (Rev. 19:17-19) ‘with us’ ( Body of Christ) to gather “The Elect” (“blessed” from Daniel 12:11-13) at the END of the Age.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Biblewriter:

I don't care where you explained your view, or who agrees with you, dispensationalism is, by definition, an "ism." A denomination is a specific group organized for a specific purpose. Many different denominations believe in the "ism" of dispensationalism. But an ism is not an organized group.

The feeling is mutual. :0) Here is the deal in a nutshell: The three loaves of leavened bread (Matt 13:33-35 = fake church = mystery teaching) in the world today (2000 Year Mystery Time) are represented by Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy and modern-day Protestantism ‘and’ your Dispy Denomination falls under the “Protestantism” category. All three groups have inherited the “deluding influence” to “believe what is false” (2Thes. 2:11) all of their days upon this earth and no matter how you want to define Dispensationalism. In all three cases, those blinded by the ‘god of this world’ (2Cor. 4:3-4) are mixing the ‘blood’ witness ministry of Jesus Christ (via the Apostle Paul = diagram* = in red) and the ‘water’ witness ministry of Jesus Christ (via Peter, John and James = in blue) together into an abomination of desolation that God sent to NOBODY.

You boast about the dispensational differences between Israel of the flesh and your ‘Church,’ when there is also a VAST difference between Peter’s Prophetic Kingdom “Bride” (Church #1 here) and our Mystery “Body of Christ” (Church #2) being gathered by God from the world today. The only difference between the more than 2000 Denominations of ‘professing’ Christians in the USA alone is the way they mix the blood and water ministries of Jesus Christ (1Jn 5:6) together and those blinded by the false teachings of Dispensationalism will have no better fate than those pushing their Roman Catholicism and doing the very same things.

Surely you believe in the Judgment of the Body of Christ (for works = 2Cor. 5:10 = upper right) and the Final Judgment at the End of the Age (Rev. 20:11-15). Right? Great! :0) That means we will have plenty of time to see which side of this deliberation process is right in the eyes of God and His Son and everyone reading these words can judge between us (1Cor. 11:19) concerning who 'is' approved (2Tim. 2:15).

Of course, I cannot quote your sources, because Biblewriter did not offer any. Maybe someone should stick to writing about the Bible rather than on the various Denominations of mere men. I am,

In Christ Jesus this very moment by obeying Gospel #2,

Terral

 

[Iosias]

John Edwards A Calvinist held to 6 dispensations 1637 -1716

The Reformed use of the term 'dispensation' (a biblical term of course) is somewhat different from the way that Dispensationalists use it. Edwards and Hodge used the term dispensation to denote different administrations of the covenant of grace.

cf. pages 89ff. in The Millennial Kingdom by John F. Walvoord

 

[Biblewriter]

those blinded by the false teachings of Dispensationalism will have no better fate than those pushing their Roman Catholicism and doing the very same things.

Those who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, without works even being involved, have a fate of heaven with the Lord Jesus Christ. All others have a fate of the lake of fire with the Devil and his angels.

 

[skullkrusher]

The Reformed use of the term 'dispensation' (a biblical term of course) is somewhat different from the way that Dispensationalists use it. Edwards and Hodge used the term dispensation to denote different administrations of the covenant of grace.

I've tried to point that out several timesl. Thank you!

 

[Biblewriter]

I've tried to point that out several timesl. Thank you!

But to a dispensationalist, a 'dispensation" simply means an "administration." When Christians debate, they often discover that they are simply calling the same ideas by different names.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I do not expect (or desire) Dispensationalists to quickly or easily cave in on their views; I do hope to engage some in productive discussions.

Productive discussions are definitely welcome.

My experience both as a Dispensaionalist, and in dialog with them over many years shows a radical inability to get out of their own hermeneutical box and objectively consider opposing views.

Its true not just of many dispensationalists, but also of many other Christians as well.

Many (if not most) of my posts are simply directed to that end and nothing more -- to promote discussion on the issue of the different hermeneutical approaches used by Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians.

The major differences are in the presuppositions that each person brings to the Scriptures. What Evangelicals do share is the historical-grammatical method of interpretation with its emphasis on authorial intent. In light of the development in recent decades, both Reformed and dispensationalist interpretations have moved closer to the center.

All along I had taken it for granted that the critical assessments I read in Pentecost, Walvoord, et al, were accurate portrayals of Covenantal A-, Post- and Pre-mil eschatologies. In that I was greatly mistaken. O.T. Allis, O. Palmer Robertson, Charles Hodge, and many others have been consistently and repeatedly misrepresented in some of the most scholarly of Dispensational writing.

