What type of dispensationalist are you?

[truthman]

As moderator here, I am very curious and intrigued as to what type of dispensationalists are here.

Please list, in layman's or eloquent terms what you hold to.

Please note: This will not be a thread for debate of dispensational issues, but rather will serve as introductory.

I personally believe the Body of Christ started in Acts chapter 9 after Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.

I do not believe that this Body of Christ included the 12 apostles (from Matthew to Matthias).

This would make me an Acts 9, 12 out dispensationalist.

And you???

[bar Jonah]

Acts 9, 12-out, open dispy.

[Philemon]

I personally believe the Body of Christ began with the first person who trust his/her life (physical, spiritual, eternal) in Christ as the Messiah and THE passover lamb. I suppose this person might be Abraham.

[Hitch]

antidispensationalist

[joelkaki]

ditto


Joel

[Ishmael]

No Dispensationalism Here... unless I convert some day with a view to sell a few books....

[Solly]

Non Dispie. Christ is the Head of the Church and all who are joined to him through the Spirit are his Body, the Church, back to Adam.

[Lizard]

Solly:
Non Dispie. Christ is the Head of the Church and all who are joined to him through the Spirit are his Body, the Church, back to Adam.

What Solly said.

[Xmansmommy]

<~~~~~ Acts 9 Dispy with OV tendencies ;)

[smilax]

I am a I Corinthians ix, 15-18 dispensationalist.

[yxboom]

<===Acts 9/ 12 out OVT

[Darth Xena]

Former Dispensationist Lite

[bar Jonah]

smilax:
I am a I Corinthians ix, 15-18 dispensationalist.
Can you expound on that, Smilax? :cool:

[smilax]

I Corinthians ix, 15-18: "But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel."

Blatant sarcasm aside, I don't know how oikonomia was turned into the concept of disjoint temporal administrations, but it is quite clear that the context here and in other passages refers to our mission assignment, namely to proclaim the glorious gospel of God's grace. Yea, woe is unto me, if I accept not this dispensation!

So yes. I am a I Corinthians ix, 15-18 dispensationalist. I have no idea how the other dispensationalist systems have anything to do with the original word.

[bar Jonah]

The word "oikonomia" literally means "house rules." If you don't know the rules of the house, you will be in trouble. What are our house rules? Paul specifically contrasts his own gospel with the gospel Peter brought. Paul brought "the gospel of the Uncircumcision" whereas Peter brought "the gospel of the Circumcision." Two messages, two gospels, one Lord, one Salvation. Peter even said he had difficulty understanding Paul's teachings. This from the top apostle of Jesus Christ? The book of the Galatians is all about Paul warning the Gentile believers of Galatia against accepting the teachings of Peter's church in Jerusalem. Peter's message of justification by faith and works was leading the Galatians astray.

[smilax]

There is only one gospel. Paul's applies to both the Jew and the Greek according to Romans i, 16.

[Hitch]

smilax:
There is only one gospel. Paul's applies to both the Jew and the Greek according to Romans i, 16. As does Luke;


Acts 1:1-3
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
(KJV)

Acts 28:28-31
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
(KJV)


Hitch

[bar Jonah]

Hitch:
As does Luke;


Acts 1:1-3
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
(KJV)

Acts 28:28-31
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
(KJV)

Hitch
And so when Paul promised that Peter and the other apostles would go only to the Jews, and he (Paul) would only go to the Gentiles, he was a bald-faced liar, I guess?

Or... Acts 28 takes place AFTER Israel is cut off and the new, unique gospel of Paul comes in, under which unsaved Jews ARE considered Gentiles? This is the only rational explanation of Paul's continuing evangelism in the synagogues. Saved Jews remained under the leadership of Peter and the rest of the Twelve. God cut off Israel, but not them; that would not be just. They were saved under their dispensation, and continued to live according to those "house rules." But Paul says he'll go only to the Gentiles, and then heads straight for the nearest synagogue every time he comes into town. What does that tell you?

AFTER Israel is cut off, there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile. They are all the same in God's eyes. Paul knows this, and brings his Mystery of the Gentiles to these unsaved Jews.

Otherwise, Paul is an unapologetic liar. And Peter is an idiot for not understanding Paul's teachings, which are supposely the same as his own.

