What is it?

[Dispy]

Dispy,

No, what you said was that you believe the Dispensation of Law was interrupted by the Tribulation. Proof follows.

This is from your first post to this thread:

The present "church age" (dispensation of grace) didn't start until after the setting aside of Israel after the stoning of Stephen.

It was the Tribulation that started at Pentecost (Acts 2:15-20), not the church age .

Now you're saying:

I do believe that I did say that the Dispensation of the Law was interrupted by the Chruch age.

Which one interrupted the Law Age? Was it the Church Age or the Tribulation? You need to make up your mind, bro.

When God set the nation of Israel aside, it 1. Interrupted the Tribulation and also the dispensation of the Law. Also, 2. It ushered in the dispensation of grace (the Church age) with the raising up of Saul/Paul. So, in effect the Dispensation of the Law was interrupted by the Chruch age.

Whatever else you believe, you must believe that the Holy Spirit was given in His indwelling/abiding ministry at Pentecost. Consider Acts 11:15-17. This proves that the Holy Spirit fell upon both groups - Jews In Acts 2 and Gentiles as well in Acts 11. Both groups were BAPTISED WITH THE HOLY GHOST.

Don't have a problem with that.

As to your question regarding the Joel passage (and Dispy, you seem to be inordinately fixated on this passage to the exclusion of all others...BAD HERMENEUTICS, BRO!), consider this:

That Peter means for his hearers to understand that he is using the Joel passage as an
illustration is made clear by three obvious facts.

First, none of the things that Joel speaksof, i.e., “prophecy,” “dreams,” “visions,” “blood, fire and billows of smoke,” the sundarkened and “the moon [turned] to blood” took place (Joel 2:28, 30, 31). Second, none of the things that did take place on Pentecost, “the sound of a mighty
rushing wind,” “tongues of fire,” “speak[ing] in other tongues” (Acts 2:2–4), are mentioned by Joel.

Third, the application of Peter’s sermon focuses on personal salvation (Acts 2:38, see
also 2:40). There is no offer of the kingdom, no promise of Christ’s return, and no promise of national salvation.

I am going back to Joel 2:28-32 because that is what Peter is talking about. I am not reading other passages into it. What is wrong with that!

When Peter uses the words: "THIS IS THAT...," HOW can that be an illustration????????

At Pentecost, Peter is telling his hearers that the Tribulation has started, the signs were beginning to appear and of the things that still must come to pass. He didn't know,at that time that the Tribulation would be interrupted.

In Acts 3, Peter is still talking to the same group of people. In verses 19-21 he is telling them what they must do (both individually and nationally) in order for Jesus to return.

Peter IS making an offer of the kingdom in those verses. PLEASE go back to my post #10 that I wrote to Nancy. That should answer your "Third" above.

In spite of the observations above, many continue to see Pentecost as a fulfillment ofJoel 2. Can Peter’s introductory statement, “this is that which was spoken of by the

prophet Joel,” mean anything less than a fulfillment? While it is true that Peter does use the demonstrative pronoun to introduce a fulfillment (Acts 4:11), that is not his only way of using it. In 1 Peter 1:25b, Pete appends to a quotation from Isaiah the explanation that, “This is the word that was preached to you.” Certainly he means, “This is the kind of word that was preached to you” (i.e., an everlasting word). He does not imply that Isaiah 40:6–8 was fulfilled in the congregations to whom he was writing. The context must determine usage and Acts 2cannot be a fulfillment.

The reasons for taking Peter to mean that the events of Pentecost are like what Joel
spoke of are both exegetical and theological. First, Joel speaks of an outpouring of theSpirit on Judah (see Joel 2:28 with the repeated use of the “your” to describe the “allflesh” which will receive the outpouring of the Spirit. Joel 2:32 speaks of Mount Zionand Jerusalem as the recipients of deliverance. Judah and Jerusalem are mentioned in Joel 3:1).

Second, the events spoken of in Joel 2 that precede the outpouring of the Spirit have
not been fulfilled. The heavenly wonders of Joel 2:30, 31 did not take place on Pentecost.The judgment of the Gentiles and the restoration of the land of Israel that follow theoutpouring of the Spirit (Joel 3) have not been fulfilled.

Third, Peter does not specifically say that Pentecost fulfills “that which was spoken
by the prophet Joel.” The experience of Pentecost does not touch upon all that Joel predicted.

Fourth, the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost was for the formation of the Church,
the body of Christ. It is similar to but distinct from the outpouring of the Spirit upon repentant Judah. The outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost is viewed as the fulfillment of the baptism of the Spirit and the beginning of the Church (Acts 1:5; 11:15–17). The Scripture makes careful distinctions and the interpreter should observe them at all times. If the predictions of Joel 2:30–31 are to be taken literally, then some qualification has to be made to Peter’s statement, “This is that.” No matter what qualifier is chosen there is room for debate. Over all it seems most satisfactory to understand Peter’s words as “This is like that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.”

Excerpt from a larger body of text found at http://www.chafer.edu

Look under "Back Issues" of the CTS Journal. It is from Volume 1 No. 1, and is titled "A Doctrinal Study of Acts 2:14"

I hope this convinces you of the error of your interpretation.

None of the above convinces me that my view is wrong. Much of what chafer states is opinon, and speculation as to what Peter's quoting of Joel 2 means.

