Pauline Dispensationalism

[BlessedinHim]

Hi Blessedinhim! I really appreciate your starting this thread. I was a "dispy" before I knew that any Christians believed any other way. Everyone carried a Scofield Bible and were taught what I (much later) found out was called dispensationalism. Guess I was nieve, but thank God, he protected me from false teachers. Based on the chart on your link, I guess I'm considered a traditional dispensationalist. One problem I have though with the chart is that it shows Traditional Dispensationalism going ---->to Progressive Disp.----->to Reformed Covenantism. This is absolutely not correct. I ended up (for the sake of family unity) being a member of a church that teaches Reformed Covenantism. Reformed Covenantism is the opposite of Dispensationalism. They don't even belong on the chart at all! They believe dispensationalism is heresy. If they knew I was a dispy, I don't know what they would do. Please don't tell! :whisper

Anyway, I was more interested to know the differences in belief between Pauline Dispensationalism and Traditional Dispensationalism rather than their history. I'm sure both would claim that theirs originated from the Bible. My concern is that some teach that only Paul's epistles are relevant to the church and that all of the NT books from Hebrews through Revelation are written to the Jews only and therefore are not relevant to the church today. I think this teaching is wrong. What I think they fail to understand is that the Bible was totally inspired by the Holy Spirit. None of it is man's writing at all! And that those books of the Bible, (Heb. thru Rev.) although written primarily to Jews, were written to Christian Jews who, by grace, through faith in Jesus, became part of the church. I do agree that the gospel of the kingdom (which was proclaimed in the four gospels) was meant for the Jews only. But even the four gospels contain a lot of teaching that is relevant to the church age.

All that being said, I am open and eager to learn and grow, as I know you are too. God gless you!

if you look at that chart, there are 2 branches, we are not on the neo/covenant side.

[BlessedinHim]

Thanks blessedinhim for the Pembroke Bible Chapel site. At first I thought it was the folk at Boulvard Bible Chapel in Pembroke Pines Florida because they had been talking about a meeting in the new section of houses out there. I rushed to the site to find out it was the other Chapel of brothers and sisters in Christ. :thumb:yeah:panic

Here is another site on dispensationalism.
http://www.brethrenonline.org/dispensationalism.html

You are welcome, and thank you.

[God's Trombone]

Graceforme wrote:blessedinhim said,
"Most dispensationalists and all Covenant theologians fail to realize that there are two Gospels, each dependent upon the Blood of the Cross. The one Gospel is earthly (Kingdom), the other is heavenly (Grace). Both Gospels are “according to Jesus,” and present only one way: by faith."

(I tried the "quote" feature and it just wouldn't work. So I quoted the old-fashioned way)

I personally don't know of any dispensationalists who fail to realize that there are two gospels. On the other hand, every New Covenant believer that I know fails to realize it.

That there was a Gospel of the Kingdom that Christ and the apostles preached to Israel, and a Gospel of Grace that Paul preaches to us Gentiles IS lost on MOST called "dispensationalist." Witness the statement from M.J. Stanford that opens this thread:

He, among so many others claims the church the Body of Christ started at Pentecost in Acts 2.
In saying this he denies the above and claims the 12 apostles preached the SAME Gospel that wasn't even revealed to PAUL until later in Acts 9.

Amazing?

Of course the scriptures when carefully read clearly document that the message to Israel was to believe who Christ was, be baptized and get ready to go through tribulation before entering the kingdom when Christ returns. Whereas, the message Christ gave Paul was entirely different, i.e., For ALL MEN Jew and Gentile to believe that Christ died for their sins, and rose again. HAS NOTHING to do with the earthly kingdom.

[God's Trombone]

OK, there is something I'm not getting here....I've been a dispensationalist since I was saved (25 years ago). But here's my problem with what I'm reading here, maybe you can help me to understand it.

The church began at Pentecost, right?

Sorry, you have been misled by "Churchianity" on this point. It is a COLLOSAL error that flies in the face of the scriptural record. Simply compare the words preached and written by Peter , James, and John to the "circumcision (Acts 15, Gal. 2)with Paul's message from Christ (Romans through Philemon.)Things that are different are not the same.

Ever since that time, Jews are saved the same way that everyone else is. In fact, in the book of Acts, the first church was made up almost entirely of Jews. So, Peter, James and John, in their epistles (which were directed to the Jews) were writing to the church, just like Paul was, correct?