[smilax]

RightIdea:
And so when Paul promised that Peter and the other apostles would go only to the Jews, and he (Paul) would only go to the Gentiles, he was a bald-faced liar, I guess?No, different people have different missions. Some apostles were sent to the deliver the gospel to the Jews. Others were sent to deliver it to the Gentiles. This does not imply that there are two gospels.But Paul says he'll go only to the Gentiles, and then heads straight for the nearest synagogue every time he comes into town. What does that tell you?Cite specifics. Acts xiv, 2 distinguishes between unbelieving Jews and Gentiles.AFTER Israel is cut off, there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile. They are all the same in God's eyes. Paul knows this, and brings his Mystery of the Gentiles to these unsaved Jews.What was the difference beforehand?Otherwise, Paul is an unapologetic liar. And this is the man who rebuked Peter?Rebuked Peter for what?

Galatians ii, 11-12: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."

[Bob Hill]

I personally believe the Body of Christ started in Acts 9 after Paul's conversion in Damascus when something like scales fell from his eyes and he was filled with the Holy spirit before he was baptized - Acts 9:17,18.

I do not believe the 12 apostles were transferred into the Body of Christ. For these reasons, only Paul's epistles have direct application to us today. Since Paul's pre-prison epistles were written during a time that God was showing Israel they had been set aside, there are things in them that have passed away.

This would make me an Acts 9, 12 out Open View
dispensationalist.

In Christ,
Bob

[Hitch]

Bob Hill:
I personally believe the Body of Christ started in Acts 9 after Paul's conversion in Damascus when something like scales fell from his eyes and he was filled with the Holy spirit before he was baptized - Acts 9:17,18.

I do not believe the 12 apostles were transferred into the Body of Christ. For these reasons, only Paul's epistles have direct application to us today. Since Paul's pre-prison epistles were written during a time that God was showing Israel they had been set aside, there are things in them that have passed away.

This would make me an Acts 9, 12 out Open View
dispensationalist.

In Christ,
Bob Are you born-again Bob?


Hitch

[Reba]

Do we know when CHRIST didn't have a body?

[bar Jonah]

smilax:
No, different people have different missions. Some apostles were sent to the deliver the gospel to the Jews. Others were sent to deliver it to the Gentiles. This does not imply that there are two gospels.
Nice try, but you didn't answer what I said. IF you're right and there was only one gospel, then Peter and Paul were simply sent with the same message to different groups. Paul said he would go ONLY to the Gentiles. Yet, every time he came to a city, he made a bee line for the nearest synagogue. Liar liar, pants on fire, Paul!
Cite specifics. Acts xiv, 2 distinguishes between unbelieving Jews and Gentiles.What was the difference beforehand?
Taking this verse out of context. Just because these Gentiles and unbelieving Jews were in the same boat as far as how they must be saved (and even you agree with that) doesn't mean that the author cannot delineate them insofar as their actions were concerned regarding their different cultural groups. In God's eyes, these two groups of men both had to come to Christ the same way. But in the eyes of men, they were two groups of people acting independently. And in this case, the one group of people (unbelieving Jews) was warning the other group of people (men who were racially non-Jewish) about this crazy messianic cult started by an agent of Satan named Jesus.
Rebuked Peter for what?

Galatians ii, 11-12: &quot;But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.&quot;
Read all of Galatians 1 and 2, and Acts 15 and 21, and you will see the full story. A summary of Galatians 1 and 2 basically conveys the following:

The church of Galatia has been going over to a different gospel being taught by Judaizers. Any man (to whom this letter is written) who preaches a different gospel than what Paul brought shall be accursed. Paul went up to Jerusalem specifically to rebuke Peter because the Christians of his church in Jerusalem (who were zealous for the law, according to Acts 21) were preaching a gospel message that included following the Law of Moses ... to Gentiles (Acts 15). Paul didn't rebuke Peter for preaching that message to Jewish believers. Only for preaching it to Gentiles. Then Paul says that after they had "no small dispute," Peter and James admitted Paul was right, and they agreed that Paul had the responsibility to preach "the Gospel of the Uncircumcision," while Peter had the responsibility to preach "the Gospel of the Circumcision."

When Paul talks about these interlopers bringing a different gospel to the Galatians... he's talking about the believers in Peter's church. THAT'S why he rebuked Peter. You can see that in Acts 15. Peter's congregations were "zealous for the Law," and this wasn't a bad thing. After all, that's what Jesus taught the Twelve, and that's what the Twelve taught in their letters, which were specifically addressed to the Jewish Christians under their care.