Likewise CT critics have misrepresented dispensationalism. The debate between the two turned acromonious in the 1930s onward.

It is my disappiontment and frustration over this that, at times, leads me to post more provocative or incendiary statements rather than more carefully crafted and edifying ones; for that I apologize to you and all other readers of this thread and forum. I will strive to do better in the future, but do ask all to be patient. Not everything can be said in one post, no matter how much one may try.

No problem. At least you see dispensationalists as people...

I beg to differ -- unfortunately, I don't have the time to research the issue again right now, but it is most certainly a fact that some Dispensationalists have taught exactly this. I know this is not a satisfactory answer, but it is all I have time for right now.

The sources were a few statements from classical dispensationalists that were taken out of context. Later I'll post what I have on the issue.


LDG

 

[Terral]

Hi Biblewriter, Iosais and Skull :

This is a reply to Post #49? At some point I was hoping that Biblewriter would begin writing about something FROM THE BIBLE. :0)

Those who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, without works even being involved, have a fate of heaven with the Lord Jesus Christ. All others have a fate of the lake of fire with the Devil and his angels.

Perhaps your points above would influence these readers, if you had bothered to back things up with support from God’s Living Word. 2Tim. 2:15, 3:16-17. Here are some problems with your theory:

1. A Majority of Dispy’s running around this place ‘start’ their ‘one church’ (a MYTH) on the Day of Pentecost with Peter and his preaching of the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (#1 here) to Israel ONLY (Acts 2:14, 22, 36).

“Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized [Mark 16:15-16] in the name of Jesus Christ [‘the Son’ = Kingdom Baptism #2 = Matt. 28:19] for the forgiveness of your sins [Mark 1:4-5]; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38.

Peter is preaching the same water baptism for salvation (1Peter 3:21) that John the Baptist preached from the very beginning! Mark 1:4-5. Water baptism by a human being IS . . . A . . . WORK. Period!

2. You mix the “Two Gospels” of the NT [link again = someone go and challenge my interpretation - If you can!] together, which adds THE WORKS from the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ (#1) into Paul’s “Word of the Cross” gospel message (#2) making VOID (1Cor. 1:17) the power of the cross to save ANYONE.

“For Christ DID NOT send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel [#2], not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would NOT be made VOID. For the Word of the Cross [Gospel #2] is foolishness to those who are perishing [2Cor. 4:3-4, 2Peter 3:14-16], but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1Corinthians 1:17-18.

Water baptism IS A WORK, just like ‘circumcision’ (Acts 15:1+5), that Paul battled against at the famous meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 15/Gal 2) where he was sent up to Jerusalem to ‘submit THE GOSPEL (#2) that I preach among the Gentiles’ to the same Peter and John (Gal. 2:9) that have been preaching the “Gospel of the Kingdom” for twenty cotton-picking years!!! You take Paul’s “Gospel of the Grace of God” (Acts 20:24 = Gospel #2) and add that to “Preaching The Kingdom” (Acts 20:25 = Gospel #1) and pretend these “Two Gospels” are combined together for creating ‘your one gospel MYTH.’ Then you say that ‘repentance’ is not a work and ‘confession of sins’ is not a work and that water baptism by a human being is not a work and laying of hands for the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17, 19:6) is not a work, so these WORKS can then become part of your one gospel MYTH; when in truth the power of the cross has already been made VOID and the Majority here have already inherited the ‘deluding influence’ and will continue believing ‘what is false’ (2Thes. 2:11) no matter what anyone says in these deliberations.

3. You incorporate the ‘three baptisms’ from the Gospel of the Kingdom (my thread) into Paul’s “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5) done by the Holy Spirit Himself (1Cor. 12:12-14) and just call those ‘four baptisms’ your ‘one baptism’ to pretend that four = one. :0)

“. . . For He [the Holy Spirit] had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized [John’s Baptism #1] in the name of the Lord Jesus [Kingdom Baptism #2]. Then they [Peter and John] began laying their hands on them [yet another WORK], and they were receiving the Holy Spirit [Kingdom Baptism #3].” Acts 8:16-17.

