Posted on 05/22/2015 4:54:44 PM PDT by OK Sun
I have been taught Dispensationalism from my mother’s womb. I was born in a dispensational environment. It was assumed at my church to be a part of the Gospel. There was never another option presented. It made sense. It helped me put together the Scriptures in a way that cleared up so much confusion. And, to be honest, the emphasis on the coming tribulation, current events that prove the Bible’s prophecy, the fear that the Antichrist may be alive today (who is he?) was all quite exciting. But what might be the biggest attraction for me is the charts! Oh how I love charts. I think in charts. And dispensationalism is a theology of charts!
The first time I came across someone who was not a Dispensationalist was in 1999. I am not kidding. It was the first time! I don’t think I even knew if there was another view. It was when I was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary (the bastion of Dispensationalism) and I was swimming with some guys who were at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Once they discovered I was a dispensationalist, they giggled and snickered. They made fun of the rapture, the sacrificial system during the millennium, and the mark of the beast (which, at that time, was some type of barcode). It was as if they patted me on the head and said “It’s okay . . . nice little dispensationalist.” I was so angry. I was humiliated. I was a second-rate theologian. They were “Covenantalists” (whatever that was). But they were the cool guys who believed in the historic Christian faith and I was the cultural Christian, believing in novel ideas.
(Excerpt) Read more at reclaimingthemind.org ...
The above is key so would like clarification. Did Paul preach two gospels; one of grace to the Gentiles and one of the kingdom to the Jews? If so how long did he teach/preach two different gospels? Or did he not at all preach the kingdom gospel?
On your other comments. Taking your Acts 2, 3 and 1 Peter 1 comments in stride, you paint two distinct classes of believers not just in end times but in the early church. At what point did this message of the physical kingdom end for good in the early church so that the gospel of grace could be realized for not only "Greek" but also for Jew?
Based on the above, how do you explain the same Holy Spirit falling on Jews and the Diaspora Jews on Pentecost and then later on Samaritans, Romans, Greeks... (Gentiles).
Well Done!
No, he preached the gospel of grace to all but clearly told of the time when Israel would be saved as a nation. Keep in mind that Paul also said that their hearts had been hardened in part meaning many of the Jews/Israelites would not believe until "the fullness of the Gentiles" comes.
>>Taking your Acts 2, 3 and 1 Peter 1 comments in stride, you paint two distinct classes of believers not just in end times but in the early church.<<
I certainly don't intend to as there are not. It's just that Peter understood Christ's mission to the Jews and the prophecy of His "Kingdom" sitting on the throne of David and that's what the Jews expected from prophecy. The "dispensation of grace" given to Paul wasn't understood by Peter and the 11 at that point.
>>At what point did this message of the physical kingdom end for good in the early church<<
It has never ended. After the last seven years of the promised 490 to Israel which is the tribulation Christ will set up an earthly Kingdom.
>>Based on the above, how do you explain the same Holy Spirit falling on Jews and the Diaspora Jews on Pentecost and then later on Samaritans, Romans, Greeks... (Gentiles).<<
The hardening of the hearts of the Israelites/Jews was "in part". There are many Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior but as a nation they are still not seeing Him as their Messiah. That will happen during the last half of the seven year tribulation which is "the time of Jacobs trouble".
Actually, sometime after the great Church Council at Jerusalem, the Apostles did go unto the known world, even to the West coast of India, where they preached the Gospel of Grace and were martyred. Some died by spear point, some were flayed alive, some were beaten to death, some crucified for their preaching. But they did not ‘go’ until after the great council and the growing realization that they were making the same error their forefathers had made since Abraham, holding up with the Truth revealed to them.
I think we have to stop here and clarify something. Do you believe that the “church” has superseded the nation of Israel and God’s promises to it? Or do you believe that there are yet seven years left of the 490 years promised Israel in Daniels prophecies?
Indeed it does. As sometimes the opposite happens as in wrongly dividing.