[Solly]

Yuk Yuk Yuk, people can't just answer the frist question can they. You'll have to split this thread too truthman. :bonk: :rofl:


BTW, any pre-wrath tribulationists here?

[Hitch]

Hey solly...
Whats the single word to describe the removal from th eNT of all the Gospels ,most of Acts all of Hebrews and Pete and some of Paul's wirtting?

ps off hand I cant think of Paul dirstly quoting Jesus ,if that right then all of what Jesus said is trashed as well.

So Im wondering what is the proper term...

H

[Solly]

Phew, tough one...




























Marcionite? :o

[bar Jonah]

Hitch:
Hey solly...
Whats the single word to describe the removal from th eNT of all the Gospels ,most of Acts all of Hebrews and Pete and some of Paul's wirtting?

ps off hand I cant think of Paul dirstly quoting Jesus ,if that right then all of what Jesus said is trashed as well.

So Im wondering what is the proper term...

H
Who cares? NO ONE here is advocating any such thing. Straw man, straw man, straw man. (Although I understand Martin Luther wrote that he wanted to tear the letter of James out of the Bible.)

[Hitch]

Look up jr to #5701

[bar Jonah]

Bob Hill:
I personally believe the Body of Christ started in Acts 9 after Paul's conversion in Damascus when something like scales fell from his eyes and he was filled with the Holy spirit before he was baptized - Acts 9:17,18.

I do not believe the 12 apostles were transferred into the Body of Christ. For these reasons, only Paul's epistles have direct application to us today. Since Paul's pre-prison epistles were written during a time that God was showing Israel they had been set aside, there are things in them that have passed away.

This would make me an Acts 9, 12 out Open View
dispensationalist.

In Christ,
Bob
Actually, far be it from me to correct Bob Hill, and that's not my intention. But for clarification, this view actually is often referred to as Acts 28 dispensationalism, because it says Paul's earlier letters also were written before the new message of the Mystery of the Gentiles.

I am not sufficiently persuaded by that exact view, but I'm obviously "open." :cool:

[Hitch]

I reckon we have then your admission that you do not speak for any and all DFs?

H

[bar Jonah]

If I wanted to be a total jackass, this post would have consisted with one word: DUH.

But instead, I'll just say that this should have already been 100% obvious, as I explicitly stated that more than once in the past couple days. :)

[Hitch]

If I wanted to be a total jackass, this post would have consisted with one word: DUH.

But instead, I'll just say that this should have already been 100% obvious, as I explicitly stated that more than once in the past couple days.


Well that explains why you have so consistently advised me on the beliefs of DF adherents.

H

[bar Jonah]

Hitch:
Well that explains why you have so consistently advised me on the beliefs of DF adherents.

H
I've done no such thing. I have done nothing more than represent my own views and the views of (at least most of) those who adhere to the brand of dispensationalism known as "Acts 9, 12-out."

No more, and no less.

I have, on occasion, corrected your massive, presuppositional misunderstanding of dispensationalism in general. But I have only actually represented my own brand. I would never even wish to do otherwise. I respectfully disagree with the more common form of dispy -- Acts 2 dispyism -- as well as Acts 28 and John 20 dispies.

[psychopath]

I have been reading a few of the posts regarding Dispensationalism, and I just wanted to commend you for representing it so well. I, admittedly, do not have the knowledge at this moment to distinguish what type of Dispensationalist I am, but I do agree with its basic tenets. Keep up the good work. :smile:

[Act9_12Out]

Right Idea,

I know I can speak for Bob Hill on this issue. He is my best friend (and 40 years my senior!:eek: ) and I co-hosted "Biblical Answers" radio program with him for three years. I was his Associate Pastor at Derby Bible Church, and am now working with his son-in-law. I teach classes in his school (DSOT - in existence 27 years and running strong!:thumb:) and am positive I know what his somewhat confusing post meant. When Bob said,Since Paul's pre-prison epistles were written during a time that God was showing Israel they had been set aside, there are things in them that have passed away.Bob is not taking an Acts 28 position here. Bob is addressing topics that appear in Paul's pre-prision epistles that have passed away (Tongues, Sign Gifts, Revelatory Gifts). This in no way implies that the body started anywhere other than Acts 9. Bob is a strong Acts 9, 12 Out, Open View, Dispensationalist!

