PDA

View Full Version : Pauline Dispensationalism


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

BlessedinHim
June 28th, 2007, 07:32 PM
JEWISH FEASTS

There are certain advantages for a Hebrew Christian in keeping some or all of the Feasts. First, they are good opportunities to share the faith with unbelieving Jewish people [rank accommodation], showing them how the particular Feast points to the Messiahship of Christ (p. 107).

Dr. Chafer pointed in the scriptural direction: "To the Jew and Gentile alike the Gospel is to be shared and, without reference to any former estate or promises, they are to be confronted with the glory of heavenly realities. All Jewish advantage and Gentile disadvantage is set aside to the end that the heavenly purpose may be accomplished" (IV: 320).


Secondly, the Feast presents a good way of identifying ourselves with Jewish people. This matter of identification is very important as a testimony to the Jewishness of our faith (p. 176).

Here is the consummate compromise of all mission work to the Jews: “Stooping” to conquer the poor lost Jew—who needs the living witness to Christianity to win him to the glorified Son of God. If the Hebrew Christian knew of his identification with the Lord Jesus Christ in His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, he would not be so eager to identify with earthly Judaism.

Thirdly, the Feasts provide a basis for teaching Jewish culture and history. This is especially important for instilling Jewishness in the children of Hebrew Christians.

The more Jewishness for the children, the greater the barrier and prejudice for them regarding Christianity.


Fourthly, the Feasts serve as an opportunity to worship God and to thank him for what he has done in the course of Jewish history; and for what he has done for us in the Messiah’s fulfillment of the Jewish Holy Days (p. 107).

Although all Scripture is profitable, all Scripture is not directed to, nor incumbent upon, members of the Body of Christ. The glorified Bridegroom speaks to His beloved Bride primarily through the Pauline Church Epistles.


Dr. Chafer wrote long ago, “All Scripture is not of primary application to a particular person or class of persons which the Bible designates as such. All Scripture is not about angels, nor is it all about the Gentiles. In like manner, all Scripture is not addressed to the Jew, nor is it all addressed to the Christian.” (Dispensationalism, p. 417).


Mr. Paul Wilson states, “A Christian cannot pick up his Bible and read just anywhere and find direction for his feet. If he does not read discerningly, he may think it his duty to help rebuild a temple in Jerusalem today, or do any of thousands of things that would be totally inconsistent with his position as a Christian, whose life, commonwealth, and hopes are in heaven.”


Remove Paul, neglect him, or fail to build a Pauline and hence a Christ-centered life or church on dispensational truth, and there is little left apart from the laws of Moses and of the Millennial Kingdom. There is nothing in the entire Scriptures concerning Christian growth that Paul did not set forth—and that on the heavenly plane.


Dr. Newell pointed out that “Paul received all his teaching from heaven, from the Lord Jesus Christ in glory, rather than from Jesus on earth in His pre-Cross Jewish connections. Paul’s Gospel of Glory has nothing Jewish about it—whether for birth, or for growth.”


When Hebrew Christians refer to Paul, they endeavor to keep him as Jewish as possible. But Paul repudiated all that was of the flesh. “If any other man thinketh that he hath reasons for which he might trust in the flesh, I more; circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal [without knowledge], persecuting the Church; touching the [self] righteousness which is in the law, blameless.


“But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them as refuse, that I may win Christ” (Phil. 3:4–8).


“That I may know Him” (Phil. 3:10). Here Paul was referring to the glorified Lord Jesus Christ. He, and our heavenly position in Him, will never be found in anything Judaistic.


Dr. Chafer wrote: “Much divine blessing is determined for Israel, all of which is anticipated in her covenants and prophecies; but no covenant or prophecy brings that nation into heavenly citizenship, or makes it the Bride of Christ” (IV: 142).


Dr. Newell concurs: “Paul’s Gospel is the Gospel of the ascended Lord Jesus Christ, and of God as the One who raised Him from among the dead and is now working on resurrection ground only. Christ appeared to Paul as the ascended One, outside Jerusalem, independent of the Twelve, and apart from Judaism absolutely. The Church has no connection with Israel whatsoever!” (Galatians, p. 24).


This distinction is the hallmark of Pauline Dispensationalism!