H.A. Ironside, who is a tradtional dispensationalist along the lines of Ryrie and Walvoord took issue with ultra-dispensationalism. For those pinged who do not know about dispensationalism, what is being promoted here of two separate gospels in the early church is not the traditional dispensationalism.
It is what is called by Ryrie and Ironside "ultra-dispensationalism." Traditional dispensationalism never divided the gospel nor believers into two classes of Jews (works based salvation) and Gentile (saved by Grace). Ironside wrote a bit on this subject:
Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth
The ultra-dispensationalism point of view was mainly put forth by E. W. Bullinger (1837–1913):
Early Ultra-dispensationalism, such as that promoted by Sir Robert Anderson and E.W. Bullinger in his early years, emphasized a dispensational boundary line at Acts 28:28, but did not apply this boundary line to the Epistles of Paul, viewing them as a whole whether or not they were written before or after Acts 28:28. When the young Charles Welch pointed out the inherent contradiction in this to E.W. Bullinger, Bullinger changed his views, and incorporated the dividing line into his teachings on the Epistles of Paul that were written from that point forward and which became universally known as Ultradispensationalism. Since the majority of his work was written before this point, however, many of his writings view Paul's Epistles as an unbroken whole. Later adherents of Ultra-dispensationalism writers, such as Stuart Allen, Oscar Baker, and Otis Sellers, all followed the example of Charles Welch and E.W. Bullinger's later work in applying the division to Paul's books as well as the book of Acts in the true spirit of Ultra-dispensationalism.
There are large irreconcilable differences between the Mid-Acts position and the Acts 28 position just as there are between them and the Acts 2 position. They differentiate among themselves by terminology reflecting when the normative portion of Paul's ministry to the church began. The most obvious result of this differentiation is an absence of the practice of water baptism which is considered as a ritual for Israel under the last dispensation and not for the body of Christ in this present dispensation. Less obvious is what part of the New Testament is understood as being directly written to the church. Mid-Acts types take all of Paul's epistles to be directly written to the church (thus accepting the practice of the Lord's Supper as for this dispensation of Grace) while the Acts 28 position takes only Paul's prison epistles (those written while in prison) to be directly applicable to the church today (denying the Lord's Supper for today).
Bullinger held that Paul's authoritative teaching began after the conclusion of the book of Acts, a viewpoint now characterized as "Acts 28" dispensationalism (chapter 28 being the concluding chapter of the book), a position he solidified in cooperation with Charles H. Welch.[23] Other writers holding this position include Sir Robert Anderson, Oscar M. Baker, and Otis Q. Sellers. Acts 28 Dispensationalists distinguish themselves with their belief that today’s Church is exclusively revealed in Paul’s later writings, in the so-called "Prison Epistles." [24] Acts 28 Dispensationalists tend to reject all ordinances including the Lord’s Supper.[25]
The Mid-Acts position was developed independently later by J.C. O'Hair followed later by Cornelius R. Stam and Charles F. Baker, among others, and reflects their position that Paul's normative ministry began in either the ninth (Stam) or thirteenth chapter (O'Hair, Baker). Some very few independent spirits have staked the beginning of the church in a few other chapters but such differences are technical preferences rather than disagreements. The hallmark is that the church is served uniquely with Paul's ministry and upon that there is complete and total agreement. Acts is seen as a transitional period between dispensations and the Mid Acts position does not insert an extra dispensation there contra Ryrie as does the Acts 28 position. The Mid-Acts position accepts the Lord's Supper but rejects water baptism.[26] There is only one baptism made without hands where the believer is baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13) which is held in contradistinction to Christ baptizing believing Israel in Acts 2 with the Holy Spirit. This pouring out baptism of the Holy Spirit is in fulfillment of the Old Testament promise of the new covenant to Israel. Thus it has nothing to do with the newly revealed Mystery to and through the apostle Paul who is not sent out until years later with the new ministry to the Gentiles to establish a new church which is composed of both believing Israelites and believing Gentiles, and not just Israelites (which includes proselytes to Judaism) as in Acts 2. This new church is not obligated to any Jewish rituals (like water baptism) according to the determination of the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism
Thus my continued questioning to some here asking 'when' this shift from kingdom gospel to gospel of grace happened. Which I will note has not been addressed.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." Gen.1:1
God knows what His plan for man is/was/and will be. And we can rest assured that His truth will reign. It's HIS plan after all.