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[bar Jonah]

Thanks for the clarification, Acts9-12out. :)

[joelkaki]

ACts9, I admit I am somewhat unfamiliar with your particular brand of dispensationalism. Would you mind telling me exactly what you mean when you call yourself this--"
strong Acts 9, 12 Out, Open View, Dispensationalist!"
Just don't want any confusion at all.

Joel

[bar Jonah]

Acts 9 -- a dispensationalist who believes the Body of Christ didn't begin until God cut Israel off for failing her election, and He brought in Paul to bring the new gospel of the Gentiles, aka the gospel of grace, of salvation by faith and not works (contrary to the gospel taught by the Twelve and by Jesus during His earthly ministry).

12-out -- An Acts-9 dispy who believes the Twelve weren't "grandfathered" into the Body of Christ after the cutting off of Israel, but rather continued under the dispensation in which they were saved. In other words, they continued to preach the gospel taught to them by Jesus rather than switching to Paul's gospel.

Open-View -- a.k.a. an Open Theist. Can be dispensational or covenental, although most OVers are dispy. The Open View holds that God is omniscient, but because we have free will (and by God's choice), the future doesn't exist to be known, and therefore God only knows some of the future, not all of it. God knows that part of the future that He has definitely predetermined (as He did with the crucifixion and still foreknows regarding the future Tribulation). But the vast majority of the future, while extremely predictable for God, cannot be known for certain. A common false accusation against the Open View is that it limits God's omniscience, but this is absolutely untrue. God cannot know things that aren't true or don't exist. For example, God cannot know that there is a man named Bob Whippersnapper in the town of New York, Colorado. Because there is no such man and no such town. Does this limit His omniscience? Of course not; that would be silly. Likewise, God cannot know with 100% certainty (except for the aforementioned exceptions) the future, which doesn't exist to be known.

Dispensationalist -- A Christian is either Covenental or Dispensational. There is no third option. Covenental theologians believe the Body of Christ today receives all of the promises God made to Israel, and is "spiritual Israel." They believe either that We have been adopted spiritually into Israel, or we have totally and permanently replaced Israel, and God will never work with the Jews again. We dispensationalists, on the other hand, believe the Body of Christ is different from historical, spiritual, corporate Israel, that we don't receive all the promises and gifts that came as a part of Israel's covenant with God, etc. Most dispensationalists are Acts 2 Dispies, who believe there was no difference between Paul's gospel and Jesus's (and the Twelve's) gospel, and that the Body of Christ began at Pentacost.


Hope that clears up a few things. :)

[Act9_12Out]

Thanks RightIdea...

The only thing I would add is the nature of the mystery revealed to Paul (Eph 3:1-9). Joel, now I ask, is your desire the same as the Apostle Paul's when he says,The New King James Version

Ephesians 3
3:9
and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;Do you have a desire to "make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery?" Do you even know what the dispensation of the mystery is? Look at what Paul prays for...The New King James Version

Ephesians 6
6:19
and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel,

Colossians 4
4:3
meanwhile praying also for us, that God would open to us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in chains,Again Joel, do you share Paul's desire? Do you pray that God would give you strenghth and an opportuniity to preach the mystery? How can you if you have no idea what it is?

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

I think I know what that mystery is, and yes I seek to tell others of it, however, I am not sure we agree on it. Why don't you tell me what you think the mystery is, and I'll tell you if I agree or not.


Joel

[Rubia Warren]

Is it possible to believe that it started with pentecost, but it was also retroactive to the people in the OT? :brow:

[joelkaki]

Maybe, but I have never seen any evidence that it started at Pentecost.


Acts9, thanks for clearing that up. I just wanted to make sure I have a completely clear picture of what you believe.


Joel

[bar Jonah]

02-22-2003 @ 08:58 AM
La Rubia:

Is it possible to believe that it started with pentecost, but it was also retroactive to the people in the OT? :brow:
It is of course possible to believe that. But that would be Covenant theology, not dispensational theology. :)

That is, if I'm understanding you correctly. Yes, of course the majority of dispies believe that OT believers were saved. But that doesn't make them members of the Body of Christ. Hopefully, you're not inferring that we believe they all went to Hell. :)

[Rubia Warren]

No, that wasn't what I was saying, RightIdea.:bonk: :tongue:

[bar Jonah]

02-22-2003 @ 03:47 PM
La Rubia:
No, that wasn't what I was saying, RightIdea.:bonk: :tongue:
Then what were you saying? LOL Put it in different words. :)

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

My question pertained to the dispensation of the mystery. Do you have a desire to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery? (Eph 3:9)

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

What are you getting at?