If these Samarians heard (Rom. 10:17) and believed (Eph. 1:13-14) our gospel for today (#2), they would have received the Holy Spirit ‘by hearing with faith’ (Gal. 3:2) at the moment they believed in Acts 8:12 and NO WORKS would be required! We see the same ‘three baptism’ process in Acts 19:1-6 where Paul is helping these ‘disciples’ to receive Kingdom Baptism #2 (Acts 19:5) and Kingdom Baptism #3 (Acts 19:6) in the same exact way that Peter and John are helping the Samarians receive the Holy Spirit by the LAYING OF HANDS in Acts 12:17 BY WORKS.

4. Peter, John and James are justified by WORKS and not by faith alone (James 2:24) ‘and’ are very much under Mosaic Law (Matt. 5:17-19) to keep the “WHOLE LAW” (James 2:10), but our mystery “Body of Christ” (Church #2) is under grace and not under law (Rom. 6:14) being justified by faith APART from works! Rom. 4:4-6.

Every disciple from Peter’s Kingdom “Bride” (Church #1) saved by obeying the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Gospel #1) on the “Day of Pentecost” (Acts 2) is justified by WORKS and NOT by faith alone. They are under Mosaic Law and must keep the WHOLE LAW (James 2:10), as it is written TO THEM:

“But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted BY THE LAW as transgressors. For whoever keeps THE WHOLE LAW and yet stumbles in one point [Matt 5:17-19], he has become guilty of all.” James 2:9-10.

Peter’s Kingdom “Bride” (Church #1) is very much under Mosaic Law ‘and’ MUST ‘keep the commandments’ to obtain eternal life! Matthew 19:16-17. Now let us revisit Biblewriter’s statement to see where Peter, John and James fit into ‘his’ interpretations:

Those who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, without works even being involved, have a fate of heaven with the Lord Jesus Christ. All others have a fate of the lake of fire with the Devil and his angels.

If Biblewriter’s unsupported NONSENSE is true (NOT in a kabillion years), then Peter, John, James and everyone called to God via the “Gospel of the Kingdom” have a fate in the lake of fire with the devil and his evil cronies! :0) These people simply toss the ‘Two Churches’ of the NT together into one doctrinal pot to begin assigning ‘Grace Doctrine’ from the Pauline Epistles to ANYONE they choose, which amounts to nothing short of distorting the ‘wisdom given him’ (Paul) to their own destruction. 2Peter 3:14-16. Those among us who ‘do’ see Paul’s Gospel (#2 = ‘our gospel’ from 2Cor. 4:3-4) also see the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (#1) as something completely different, which means ‘we can’ separate the WORKS from the Gospel of the Kingdom OUT of the ‘doctrine of salvation’ precepts teaching Paul’s “Word of the Cross” gospel message.

The Reformed use of the term 'dispensation' (a biblical term of course) is somewhat different from the way that Dispensationalists use it. Edwards and Hodge used the term dispensation to denote different administrations of the covenant of grace.

Thank you for helping to make my point, as professing Dispy’s are oftentimes bogged down in semantics from ‘defining’ their terms as they go along. They say, “Dispensationalism is not a denomination!,” to which I ask, “Okay, so why call yourself a Dispy rather than an Anglican, Baptist, Catholic or another manmade name invented to describe ‘different’ denominations among men?’ Skull answered Ioasis using more one-sentence drivel, saying,

I've tried to point that out several timesl. Thank you!

You tried to point out what? :0) There is no such thing as any ‘covenant of grace’ mentioned anywhere in Scripture either; like there is no such thing as any ‘Church Age’ that you ramble on about to open these deliberations (OP). You guys should realize that a ‘dispensation’ is a ‘MODE OF DEALING’ (Vine’s) that describes a ‘relationship’ between God and the members of an administration, assembly, household or a given individual [like Adam or Christ]; as ‘an arrangement, OR administration of affairs.’ You should also realize that Vine includes this term “dispensation” among others in his definition of “musterion” (mystery #3466), as the “Dispensation of God’s Grace” (Eph. 3:2*) is just one aspect of “The Mystery” (Eph. 3:3*) that remained “Hidden IN GOD” (Eph. 3:9*) only ‘revealed’ through the ministry of the Apostle Paul as part of the “wisdom given him” (2Peter 3:14-16).

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[skullkrusher]

But to a dispensationalist, a 'dispensation" simply means an "administration."

With all due respect, that may be what some dispensationalists mean -- but the concept that a dispensation is a period of testing for man is a very common interpretation, which has (IMO) no solid Biblical support; and it is very much central to much of dispensaionalism. That is why i have emphasized it several times -- it is a possible inference, not a necessary one.

When Christians debate, they often discover that they are simply calling the same ideas by different names.