Again, sorry not correct at all. How shall I attempt to answer... I don't want to confuse you anymore? Look at it like this: Peter's preaching at Pentecost was still "prophetic" i.e., it had to do with the coming rule of Christ in Jerusalem from the throne of David. It was preached to Israel, no Gentiles.
God didn't reveal His hidden plan for ALL MEN until
Israel had fully rejected Messiah. He then saved His greatest enemy, Saul of Tarsus and revealed to him the mystery of salvation by grace through faith, apart from Israel and the works of the law.With Paul as the "pattern" began the Body of Christ. The apostles never gave up their ministry to the "little flock" and didn't preach Paul's gospel at anytime. Their goal was to "endure till the end when Christ would return. So no! The letters of Peter, James and John are addressed to the circumcision saints, not the Body of Christ (church)

Then why wouldn't their epistles be just as dispensational as Paul's epistles? I know that the heavenly revelation was given to Paul, but surely Paul let Peter, James and John in on what this revelation was.

Precisely- the record of Paul telling them his Gospel is in Gal.2 and Acts 15.

Then wouldn't they all have been preaching the same "Pauline gospel"? Whether they were preaching to Jews or gentiles should have made no difference since they all get saved the same way and all become part of the same church.

As related above, they did not preach any different than before--strictly to the Jewish saints. After Acts 12 we hear nothing of Peter's activities. After Acts 15 we hear nothing of Peter for the rest of Acts. The Jewish saints died off while enduring to the end and looking for the return of the LOrd.

I hope I have made my question clear. I know there are things in the epistles of Peter, James and John regarding works and being judged according to our deeds and things like that that just don't seem to agree with Paul's gospel of grace, but since they are writing to the New Testament church (albeit the church made up of Jews), I don't see how we can discount their epistles as being non-relavent to the church of this present dispensation.

We don't "discount" them , (II Tim.3:16)

[God's Trombone]

Right on! :nod

[God's Trombone]

:nod:thumbMaybe someone already posted this and I missed it. If so, I'm sorry. But I think I can help clear up the question about Peter and Paul and whether they taught different gospels or not. They clearly did.

Peter, being one of the original disciples, knew nothing of grace. Grace had not been introduced at the point of Christ's teachings. Keep in mind that grace was introduced through the Apostle Paul. People throughout history were not saved the same way we are today.

From "Are There Contradictions In The Bible?" by David Reid:

'The Bible clearly teaches that people are saved by different gospels (ie. different good news) at different times. Despite differences in the gospel at different times, there are some things that are always true.

Everyone who has ever been saved or will be saved is saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). Everyone who has ever been saved or will be saved is saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). The manner in which the gospel differs at different times is in the content of the faith required and whether works are required as an expression of that faith. Although works are not required as an expression of faith under the present day gospel of grace, works are required under the gospels that apply during other periods of time. (emphasis mine)

For example, consider Noah. The content of his faith was not the shed blood of Jesus Christ but what God had said to him about the coming flood. God gave Noah the good news that Noah would be saved from the Flood - provided that he obeyed God. Noah demonstrated his faith in what God had said by performing works, i.e. building an ark. Had Noah not built the ark he would have drowned, and thus, it is obvious that works were required as an expression of his faith.

Another gospel that requires works as an expression of faith is found during the future period of the tribulation. During the tribulation, believers will have to refrain from worshipping the beast or taking the mark of the beast to be saved. Since worship of the beast and taking the mark are sins that cannot be forgiven (Revelation 14:11), the work of avoiding these sins will be a required expression of faith. Those believers will obviously not have eternal security while still alive because there is a possibility that they will take the mark of the beast at some time in the future and be ****ed.

Noah's gospel and the gospel during the tribulation are different from the present day gospel of grace. The content of saving faith today is complete trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins. This faith is manifested today without any required expressions of works. Since there is no required expression of works under the gospel of grace, believers today are eternally secure from the moment that they trust in the blood that Christ shed on the cross.

We should not be surprised that the content of saving faith differs at different points in time. At different times in history, God has given different revelations of what he required of man at that time. (dispensations) Therefore, it naturally follows that the content of the required faith at any particular time would depend on God's particular revelation during that time.

While Christ is the Savior for all who are saved, it is not the case that everyone throughout history was saved in the exact same manner.'

I hope this helps clear up some questions.

And, just so no one jumps on the "works" bandwagon - works are not required to be saved, but will follow naturally and out of love after a person is saved. Works are a result of love, not a condition of salvation.

[God's Trombone]

:nod:thumbOne thing that I think creates confusion in people concerning dispensationalism is that we have been taught all our lives that the birth of Christ is the beginning of the New Testament.

Again, from "Are There Contradictions in The Bible? by David Reid

'The New Testament did not being at the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to the Bible, the New Testament cannot begin until some time after the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament. that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." (Hebrews 9:14-17)

The New Testament could not being until the death of the mediator of the New Testament, who is the Lord Jesus Christ. Since Christ does not die until the end of each of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), these four books contain Old Testament information. While the four gospels are in a group of books that we call the "New Testament", it would be accurate to say that the four gospels are Old Testament books doctrinally.
To say the same thing in a different way, God was operating the universe according to Old Testament principles during the same time period recorded in the gospels.

Are we living under the New Testament?

Since we live after the cross, it might seem that we must be living under the New Testament. However, just as the Bible has a precise meaning for Old Testament, it also has a precise meaning for New Testament. The New Testament (also called the new Covenant) is defined in Jeremiah 31.

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" (Jeremiah 31:31).

Notice that the promises of the new covenant belong to the house of Israel and house of Judah. We, who are not of the house of Israel or Judah, have no right to claim these promises. They do not belong to us.

Although we are living after the cross, we are not living in the New Testament. We live during a different dispensation - the dispensation of grace.

If the Old Testament did not end until the cross of Christ, then under what dispensation did Christ live?

Christ lived under the law.

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law", (Galatians 4:4)

This conclusion is confirmed by the dialogue that Jesus had with the rich young ruler.

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments". (Matthew 19:16-17)

During Christ's earthly ministry, the way to obtain eternal life was through the observance of the Old Testament law, including the offering of animal sacrifices as a temporary covering for sin. God had not yet given the revelation of the gospel of the grace of God. Everything that we find in the Bible confirms that the Lord Jesus Christ lived under the Old Testament dispensation of the Law.'

This explains why there is much confusion in some denominations concerning grace/works. Not understanding under what dispensation Christ taught leads them to take their doctrine from the teachings of Christ, and this leads to legalistic thinking: "If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

[God's Trombone]

:nod:nod:nod:nod:yeah[QUOTE=HeIsEnough;84139]No offense, but this answered nothing for me.

"Paul and Peter were concurrent ministries, so to say it was a different dispensation is not exactly correct".

Yes, you are correct - Peter and Paul did preach during the same period of time, but not the same dispensation. Peter taught Law and Paul taught grace. Peter taught Jews of the things he had seen and heard, and Paul took the message of grace to the Gentile nation. Keep in mind that the nation of Israel had been diminishing - they had stumbled at the Cross by crucifying Christ (four Gospels), they had fallen at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7, and they were set aside by God. (Romans 11:11-12, 11:15, 12:10, 3:22; Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 12:13. The most important things we can learn as we study Scripture are the differences between the Prophesy Program and the Mystery Program. But Peter, during his ministry to the nation of Israel, had no knowledge of the Mystery Program. The Mystery had not been revealed in prophesy, as the kingdom message had been.

Peter and Paul had very different messages and taught from different dispensations. (Keep in mind that a dispensation is merely a way that God is dealing with humankind at any certain time) Peter had been taught by Jesus Christ under the Law during Christ's earthly ministry. And this was clearly the message of the kingdom (Matthew 4:17, 10:5-7) At this time, they had no knowledge of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul had been given a different gospel - the gospel of grace - given to him by divine revelation by the resurrected Savior.

Look at Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they sae that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;"

Let's look at some of the differences between Peter's gospel of the circumcision and Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision: I'll use two examples to point out the differences: water baptism and the Old Testament commandments (the law).

Water Baptism:

Peter's gospel of the circumcision -

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed." (Mark 16:16)

"But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. (Luke 7:30)

Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision -

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Cor. 1:17)

To be saved under the gospel of the circumcision, water baptism was a required expression of faith. Water baptism is not a requirement under the gospel of the uncircumcision. If it were necessary, Paul would not have said in 1 Cor. 1:14 that he was thankful that he had "baptized none of you, other than Crispus and Gaius."

The Old Testament Commandments:

Peter's gospel of the circumcision:

"But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Mt. 19:17)

Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision

"For his is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (Eph. 2:14,15)

Peter's gospel required the keeping of commandments while Paul's gospel did not. Peter and Paul had different gospels. We have to understand which gospel applies to us today if we desire to do what the Lord wants us to do. If you look in Acts 20:24 tells of the "gospel of the grace of God", while Matthew 4:23 tells of the "gospel of the kingdom." This was Peter's gospel - the gospel that he had been taught by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry.
Paul's gospel - the gospel of grace - was taught to him by divine revelation from the ascended Christ.

I did some study on the idea that the disciples "came around" to Paul's message of grace during their ministries. In Galatians 2, I found this: In verse 7 and 8 it is confirmed that the gospel of the uncircumcision was given to Paul and the gospel of the circumcision was given to Peter.

In verse 9, we find this: "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circimcision." So, even if they understood the message of grace, they still ministered to the circumcision (Jewish nation).

I'm still new at this, and many issues are a great source of much study for me. Please bear with me as I attempt, in my less-than adequate way, to my understanding of some things.

God Bless.
"I owe, I owe, so off to work I go." I'll catch up on the posts later.

[BlessedinHim]

In this day, tho, the Jews can come to a saving Grace now just like we do. Those that continue to reject Jesus will be the ones who have to go thru the Tribulation and then into the Millenium Kingdom here on earth.

[frankDH]

:nod:nod:nod:nod:yeah

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeIsEnough View Post
No offense, but this answered nothing for me.

"Paul and Peter were concurrent ministries, so to say it was a different dispensation is not exactly correct".

Yes, you are correct - Peter and Paul did preach during the same period of time, but not the same dispensation. Peter taught Law and Paul taught grace. Peter taught Jews of the things he had seen and heard, and Paul took the message of grace to the Gentile nation. Keep in mind that the nation of Israel had been diminishing - they had stumbled at the Cross by crucifying Christ (four Gospels), they had fallen at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7, and they were set aside by God. (Romans 11:11-12, 11:15, 12:10, 3:22; Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 12:13. The most important things we can learn as we study Scripture are the differences between the Prophesy Program and the Mystery Program. But Peter, during his ministry to the nation of Israel, had no knowledge of the Mystery Program. The Mystery had not been revealed in prophesy, as the kingdom message had been.

Peter and Paul had very different messages and taught from different dispensations. (Keep in mind that a dispensation is merely a way that God is dealing with humankind at any certain time) Peter had been taught by Jesus Christ under the Law during Christ's earthly ministry. And this was clearly the message of the kingdom (Matthew 4:17, 10:5-7) At this time, they had no knowledge of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul had been given a different gospel - the gospel of grace - given to him by divine revelation by the resurrected Savior.

Look at Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they sae that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;"

Let's look at some of the differences between Peter's gospel of the circumcision and Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision: I'll use two examples to point out the differences: water baptism and the Old Testament commandments (the law).

Water Baptism:

Peter's gospel of the circumcision -

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed." (Mark 16:16)

"But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. (Luke 7:30)

Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision -

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Cor. 1:17)

To be saved under the gospel of the circumcision, water baptism was a required expression of faith. Water baptism is not a requirement under the gospel of the uncircumcision. If it were necessary, Paul would not have said in 1 Cor. 1:14 that he was thankful that he had "baptized none of you, other than Crispus and Gaius."

The Old Testament Commandments:

Peter's gospel of the circumcision:

"But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Mt. 19:17)

Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision

"For his is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (Eph. 2:14,15)

Peter's gospel required the keeping of commandments while Paul's gospel did not. Peter and Paul had different gospels. We have to understand which gospel applies to us today if we desire to do what the Lord wants us to do. If you look in Acts 20:24 tells of the "gospel of the grace of God", while Matthew 4:23 tells of the "gospel of the kingdom." This was Peter's gospel - the gospel that he had been taught by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry.
Paul's gospel - the gospel of grace - was taught to him by divine revelation from the ascended Christ.

I did some study on the idea that the disciples "came around" to Paul's message of grace during their ministries. In Galatians 2, I found this: In verse 7 and 8 it is confirmed that the gospel of the uncircumcision was given to Paul and the gospel of the circumcision was given to Peter.

In verse 9, we find this: "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circimcision." So, even if they understood the message of grace, they still ministered to the circumcision (Jewish nation).

I'm still new at this, and many issues are a great source of much study for me. Please bear with me as I attempt, in my less-than adequate way, to my understanding of some things.

God Bless.
"I owe, I owe, so off to work I go." I'll catch up on the posts later.

You can get the wrong impression anytime you limit your focus, whether it be focused only on the differences or only on the similarities. You never get the whole picture until you take all detail into consideration. Peter did teach these differences when he was preaching to Jews with an OT understanding. Paul did too. He tells us he was wall things to allpeople. When he talked to those under the law he spoke as one under the law. But he also taught freedom from the bonds of law to those who could receive it.

When Israel was blinded for our sake [Rom 11:28] they became enemies of the gospel. Jesus taught this when speaking of the conversation between the rich man and Abraham. The rich man was told that the blind would not be influenced by one who rose from the grave. They must hear the words of Moses and the prophets [Lk 16:29]. But that does not mean that Peter or any born again Apostle was limited to this message. They just taught the message that would reach the audience they were addressing at the time.

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

Peter taught an incoruptible inheritance in heaven. Israel looked for an earthly inheritance.

1Pe 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Peter taught freedom from law to those of the circumcision who were given to understand the mysteries of the kingdom.

1Pe 5:14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

And Peter taught the circumcision that could understand it they were a part of the body of Christ.

1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

John taught the circumcision that they were “in Christ”.

Jam 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Jam 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

James taught the circumcision the word of truth and law of liberty.

They understood there was a difference in the Jew they happened to be addressing at the moment. They taught the same gospel but to differing levels of completion. They gave them what they were capable of comprehending. Some could only digest milk while others had a craving for meat. All the Apostles were capable of addressing the need at hand. That doesn't limit them to a partial or different message.