Joel

[bar Jonah]

02-24-2003 @ 09:24 AM
joelkaki:

What are you getting at?

Joel
He didn't just ask about the mystery. He asked you if you seek to preach the dispensation of the mystery. Paul did. Therefore, we should have a desire to know what that dispensation is, and then we should seek to preach it.
Ephesians 3
3:9
and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
Do you seek to preach to others the dispensation (literally, the "house rules") of the mystery?

[joelkaki]

OK, I guess what I am asking is what is the dispensation of the mystery in your view then?


Joel

[bar Jonah]

You're answering a question by asking a question. Please try again. Then we will move to your question. :)

[joelkaki]

I already told you I sought to what Paul says there. The problem is, I doubt we agree on the meaning of Paul's statement, so what do you think he is saying?


Joel

[bar Jonah]

02-24-2003 @ 12:32 PM
joelkaki:

I already told you I sought to what Paul says there. The problem is, I doubt we agree on the meaning of Paul's statement, so what do you think he is saying?

Joel
Well, to be fair, that's not what you said. You said you agree you preach the mystery. However, my colleague asked if you preach the dispensation of the mystery. Not the same thing. It may be a technicality, but we believe it is a technicality worth noting.

[joelkaki]

OK, then tell me what this technicality is.



Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I'm confused... Here you say,I already told you I sought to what Paul says there. The problem is, I doubt we agree on the meaning of Paul's statement, so what do you think he is saying?But on another thread, you say you don't believe in dispensations. You said,I believe that God has worked in terms of these covenants, not with some unmentioned dispensations.

God does not work with something never mentioned called a dispensation. Never mentioned? Here's the question, again... Do you desire to proclaim the Dispensation of the Mystery? From your previous statements, do you believe the Bible?

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Dispensations as defined by modern day dispensationalists. Yes, I believe the Bible. Yes, I desire to proclaim the dispensation (stewardship, fellowship) of the mystery as Paul. But I doubt we agree on what that dispensation is. So why don't you tell me what you think it is.


Joel

[bar Jonah]

02-24-2003 @ 06:09 PM
joelkaki:

Dispensations as defined by modern day dispensationalists. Yes, I believe the Bible. Yes, I desire to proclaim the dispensation (stewardship, fellowship) of the mystery as Paul. But I doubt we agree on what that dispensation is. So why don't you tell me what you think it is.

Joel
But herein lies the problem, Joel. "dispensation" doesn't mean "stewardship" or "fellowship." It literally means "house rules." The rules of the house. So, no, it seems you don't wish to preach the house rules of the Mystery. You wish to preach the "fellowship" of the Mystery.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

[joelkaki]

Then why is "dispensation" translated as "fellowship" and "stewardship" in some translations. Would you please just get to the point anyway?


Joel

[bar Jonah]

Why does my NIV talk about Abraham in Hebrews 11:11 when his name doesn't even exist in this passage? It's what we in the business call "fiction."

The word "dispensation" is translated from the Greek word "oikonomia," which is a compound word formed from "oikos" and "nomos." They literally mean "house rules." The rules of the house. This is the word from which we get "economy." An economy is the "house rules" of a nation. What is the economy of America? A mix of free market capitalism and socialism. The former Soviet Union? A socialist/communist system. Japan? They are a militaristic and empirialistic culture which now uses its economic models in lieu of a military, under the surface appearance of capitalism.

In order to live and function well in a nation, it is very important to know the economy (the dispensation) in which you're living. The same was even more true 2,000 years ago. One of the most important issues for believers in the 1st century was sorting out the arguments and misunderstandings about what dispensation (what set of house rules) believers were living under.