Donald Grey Barnhouse stated, “While freeing believers from the bondage of Rome, the Reformation brought them back, in large measure, under the bondage of Sinai. The Church came out of the Middle Ages like Lazarus from the tomb—alive but bound in graveclothes. The Reformers took away one set of bindings, but bound believers in another, the Law—and this has atrophied the spiritual life of multitudes.”

kenod
June 28th, 2007, 07:39 PM
Dr. Chafer wrote long ago, “All Scripture is not of primary application to a particular person or class of persons which the Bible designates as such. All Scripture is not about angels, nor is it all about the Gentiles. In like manner, all Scripture is not addressed to the Jew, nor is it all addressed to the Christian.” (Dispensationalism, p. 417).

Do you believe Jesus' teaching, such as the Sermon on the Mount, is not meant for Gentile Christians?

Aliya
June 28th, 2007, 08:23 PM
Do you believe Jesus' teaching, such as the Sermon on the Mount, is not meant for Gentile Christians?

I love the Sermon on the Mount. I love that whole section of Matthew - chapters 20-24 at least are all about the coming kingdom. It has a lot of great teaching, but for doctrine to hang your hat on, it is primarily for the Jews who will enter the Millenial Kingdom. The twelve of course thought they would be in the kingdom - they thought the tribulation would start shortly after Jesus rose and that he would return in glory to destroy their enemies and set up the kingdom.

We are sitting more or less where the twelve were during Jesus's earthly ministry... we think that kingdom is just around the corner too.

BlessedinHim
June 28th, 2007, 10:18 PM
All scripture is given for inspiration and instruction.

Also, calling us Gentile Christians is about the same as saying Jewish Christians. If you really think about it. Once we have received the Word and Salvation, we are no longer Jew or Gentile, we are Christians. Once you are converted, you are no longer who you once were, for through adoption, we can now say abba, Father.

kenod
June 28th, 2007, 10:36 PM
All scripture is given for inspiration and instruction.

Also, calling us Gentile Christians is about the same as saying Jewish Christians. If you really think about it. Once we have received the Word and Salvation, we are no longer Jew or Gentile, we are Christians. Once you are converted, you are no longer who you once were, for through adoption, we can now say abba, Father.

:thumb

HeIsEnough
June 29th, 2007, 05:49 AM
It has a lot of great teaching, but for doctrine to hang your hat on, it is primarily for the Jews who will enter the Millenial Kingdom. The twelve of course thought they would be in the kingdom - they thought the tribulation would start shortly after Jesus rose and that he would return in glory to destroy their enemies and set up the kingdom.


I'm sorry, but this is not correct on a couple of levels. You are correct in that some thought they were going to enter the kingdom.

For one, it better be something you 'hang your hat on' because it is teaching you actually need to live today. Giving to the poor, not worrying about tomorrow, all these are echoed by Paul in some manner. Which brings up another point, Jesus was actually preparing them not to enter the kingdom on earth, even if they thought they were. You don't say the things He said to someone about to have every tear wiped from their eyes and about to enter glorious perfection by telling them their life will involve suffering, so love your enemies and quit worrying about tomorrows struggles when today has enough and tomorrow's will be there waiting.

A more accurate and true picture of the Sermon on the Mount was that Jesus was 'filling up' the law of the letter by teaching the law of the Spirit. The law of God will never change in the sense that murder will always be murder. However what Christ was saying was that it starts in the heart with hate. As it stood, one could conceivably harbor hate and not murder, and technically think they obeyed God's law. No, Jesus took the law and amplified it a hundred fold.

I'm concerned that those who view the gospels like this, might forgo putting Christ's words into practice. (which He actually confers a blessing to those who do) I'm pretty sure you have put these into practice Aliya, but you send confusing messages.

The Sermon on the Mount is the most beautiful picture of how a christian can walk in this world, and Paul reiterates these teachings in his epistles. Plus, the actual words of Christ are a balm to my soul, and confirm nearly everything that happens in my life, how I should view my life properly, how I should interact with my neighbor. I hope you re-read these and look at His words anew, forgetting this doctrinal anomaly coming from the pauline viewpoint. For no other reason than that I know they are true for you as they are for me.

HeIsEnough
June 29th, 2007, 08:27 AM
....and here is the example of one of the 'mysteries' of the kingdom which was heralded by Christ, revealed in it's full implications by Paul.


Luke 17

The Coming of the Kingdom of God

20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."