We're interested in what scripture says NOT what Ironside, Ryrie, or Wolvoord have said. So let's just stay out of the bushes and rabbit trials.
>>Thus my continued questioning to some here asking 'when' this shift from kingdom gospel to gospel of grace happened. Which I will note has not been addressed.<<
It most certainly has been answered and in multiple ways. The fact that you evidently don't recognize the answer is not out problem.
This 'ultra-dispensationalism' I am not familiar with, but I am familiar with the Bible (for now going on forty plus years) and the Acts of the Apostles and their martyrdom. While Petrer preached the Kingdom, the Holy Spirit descended upon those in whom the belief of Jesus as Savior and Lord arose. So, while Peter preached one thing, which had inherent in it the Gospel of Grace through Christ Jesus, he did not immediately realize why the Holy Spirit indwelt these listening to him expound on the coming Kingdom. This notion was left in the dust on the road to Damascus by Paul, when Jesus appeared to him personally and subsequently instructed him directly. Paul had been persecuting The Church because he could not reconcile the man Jesus, even with the miracles of note, with the Kingdom Age since the Throne of David had not been set up again following the resurrection. This same confusion plagued the disciples, until they gradually came to realize the pause in Daniel's weeks and the reality that it is ONLYT by Grace that anyone is Saved, and this available to Jew and Gentile alike.
I fully understand what Paul said in his letter to the Romans. It was of course historically before his house arrest in Rome. When Paul was in Rome did he preach just the gospel of grace to all that would hear or the kingdom gospel to all that hear?
The "dispensation of grace" given to Paul wasn't understood by Peter and the 11 at that point.
What point would that be? Can you put a rough 'time and space' on it? Was it before, during or after the Jerusalem conference?
It has never ended. After the last seven years of the promised 490 to Israel which is the tribulation Christ will set up an earthly Kingdom.
Of course, there is prophecy to fulfill for the physical kingdom. That was not my point or contention. Somewhere, or at some point in the early church, according to your position, the Jews figured out that they needed to embrace the gospel of grace instead of the kingdom gospel. When was that? And how do you explain all those souls saved on Pentecost when they realized they had the wrong gospel or it was abandoned for the dispensation given to Paul. For Acts 2 says at the end of the chapter: "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." So indeed by what I am seeing from you and others, is a claim there are two classes of ekklesia. One of kingdom and one of grace.
The hardening of the hearts of the Israelites/Jews was "in part". There are many Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior but as a nation they are still not seeing Him as their Messiah.
Yes, indeed that is established fact. However, the message accepted by the believing Jews on Pentecost resulted in being filled with the Holy Spirit and they were added to the ekklesia that day. I have no dispute on the future physical kingdom of Christ on earth for 1,000 years. I am talking about those who came to Christ on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Put it more clearly, in your view, were those Jews 'born again' that day or did they have to wait for Paul's gospel of grace?
Amen thank you for elaborating.
Amen. And the fact that we are still here speaks volumes to the patience of our Lord. Each day that He does NOT return to set up His kingdom, following the wrath of God being poured out on unbelievers, is another day to preach the matchless gospel of the grace of God. THIS gospel explains WHY He hasn’t returned yet. When the final member of the Body comes in, it’s over. We’re outta here and the tribulation and wrath begin, culminating in Christ’s return to set up His kingdom.
You really need to answer my question before I can continue this discussion with you.