Read Galatians 1 and 2 with the understanding that each few verses don't stand alone... but they are part of a larger, coherent and consistent message. Paul rebukes them for listening to another gospel. Paul warns them against another gospel. Paul defends his own authority. He mentions he had an important meeting with Peter and James and others, but that he got nothing from them. (Which means the only purpose of the meeting was for them to get something from him.) He then clarifies something even more important -- Peter has agreed that he and his group will preach the gospel of the Circumcision to the Jews, and Paul himself will preach the gospel of the Uncircumcision to the Gentiles. And then he explains more about the meeting referred to in Chapter 1, starts talking about Peter and says he rebuked Peter to his face. This meeting is described in greater detail in Acts, where it's explained that the issue was that believers in the Jerusalem church (under Peter) were zealous for the Law, and they were preaching this law-related (circumcision) gospel to Gentiles. And this is exactly why Paul angrily went to Jerusalem to privately speak to the members of the Twelve and rebuke them. There was "no small dispute" among them. (Ie. they were really mad at each other.) But in the end, James conceded that Paul was right, and that they would stop what they were doing.

Looking at Galatians 1 and 2 (and the relevant passages of Acts), the bigger picture makes it glaringly obvious that when Paul is talking about "another gospel," he's talking about Peter's gospel. He starts talking about the Galatians listening to the wrong gospel, and then starts talking about Peter! Peter preaches this other "gospel of the Circumcision" and "I rebuked Peter to his face" and so forth. Peter is right in the thick of this. This isn't some non-Christian sect of unbelieving Judaizers. The Judaizers were Christians under Peter in the Jerusalem Church. They were "zealous for the Law," and this was a good thing, not a bad thing, as described in Acts. Good for them... but not good for the Galatians. It is extremely important to note that Paul didn't rebuke them for preaching the gospel of the circumcision to all believers. The problem was only with preaching it to Gentiles, specifically.

Paul talks about the wrong gospel... and then talks about Peter. He talks about the right gospel, the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. And then he contrasts that with Peter. This is all about Paul being contrasted with Peter, right from the start.

Paul is warning the Galatians (and all of us) to stay away from Peter's gospel. A different dispensation; a different set of house rules. Paul writes in his letters that this Mystery had never been revealed until then -- and he wrote this at least 17 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Mystery of the Gentiles wasn't revealed until Paul came along. He's the only person in the entire Bible to refer to the Body of Christ. Peter never acknowledges the term, nor does James, John or Jude. Not Matthew, or Mark, or Luke or John. Not even Jesus, Himself. Jesus never even said the word "grace" in all four gospels combined.

So I exhort you to understand and preach the dispensation of the Mystery of the gospel of the Gentiles. The gospel of grace, of salvation by faith alone and no justification by works. Rightly dividing the word of truth.

[Theolog]

The “gospel of grace” means that the "kingdom of God has come to man". You must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. This is the one and only Gospel.

If you are waiting for the kingdom then you missed the bus.

With so much riding on the word “dispensation”, it has me wondering if the word is even in the bible. It seems like the right idea would be to examine the term “rightly dividing” as it needs defining more than “dispensation”

[bar Jonah]

Theolog, if you're not even sure whether the word "dispensation" is in the Bible (especially after some of us have posted scripture with this word several times now)... perhaps you'd be best served by turning to the word some more before continuing the discussion?

Please don't take this as an insult. Many times, I have been engaged in a debate or discussion, and have stopped (sometimes for days) while I review scripture, do word and topic searches through the Bible, etc. And I have found this to be very helpful and edifying, arming me for when I return to the discussion. If at this point you're not even sure the word "dispensation" is in the Bible, perhaps this might be a helpful piece of advice.

[Theolog]

As I thought “dispensation” is not in the Bible. Just when and how did “dispensational theology” start?

I always thought that the Bible taught only one gospel are you saying that there are more than one gospel?

[abarnhar]

Nondispy

[Lion]

The word dispensation is a much overworked term As Paul used it (to my simple mind) it means the preaching of the gospel. Now as Scofield used the term,(which I don't accept for one microsecond) he tries to make out that God somehow changed the house rules for different people at different times. Are you trying somehow to work Scofield into this discussion with all the talk about dispensation?

Dispensation simply means to dispense, to pour out something, not a change in the house rules. It implies stweardship, not house rules, so Paul had the stewardship of the gospel to the gentiles the same as Peter had the stewardship for the Jews. oikonomia; from 3621; stew- ardship, administration:

[Amazing Rando]

:yes:

[Lizard]

:digup:

[Xavier]

This walk down memory road is brought to by:

Faramir (:faramir:)

With time, you too can be turned from a descent novel character into a horrible movie charater... :hehe:

[Tim C.]