Colossians 1:27

To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

The kingdom was offered to Israel, at the same time God knew me and you would be here in 2007 talking about these things. The truth is that this interval of time between the coming physical kingdom and the life we live in the kingdom right now, was planned all along.

tekton
June 29th, 2007, 08:40 AM
The expression “kingdom of heaven” is used only by Matthew. In the connections where he uses this expression, the other three historians uniformly say “kingdom of God.” This fact shows that the two expressions are equivalent. Explaining the former by the latter, we conclude that the “kingdom of heaven” is not heaven, but simply a kingdom of God, without regard to locality. This kingdom is also called by Christ his own, as the Son of man; for he says, “There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.“1717Matt. xvi. 28. The Apostle Paul also speaks of the “kingdom of God's dear Son,”1818Col. i. 13. and says “He must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet.”19191 Cor. xv. 25.

Of the kingdom of God, then, Jesus is the king; hence the time at which he became a king is the time at which “the kingdom of Christ and of God”2020Eph. v. 5. began. Furthermore, as it was Jesus, the Son of man, who was made the king, it is evident that the kingdom could not have commenced till after he became the Son of man. This consideration at once refutes the theory which dates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of Abraham.

But it is not only Jesus the Son of man, but Jesus who died, that was made king. “We see Jesus,” says Paul, “who was made a little lower than the angels, on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.”2121Heb. ii. 9. It was after his death, and not during his natural life, that he was made a king. It is necessary, therefore, to reject the other theory, which locates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of John the Immerser.

Finally, it was after his resurrection and his ascension to heaven that he was made a king. For Paul says, “Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore, God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”2222Phil. ii. 8, 11. It is here we are to locate that glorious scene described by David and by Paul, in which God said to him, “Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.”2323Ps. cx. 1; Heb. 1:13. He “sat down on the right hand of the throne of God,”2424Heb. xii. 2. and the Father said, “Let all the angels of God worship him.”2525Heb. i. 6. At this 14word, among the gathering and circling hosts of heaven, every knee was bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is “Lord of lord and King of kings.” It was then that the kingdom of God was inaugurated in heaven; and it was in immediate anticipation of it, with all things in readiness and waiting, that Jesus said to his disciples, as he was about to ascend on high, “All authority, in heaven and on earth is given to me.”

Having now fixed the time at which the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven, we are prepared to inquire when it began to be administered on earth. It began, of course, with the first administrative act on earth, and this was the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost. On that occasion, Peter says, “This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. Therefore, being to the right hand of God exalted, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear.” “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.“2626Acts ii. 32–36. This event is here assumed as the proof of his exaltation, and the history shows it to be the first act of the newly-crowned King which took effect on earth. These facts are consistent with no other conclusion than that the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated on earth on the first Pentecost after his ascension.

We might assume that the above argument is conclusive, and here dismiss the subject, but for some passages of Scripture which are supposed to favor a different conclusion. It was said by Jesus, “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it.”2727Luke xvi. 16. Again: “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for your neither go in yourselves, nor will you suffer those who are entering, to go in.”2828Matt. xxiii. 13. And again: “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then is the kingdom of God come to you.”2929Matt. xii. 28. It is argued, from these and kindred passages, that the law and the prophets ceased, as authority, with the beginning of John's ministry; that the kingdom of heaven then began, and men were pressing into it, while Scribes and Pharisees were striving to keep them from entering it; and that Jesus recognizes it as an existing institution, in the remark, “Then is the kingdom of God come to you.”

But there are other passages in the gospels which appear to conflict with these, and are inconsistent with this conclusion. The constant preaching of John, of Jesus, and of the Seventy, was, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand;” eggike, “is near.” Jesus exclaims, “Among them who are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Immerser; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom is greater than he.”3030Matt. xi. 11. Again: “There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.”3131Luke ix. 27. And, finally, the question we are now considering, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom 15to Israel?” It is evident, from these passages, first, that John was not in the kingdom, for otherwise the least in the kingdom could not be greater than he; second, that the generation then living were yet to see the kingdom of God; third, that the disciples themselves were still looking for it in the future. If it be urged, in reference to the first of these conclusions, that the kingdom, of which John was not a citizen, is the kingdom in its future glory, the assumption is refuted by the very next verse in the context: “From the days of John the Immerser till now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.”3232Matt. xi. 12. Whatever may be the true interpretation of these rather obscure words, they certainly can refer to the kingdom of glory.