If you choose to continue in your abberant belief concerning the events of Pentecost, please do not identify yourself as a dispensationalist. Dispensationalists do not believe that the Tribulation started at Pentecost. For you to claim you are a dispie just gives ammo to people like Augustine_Was_Calvinist, who lives to discredit dispensationalism. You make him salivate, I'm sure.

I AM A NON-DENOMINATIONAL DISPENSATIONALIST IN THE LIKES OF PASTORS CORNELIUS R. STAM AND PAUL SADLER!!!!

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

 

[JerryShugart]

He stated he believes the anti-Christ could possibly be alive today. He would be a very charismatic person who people would follow. He would eventually come to believe that he was Christ, and deceive the many people.

Also, Pastor Sadler stated that he believed that such a person existed at the time of Pentecost, and in every generation since.

His explanation appears very logical to me.

Dispy,

Thanks for sharing your experiences with such great teachers of the Scripture--Pastor Cornelius Stam and Pastor Paul Sadler.

In your last post on this thread you attribute things to me that I never said.You have "quotes" that are attributed to me but I never said those things.Could you please go back and attribute those quotes to the right person?

Next,please consider the words of Pastor Sadler:

Having control of the kingdoms of this world, the Anti-Christ negotiates a peaceful solution with those nations that are at war with one another. Eventually, he forms an alliance with these nations which serve as his seat of authority (Rev. 13:2 cf. 17:9-13). At the same time, the Anti-Christ strikes a covenant with the nation Israel, which allows her to re-establish the Old Testament sacrificial system. This brings peace to the Middle East.


"And he [the man of sin] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [7 years]: and in the midst of the week [middle of the Tribulation] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation..." (Dan. 9:27).

Since the animal sacrifices were still continuing on the day of Pentecost how could the anti-Christ "strike a covenant with the nation Israel, which allows her to re-establish the Old Testament sacrificial system"?

They cannot be "re-established" until they have ceased.

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"

http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Dispy]

Dispy,

Thanks for sharing your experiences with such great teachers of the Scripture--Pastor Cornelius Stam and Pastor Paul Sadler.

In your last post on this thread you attribute things to me that I never said.You have "quotes" that are attributed to me but I never said those things.Could you please go back and attribute those quotes to the right person?

Jerry, In your post #40 to me you wrote the following:

Here are the words of Cornelius Stam in regard to Acts 2 and the quote from Joel:

"While the signs of the last days began to appear at Pentecost, they did not all appear. Indeed, after a time those which had appeared began to disappear again.According to Joel's prophecy, as quoted by Peter, the signs of Pentecost were to be followed by signs both in heaven and on earth, and the pouring out of the Spirit was to be followed by the pouring out of God's wrath.

Thank God, these latter signs did not appear--have not even yet appeared. God had not altered His plan to judge this wicked world, but in matchless love He interrupted the prophetic program, held off the day of judgment, saved the chief of sinners and ushered in the day of grace."(Stam,"Acts Dispensationally Considered",Volume 1,p.54).

Dispy,I have never read either Stam or Sadler saying that any part of the Tribulation was ever in effect.In fact,I have already quoted Sadler where he says that the "Tribulation" will not take place until the present dispensation is past."

When he said the "While the signs of the last days did begin to appear at Pentecost..." Isn't that saying that the Tribulation (last days) had begun. They wouldn't have appeared if it didn't.

Next,please consider the words of Pastor Sadler:
[/b]
Since the animal sacrifices were still continuing on the day of Pentecost how could the anti-Christ "strike a covenant with the nation Israel, which allows her to re-establish the Old Testament sacrificial system"?

They cannot be "re-established" until they have ceased.

In His grace,--Jerry

That is just another reason to believe that the covenant did not have to be singned before the Tribulation began.

Will you now accept me back in the dispensationalist fold?

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

 

[JerryShugart]

Dispy,

In your post #61 you are quoting me as saying things that others said.Please correct that post.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dispy]

Jerry you are so right. It was Nancy that said:

Now you're saying:

I do believe that I did say that the Dispensation of the Law was interrupted by the Chruch age.

Which one interrupted the Law Age? Was it the Church Age or the Tribulation? You need to make up your mind, bro.

PLEASE for give me for doing that. I have edited my post #61 to reflect that.

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

 

[JerryShugart]

Jerry you are so right. It was Nancy that said:



PLEASE for give me for doing that. I have edited my post #61 to reflect that.

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

Dispy,

Your post #61 still is attributing to me things that I never said.None of the quotes came from me but they still say that they are.

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"

http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Dispy]

Everything that I posted came from what you have posted. If you will read the top line of each "box" it says: "Originally Posted by: That is notquoting you.

If I have misquoted you, I have not done it intentionally. When you say that I have done that, then PLEASE point out where I have. Then I will correct it.

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

 

[nancy70x7]

I, not JerrySchugart, am responsible for all of the quotes in post 61. JerrySchugart originally posted none of them. Dispy, you have misquoted him. The quotes are from my posts.

And I stand by what I said.

 

[Dispy]

Nancy and Jerry:
THANK YOU Nancy for correcting me. Believe me, I did not misquote you intentionally you. However, I do stand by what I responded to in those misquotes.

Would you PLEASE respond to what I posted to you in my post #49.

Jerry, PLEASE FORGIVE by attributing to you the things that Nancy posted. I am VERY SORRY.

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