As moderator here, I am very curious and intrigued as to what type of dispensationalists are here.

Please list, in layman's or eloquent terms what you hold to.Classic. Acts 2.

-Tim

[Crow]

As moderator here, I am very curious and intrigued as to what type of dispensationalists are here.


Acts 9, 12 out, OV

[Lizard]

Acts 9, 12 out, OV

:hi: and welcome to TWeb (I see by your join date you've been a member a while, but by your post count you have not posted much).

Since you are responding to truthman's OP I thought I would give you some FYI.

Truthman, though still a member here, is no longer a moderator. He, like many of our former mods, got too busy.

But it is good to see another Acts 9, 12 out, OV here again (like truthman not me my type if dispensationalism is former dispensationslis :wink:) . But you will find that all orthodox positions are welcome here.

I look forward to seeing some post in eschatology from you (if you are so inclinded).

[Hitch]

As moderator here, I am very curious and intrigued as to what type of dispensationalists are here.

Please list, in layman's or eloquent terms what you hold to.

Please note: This will not be a thread for debate of dispensational issues, but rather will serve as introductory.

I personally believe the Body of Christ started in Acts chapter 9 after Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.

I do not believe that this Body of Christ included the 12 apostles (from Matthew to Matthias).

This would make me an Acts 9, 12 out dispensationalist.

And you???What type of dispensationalist are you?


Former.

H

[Darth Xena]

Me too!

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Former here. I wasn't advanced enough to know about all the variations. I was just a popular variety dispie, a la Hal Lindsey.

[Mickey]

Acts 11,12 In

In Christ,
Mickey

[Mickey]

... but it is quite clear that the context here and in other passages refers to our mission assignment, namely to proclaim the glorious gospel of God's grace. Yea, woe is unto me, if I accept not this dispensation!

smilax,you got that right!

There are many today who call themselves "dispensationalists" that do not even know what our "dispensation" or "stewardship" is at the present time.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Mickey]

There is only one gospel. Paul's applies to both the Jew and the Greek according to Romans i, 16.
smilax,

The word "gospel" means "good tidings".So yes,there is was "good tidings" concerning the Lord Jesus Christ that was preached to both the Jews and the Gentiles.However,an examination of the Acts record reveals that two separate and distinct gospels were being preached.

Gospel of the Circumcision

On the day of Pentecost Peter used the facts of the death and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus in order to prove that He is their promised Messiah (Acts2:23-35).And then he summed up his argument by saying:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ"(Acts2:36).

Later,after hearing the gospel preached the Ethiopian treasurer asked to be baptized with water: "And Philip said,If thou believeth with all thine heart,thou mayest.And he answered and said,I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"(Acts8:37).

After Paul was converted,the first thing that he did was to preach this same gospel in the synagogues of the Jews: "And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ"(Acts9:20,22).

That was the same gospel which Paul continued to preach to the Jews: "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ"(Acts17:2,30).

That is the same message that Apollos preached to the Jews: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is Christ"(Acts18:28).

That is the gospel that went to the Jews,and it is plain that the heart and soul of that gospel was in regard to the "identity" of the Lord Jesus.

The Apostle John makes it clear that those who believed that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God,are "born of God":

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him….For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"(1Jn.5:1,4,5).

"But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on His name: Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"(Jn.1:12,13).

This explains why the Lord Jesus would tell Peter that he was "blessed" for believing that He is "the Christ,the Son of the Living God".The Lord asked Peter who he thought that He was,and Peter replied: "Thou are the Christ,the Son of the Living God.And Jesus answered and said unto Him,Blessed art thou,Simon Bar-jona,for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to you,but my Father Who is in heaven"(Mt.16:16,17).

The Gospel of the Uncircumcision

In the present dispensation the Christian has been given another "ministry" to preach another "word": "God…hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation…and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation"(2Cor.5:18,19).

The heart and soul of the gospel we are to preach concerns the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross.This gospel,unlike the gospel that was preach to the Jews,cannot be preached apart from the "purpose" of His death:

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death"(Col.1:20-22).

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son"(Ro.5:10).

The "word of reconciliation" is also referred to as the "gospel of the grace of God"(Acts20:24) and it declares that the believer is "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"(Ro.3:24).

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot"(1Pet.1:18,19).

In Christ,
Mickey