Very, very true.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

What food rule does one follow?
Gen 2:16-17.. adam and eve
Gen 9:3-4... Noah
Lev 11:1-47.. the Jews
1 tim 4:3-5, romans 14:20-23, 1 cor 8:12 the church gal 3:28

 

[Terral]

Hi Brother In Christ:

What food rule does one follow?
Gen 2:16-17.. adam and eve
Gen 9:3-4... Noah
Lev 11:1-47.. the Jews
1 tim 4:3-5, romans 14:20-23, 1 cor 8:12 the church gal 3:28

There are no food rules for the members of Christ’s Body (Church #2), as no one is our judge either way. Col. 2:16-17. We are under grace and not under law. Romans 6:14, Gal. 3:25.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[A Brother In Christ]

If it offends a brother... we are to not to eat it... basically love your brother.. john 13:34-35 as a servant

 

[Terral]

Hi Brother In Christ:

This is a little bit off the topic:

If it offends a brother... we are to not to eat it... basically love your brother.. john 13:34-35 as a servant

No. Why are you teaching ‘Grace Doctrine’ for the members of “Christ’s Body” (1Cor. 12:27 = Church #2) from the Kingdom Epistles written to and for the Prophetic Kingdom “Bride” (John 3:29 = Church #1)? Nobody in the Four Gospels is addressing ‘our’ mystery ‘Body of Christ,’ because the ‘Dispensation of God’s Grace’ (Eph. 3:2) only comes to exist with the Apostle Paul on the Road to Damascus in Acts 9. Jesus Christ is sent ONLY to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (Matt. 15:24) in the Four Gospels, which is the reason that He teaches keeping the commandments for obtaining eternal life in Matthew 19:16-17.

I must admit to being very amused when professing Dispy’s run backwards into the Four Gospels for trying to place those for whom Christ died BACK UNDER MOSAIC LAW!!!! Read Galatians 3:23-28 again to recognize who IS NOT under the tutor of Mosaic Law now that 'faith has come!' If you really want to teach Grace Doctrine to the members of Christ’s Body, then try coming up with something out of the Pauline Epistles that ‘are’ addressed to Gentiles who ARE NOT under the Law. Paul begins Romans 14 by addressing ‘passing judgment’ on matters of eating meat over eating vegetables only to conclude, “It is not good to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.” Rom. 14:21. However, what is ‘good’ and ‘not good’ is a far cry from the “Lord’s Commandment” (1Cor. 14:37-38) one way or the other. Paul’s concern here is for protecting your ‘rewards’ (2Cor. 5:10) at the judgment (1Cor. 3:12-15) where many will indeed suffer loss over ‘bad works’ in our relationships between the members of Christ’s Body.

Paul’s teaching about food in 1Corinthians 8 has little application to the typical Christian in the world today, unless you live in a town where sacrificing animals to idols is fair game. :0) Paul reiterates the same teaching about eating some foods that causes your brother to stumble (1Cor. 8:13), but that case would involve a practicing Jew where becoming ‘unclean’ might become a probability. Paul’s teaching can be summed up in three verses:

“For the earth is the Lord's, and all it contains. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake. But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake . . .”. 1Corinthians 10:27-28.

If an unbeliever invites you over to eat ANYTHING, then ‘eat anything that is set before you.’ Period. Again, the context here concerns meat sacrificed to Aphrodite in Paul’s day some 2000 years ago with little or no application to the typical member of Christ’s Body in the world today. If you invite a practicing Jew over for barbecue pork ribs and chitin's, then there might be a problem. :0) These food commands generally have more application to the Jewish members of Christ Body than anybody else. The Jewish member of Christ’s Body ‘can’ eat anything like the Gentile members, but eating pork and other forbidden foods in front of unbelieving Jews can ruin the Jewish believer’s testimony and his ability to lead other Jews to Christ through our gospel. Paul sums up the teaching very well in the preceding chapter:

“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.” 1Corinthians 9:19-23.

If you are a Jewish convert to Christianity by God’s calling through ‘our gospel’ (2Thes. 2:13-14), then winning those under Mosaic Law requires the believer to maneuver through a minefield of potential problems requiring you to ‘be as a Jew to win Jews.’ Otherwise, the typical Gentile member of Christ’s Body (like these readers) has “NO ONE” as their judge over matters of food and drink and even keeping the Sabbath (Col. 2:16-17).

Jesus Christ is NOT addressing the members of "Christ's Body" in the Four Gospels ANYWHERE. Those calling yourselves 'Dispy's' should know that much . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral