Pauline Dispensationalism

[tekton]

Of this apostle I have spoken at large in the notes on the preceding book, and especially in the observations at the close of the ninth chapter, to which I beg leave to refer the reader. It will be sufficient to state here, that Saul, (afterwards called Paul), was born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, of Jewish parents, who possessed the right of Roman citizens; (see the note on Act_22:28); that, when young, he was sent to Jerusalem for the purpose of receiving a Jewish education; that he was there put under the tuition of the famous Rabbi Gamaliel, and was incorporated with the sect of the Pharisees, of whose system he imbibed all the pride, self-confidence, and intolerance; and distinguished himself as one of the most inveterate enemies of the Christian cause; but, being converted by a most singular interposition of Divine Providence and grace, he became one of the most zealous promoters and successful defenders of the cause which he had before so inveterately persecuted.
Though this epistle is directed to the Romans, yet we are not to suppose that Romans, in the proper sense of the word, are meant; but rather those who dwelt at Rome, and composed the Christian Church in that city: that there were among these Romans, properly such, that is heathens who had been converted to the Christian faith, there can be no doubt; but the principal part of the Church in that city seems to have been formed from Jews, sojourners at Rome, and from such as were proselytes to the Jewish religion.
When, or by whom, the Gospel was first preached at Rome cannot be ascertained. Those who assert that St. Peter was its founder, can produce no solid reason for the support of their opinion. Had this apostle first preached the Gospel in that city, it is not likely that such an event would have been unnoticed in the Acts of the Apostles, where the labors of St. Peter are particularly detailed with those of St. Paul, which indeed form the chief subject of this book. Nor is it likely that the author of this epistle should have made no reference to this circumstance, had it been true. Those who say that this Church was founded by these two apostles conjointly, have still less reason on their side; for it is evident, from Rom_1:8, etc., that St. Paul had never been at Rome previously to his writing this epistle. It is most likely that no apostle was employed in this important work, and that the Gospel was first preached there by some of those persons who were converted at Jerusalem on the day of pentecost; for we find, from Act_2:10, that there were at Jerusalem strangers of Rome, Jews, and proselytes; and these, on their return, would naturally declare the wonders they had witnessed, and proclaim that truth by which they themselves had received salvation. Of Rome itself, then the metropolis of the world, a particular account has been given in the note on Act_28:16 (note); to which the reader is requested to refer.
The occasion of writing this epistle may be easily collected from the epistle itself. It appears that St. Paul had been made acquainted with all the circumstances of the Christians at Rome, by Aquila and Priscilla, (see Rom_16:3), and by other Jews who had been expelled from Rome by the decree of Claudius, (mentioned Act_18:2); and, finding that they consisted partly of heathens converted to Christianity, and partly of Jews who had, with many remaining prejudices, believed in Jesus as the true Messiah, and that many contentions arose from the claims of the Gentile converts to equal privileges with the Jews, and from the absolute refusal of the Jews to admit these claims unless the Gentile converts became circumcised, he wrote to adjust and settle these differences.

I think this may bare some relevance on this study if what Mr Clarke stated about the church at Rome being founded by those from Rome converted on the day of Pentecost and not by Paul himself.

[graceforme]

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? 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? 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. 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.

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.


Actually, there is no evidence in Scripture that the disciples who understood grace preached it to the churches. They sent Paul off to preach his message to the gentiles with their blessings, but they continued to minister to the Jewish people, and not of grace. Maybe they realized that the Jewish people would not understand grace at all. (Much like today)

We will indeed stand before the judgment seat to account for our deeds, but not to be judged as to whether we go to heaven or hell, but to receive rewards. We can't lose our salvation, but we can lose rewards in heaven.

I'm starting to get confused in my thinking, too, and I fear that I am beginning to repeat myself without making sense. If this is the case, please let me know and I'll take a "sabbatical."

God Bless.

[BlessedinHim]

There is a lot of information here. And so much more.

[BlessedinHim]

"ONE-NATURISM" -- Before proceeding further with our personal history, we would do well to consider briefly the "one-nature" error.

Wesleyan One-Naturism - This is the typical old Pentecostal belief: Total Depravity does not mean that human nature is essentially and completely evil, but that every part of human nature is damaged and infected by inherited Adamic sin.

It is insisted that there is no new nature involved at conversion, but rather the impartation of spiritual life that regenerates the Adamic nature.

This is the principle of eradication: All sin is eradicated from the sinful Adamic nature. The Wesleyan "pure heart," is gained when the "second blessing" experience of the "Pentecostal flame" consumes the sinful propensities of the old Adamic nature. Presto, new divine nature!

[BlessedinHim]

Arminian One-Naturism - Another type of "one-naturism" is set forth by Sidlow Baxter in his A New Call to Holiness. This holiness theory is that of amelioration of the sinful Adamic nature.

Dr. Baxter writes, "Sin is a diffused infection of thought, desire, motive, impulse, inclination, and even of instinct, right through the moral nature. From the moment the Holy Ghost fully possesses us, He begins to correct, purify, refine, inbreathe and renovate all the qualities, tempers, urges, propensities, and functions of the mind, the sensations, and the will. That is how holiness begins and continues to be inwrought" (p. 116).

This is the humanistic theory of change in contradiction to the scriptural principle of exchange.

[BlessedinHim]

Covenant One-Naturism - The most prevalent and insidious type of "one-naturism" today is that held by Covenant theology. Through the error of considering Romans 6:6 to be actual (condition), rather than positional, it is claimed that the old Adamic man is actually crucified, dead, and gone--eradicated. Those holding this view are forced, however, to admit to indwelling sin in the Christian. Some teach that it is simply a residual influence left over from pre-salvation days.