There are not two Gospels, there were two methods by which the hearts of listeners were pricked, stabbed in their hearts by the same point that Jesus is Whom God had sent for their Salvation. At first, preaching to Jews, Peter's preaching of the kingdom come stirred the belief by which God seals the believer. With the preaching from Paul, God had him go straight to the essence of That Grace of God in Christ, leaving the kingdom frustrated in the dust on the road to Famascus. But the seventieth week of Daniel is yet to arrive, and it will arrive, you may be sure of that because God does not lie.
You should know better than that from my posting history. I view literally a tribulation to come where Israel will be the focus, the time of Jacob's trouble. The second coming of Christ with His saints after the marriage supper and His Kingdom established physically on earth for 1,000 years. That is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is that after Christ's resurrection those preaching the gospel early on somehow were preaching a different gospel. Frankly there is no difference between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace. For no man or woman can enter the kingdom of God without being born again. And one cannot be born again without the Grace of God. One cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit without the Grace of God. So what then happened on Pentecost if it was not Grace?
Also, and very frankly, no one was ever saved by good works, animal sacrifices or following religious observances. The book of Hebrews is clear on this. So even in the OT it was by Grace through faith which saved.
So I don't understand this theology which puts Jews on Pentecost and following years (chapters in Acts) as being saved by a supposed old covenant which is marked by physical water baptism and repentance. I think E. W. Bullinger and a few others believed that repentance and water baptism were 'works' and therefore 'found a way' to erase both from what Christians do when moved by the Holy Spirit to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
That's the crux of the argument IMO. If someone says "the church began on Pentecost" then that means ALL Christians must repent of their sins and be baptized in water. But for some that is an inconvenient truth. They see water baptism and repentance as 'works' as if coming to Christ is in a comatose state. I am not saying this is your view. As I have seen posts from you stating the Holy Spirit leads us to repentance.
That is the reason for the line of questions. It seems someone did a whole lot of "theologizing" to omit water baptism and repentance from the conversion of a believer. One must ask why as this does not fit with the Words of Christ to preach the same Gospel to the whole world. If we start with His Words, this is not so difficult.
The position of two different gospels one of repentance and baptism and one of grace was the position of Bullinger and what distinguished him from other dispensationalists. That matters in the discussion as these views do not happen in a vacuum.
It most certainly has been answered and in multiple ways. The fact that you evidently don't recognize the answer is not out problem.
No one answered if the Jewish believers on Pentecost were saved by grace? Yes or no will do.
You did not make the claim of two gospels; one of repentance and water baptism and another of grace. So I did not address it to you.
I don’t think anyone would deny our brothers and sisters on the day of Pentecost who were filled with the Holy Spirit were not born again and had to wait for Paul. So if they were not saved by Grace that day, but another way, when did that change? That is the crux of what I was getting at with other posters.
Answered in post #555.
You must have missed smvoice's comments on two different ways of salvation. The one on Pentecost being one of water baptism and repentance for Jews and then for Gentiles the gospel of Grace.
Hm. What does this mean? Paul is stating that he has laid the foundation, according to the grace of God which was given to him. Others are building on the foundation Paul has laid. But the foundation that is laid is built on Jesus Christ. If Paul was tasked by Christ to lay a foundation based on the grace of God that was given to him, why not thank Peter, if their gospels were the same gospel of the grace of GOd?
Moses was the master-builder of the tabernacle. God gave him the plans and specifications for it, and said, "See...that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount" (Heb. 8:5). Moses represented the law.
Paul represents grace. Paul too was a master-builder. To him God committed the plans and specifications for a greater building, "an holy temple", the church which is Christ's body. Step by step, revelation by revelation the details were made known to him by direct revelationS so that, as "a wise (intelligent) master-builder", he had the right and responsibility to outline those details to us, the body of Christ.
"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visionS and revelationS of the Lord." 2 Cor. 12:1. Visions and revelations, both plural.
How can you expect us to give you a firm date when Paul says that his ministry and commission were based on REVELATIONS, not one, but more. It's a progressive revelation and building of the body of Christ, not a one moment in time event.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.