Now, no hypothesis upon this subject can be accepted which does not provide for a complete reconciliation of these apparently conflicting passages of Scripture. The hypothesis that the kingdom was inaugurated by John can not do so; for, in that case, it is inconceivable that John himself was not a member of it, and equally so that he should constantly preach, “The kingdom of heaven is near.” Again: if it was inaugurated during the personal ministry of Jesus, it is unaccountable that he should state, as a startling fact, that some of those present with him should live to see it, or that the disciples themselves should be ignorant of its existence. This hypothesis, therefore, is incapable of reconciling the various statements on the subject, and must, for this reason, be dismissed.

On the other hand, if we admit, according to the irresistible force of the facts first adduced in this inquiry, that the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven when Jesus was coronated, and that it began to be formally administered on earth on the next succeeding Pentecost, there is no difficulty in fully reconciling all the passages quoted above. It was necessary to the existence of the kingdom on earth not only that the king should be upon his throne, but that he should have earthly subjects. In order, however, that men should acknowledge themselves his subjects the moment that he became their king, it was necessary that they should be previously prepared for allegiance. This preparation could be made in no other way than by inducing men, in advance, to adopt the principles involved in the government, and to acknowledge the right of the proposed ruler to become their king. This was the work of John and of Jesus. When men began, under the influence of their teaching, to undergo this preparation they were, with all propriety of speech, said to be pressing into the kingdom of God. Those who opposed them were striving to keep them from entering the kingdom; and to both parties it could be said, “The kingdom of God is come to you.” It had come to them in the influence of its principles. “From the days of John the Immerser the kingdom of heaven was preached,” not as an existing institution, but in its elementary principles, and by asserting the pretensions of the prospective king. Thus, we find that the various statements in the gospels upon this subject, when harmonized in the only way of which they are 16capable, lead us back to our former conclusion, with increased confidence in its correctness.

We may pursue the same inquiry in an indirect method, by determining when the previous kingdom of God among the Jews terminated. As they both, with their conflicting peculiarities, could not be in formal existence among the same people at the same time, the new one could not begin till the old one terminated. That the law and prophets were until John, Jesus declares; but he does not declare that they continued no longer. On the contrary, he was himself “a minister of the circumcision,”3333Rom. xv. 8. and kept the law till his death. The law and the prophets were, until John, the only revelation from God. Since then the gospel of the coming kingdom was preached in addition to it, and was designed to fulfill the law and the prophets by preparing the people for a “better covenant.” Even the sacrifices of the altar, however, continued, with the sanction of Jesus, up to the very moment that he expired on the cross. Then “the vail of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom,” indicating the end of that dispensation. All the sacrifices being then fulfilled in him, and a new and living way being consecrated for us, not under the vail, as the high priest had gone, but through the vail—that is to say, his flesh3434Heb. x. 20. —he put an end to the priesthood of Aaron,3535Heb. vii. 11, 12. and took out of the way the handwriting of ordinances, nailing it to his cross.3636Col. ii. 14. At the death of Christ, therefore, the old kingdom came to its legal end, and on the next Pentecost the new kingdom began.

Regarding this, now, as a settled conclusion, we proceed to consider, briefly, the Savior's answer to the question which has detained us so long. He said to them, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which God has appointed in his own authority.” By the expression “in his own authority,” I suppose Jesus intended to indicate that the times and seasons of God's purposes are reserved more specially under his own sovereign control, and kept back more carefully from the knowledge of men, than the purposes themselves. It is characteristic of prophesy that it deals much more in facts and the succession of events than in definite dates and periods. The apostles were to be agents in inaugurating the kingdom, but, as proper preparation for their work did not depend upon a foreknowledge of the time, it was not important to reveal it to them.

But it was all-important that they should receive the necessary power: hence Jesus adds, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” The power here promised is not authority, for this he had given them in the commission; but it is that miraculous power to know all the truth, and work miracles in proof of their mission, which he had promised them before his death. He says to them, virtually, It is not for you to know the time at which I will establish my kingdom, but you shall receive power to inaugurate it on earth when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. This is an additional proof that the kingdom was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/mcgarvey/acts.ch1.html

HeIsEnough
June 29th, 2007, 08:57 AM
This fact shows that the two expressions are equivalent.


:nod

My studies have led me to the same conclusion.

BlessedinHim
June 29th, 2007, 09:03 AM
Wow, that says what I have been saying and clarified further and answered some of the questions I had, but didnt ask. What a confirmation. Thank you for that post.