Dr. Martyn-Lloyd-Jones and Dr. Jay Adams refer to indwelling sin as "old habits." Dr. John MacArthur terms it the "old coat of humanness." Dr. Charles Solomon says it is the "energy force of residual sin."

Another erroneous term used for the indwelling old man is "condition of flesh." The one-nature proponents separate the alleged eradicated old man from the indwelling "flesh."

However, the Word teaches that "flesh" is a person, as well as a condition. "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh" (Gen. 6:3). "Fathers of our flesh" (Heb. 12:9) sire progeny of flesh. Belief in the eradication of the old man tends to relieve the Christian of much of his responsibility concerning the activity of his indwelling Adamic life and nature. He is wont to place the blame for his sinning upon Satan, and upon "residual tendencies" developed prior to salvation.

Here is the crux of the matter: it is not possible for the source of sin (the old Adamic man) to be eradicated, while retaining sin, the product of that sinful source. Effect must have a cause! If you have sin, you have its source, i.e., the Adamic old man.

Paul exhorts the believer to "put off [by faith] the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts" (Eph. 4:22). He could not insist that the believer put off that which is not in residence!

"He that hath the Son, hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (1 John 5:12). Similarly, he that hath the Adamic old man, hath sin; he that hath not the Adamic old man, hath not sin. The principle of cause and effect is irrevocable. According to this eradication theory, Christian parents (sans the Adamic nature, yet possessing residual sin) produce sinful progeny, but without Adamic life! Evidently no need of Romans Six for such offspring, when saved.

[BlessedinHim]

I believe that last 3 posts here are indicating the error of each thought. They dont think we have the old man still there while we have the new man.

When we are saved, we then have both natures residing in us, one at enmity with the other. that is what Paul was saying : What he does not want to do, he does, what he does want to do, he doesnt. O wretched man that I am.....


Romans 7 (King James Version)
18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

[graceforme]

You are so right - we must battle the flesh and crucify it every day. I have had much discussion with someone who truly believes that he is absolutely "perfect" because Scripture says that all scripture is given by inspiration......so that man may be perfect, throughly furnished.... (2 Tim. 3:15-16. But, this person also believes that his "perfection" is the result of what HE does, rather than the result of what CHRIST did on the cross.

The word "perfect" in this passage simply means "mature spiritually", not "perfect" as Christ is perfect. Simple misinterpretation of the context of the passage.

I find much error in the interpretation of the word perfect in the Bible. We can never be "perfect" as God is perfect. Humanly speaking, we can never achieve that level of perfection, not this side of glory. It would be arrogant for me to think I could. Most of the folks who believe in perfection also believe it is because of what they do, rather than what Christ did. We must never lose focus on the fact that our salvation is not about us, but rather about what Christ did.

Many blessings to you.

[God's Trombone]

Where?

Blessedinhim,

Stanford stated, among other errors, that the church the body of Christ began at Pentecost (Acts 2).

As I have shown from scripture in this thread- that is against what the scripture says.

None of what Christ told Paul about the Body of Christ was known by the apostles in Acts 2. They never preached Paul's message to the Gentiles.

[God's Trombone]

So far, I don't see where anyone has explained the difference between the views of Modern Dispensationalism and Pauline Dispensationalism. I don't think it matters so much when each began, but rather what each believes and what they base it on. Since you seem to be familiar with both views, I wonder if you could explain the difference and why they are different?

CarolLyn, My point concerning differences in "Modern vs. Pauline dispensationalism" is this: Paul's writings= his
"dispensationalism" just as Christ's words= His "dispensationalism." That is different from so-called "Modern dispy" because the well know bible teachers of the 19th century largely failed to fully understand or "take - in" what Paul wrote.
It is likely that even today, the message is not completely or perfectly understood by most. We just keep on keeping on obeying II Tim. 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


Here is something we need to clear up. When a Jew gets saved during the church age dispensation, does he become a part of the church?

Yes indeed.

Galatians 3:28 says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Also, Colossians 3:11 says " a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

Yes. Don't overlook that this is Paul's presentation of the Gospel of Christ, and that Jew and Gentile were not "one new man" in the Gospel of the Kingdom Christ taught Peter, and which Peter preached before and after Pentecost.

Since believing Jews and believing Gentiles are one body in Christ, and that one body is the church, then the books of Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, James, 1, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation should not be rejected as irrelevant to the church.

Again, be careful here: the books you list are not from Paul's Gospel but from Peter's kingdom/circumcision Gospel. Therefore we read them as what they are, and not doctrine "to" us.

Whether these books are written to Jewish or Gentile believers makes no difference.

That it DOES make a difference explains the confusion today. We must get our doctrine from Paul. Christ gave us Paul as our Apostle. Romans 11:1313 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:


They are part of the church and therefore what the apostles wrote to them is relevant to the church.

As I explained and showed scripture- they are of the circumcision saints and didn't get saved under Paul's message (church-the body of Christ)but under Peter's (the little flock or kingdom saints.

I don't think Israel fully rejected Christ. After Peter's first message following Pentecost, we are told in Acts 2: 41. "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." Then, after Peter's second sermon, we are told in Acts 4:4 " But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand." This took place in Jerusalem. These people were primarily Jews who were saved. The Bible describes that first congregation of believers this way in Acts 4:32. And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them. 33. And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.

This sounds to me like a vibrant, unified, Spirit filled church. I wish the churches of our day could be described like this!

You are describing the Jewish saints that would have gone into to kingdom had Christ returned to earth then. They had power and signs and wonders, kept nothing for themselves, prepared for the awful tribulation when God's wrath would be poured out on Christ's enemies. However, it was not God's will at that time, and instead, Christ from heaven revealed to Paul the previously hidden plan for all men to be saved, Jew and Gentile. God set aside the nation of Israel until this age of grace ends.