Pauline Dispensationalism

[Aliya]

Aliya, As I think you know, I have been open-minded and have prayerfully considered this point of view. There are many things that trouble me about it, which have caused me to reject it. Some of them are contained in your post here.

---Yes, Paul is the only scripture writer who tells us to "rightly divide the word". 2 Timothy 2:15 is the only place in scripture where this Greek word is found and it seems to me that you are hanging your whole emphasis on this phrase, taking it to mean that it means to separate scripture from scripture. I can not see from the context that this was the intent of the phrase.

---You keep identifying Paul as the scripture writer. It is my belief that Paul merely pinned the words that God gave him to write. I believe that God not only inspired the ideas, but He inspired (breathed) every word of scripture. It makes no difference who pinned the words--they are God's words.

--As blessedinhim went through the book of Acts, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, she found so many contradictions of your view that I felt that the Lord was showing me that it had no merit. (Especially the fact that Paul preached to both Gentiles and Jews, and the other apostles preached to both Jews and Gentiles). Neither you nor God's Trombone interjected to explain the contradictions. I have to admit that there are many things in the books of James through Jude that are troubling to me and your "Pauline" explanation seemed like an easy answer to it all, I'm far from being convinced that it is the right answer. I want the right answer. My mind and my heart are still open. I seek truth--nothing more and nothing less (I'm sure you do too). It seems that you are sure that you have found it. It really troubles me that you did not interject your pov, and support it with scripture when blessedinhim was doing this study in Acts. I'm sure there will be many more lively discussions on this topic...I will be there, seeking and praying for understanding and discernment.
God bless you.

Carolyn,

Thanks for your points of concern. All scripture is inspired by God, I fully agree with that. Paul's words are no less or more inspired than Moses', John's, Peter's, Luke's etc. Paul's letters also give new information not found in other scriptures (my list has about 2/3 of these items; I found this list made by someone else and I haven't disproved the ones I had not come up with on my own):


The Body of Christ – a living organism: 1 Cor. 12:12, 27; Eph. 4:12-16.

Its heavenly position: Eph. 1:3, 2:5-6; Col. 3:1-3.

Christ as Head (not Messiah or King): Eph. 1:19-23; Col. 1:18.

Body chosen in Christ before world began: Romans 16:25; Eph. 1:4-11, 3:5-9.

Jew and Gentile on same level before God: Romans 10:12, 11:32; Eph. 2:16, 17.

Gentiles blessed through Israel’s obstinacy: Acts 13:44-46, Romans 11:28-32.

Gentiles blessed through Israel’s fall: Acts 28:27, 28; Romans 11:11, 12, 15.

Mystery concerns individuals (not nations): Romans 10:12, 13; 2 Cor. 5:14-17.

Spiritual blessings in the heavenlies: Eph. 1:3; Col. 3:1-3.

Explains Christ’s absence from the earth: Eph. 1:20-23; Col. 3:1-3.

Salvation by Grace through Faith alone: Romans 3:21-26, 4:5; Eph. 2:8,9.

Mystery committed to Paul (not the 12): Eph. 3:1-3, 8, 9; Col. 1:24-27.

Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Body: 1 Thess. 4:13-18.


I have searched the scriptures and thus far don't find the twelve speaking of these things (though I think 2 Peter 3 supports point 10 - Peter points the reader to Paul and what he is teaching, and supports the delay in Christ's return).

As far as Paul preaching to Jews and Gentiles, I have never used that as a point one way or the other. That was from information BIH was posting, but I don't have the same position as the author of those articles. Several of Paul's letters speak to him going to the Jew first, then the Gentiles. Whatever gentleman's agreement he had with Peter, James and John may have been limited to the Jerusalem believers and not to Jews in the dispersion.

I said before, and repeat here, Acts is a difficult book to base doctrine upon. I don't do it and wouldn't recommend that others try it, either. That was BIH's approach - it is not mine. I only told her she had to move ahead to Paul - and I specifically encouraged her to look at the points of doctrine, which were not to be found in Acts. To understand Paul, I suggest reading the doctrine he wrote to the seven churches and the pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus. Acts does have many other wonderful uses, especially with regards to Israel's rejection of the Messiah.

As far as it being an easy answer - God is not the author of confusion. We're supposed to be able to understand this. When we divide the Body of Christ/mystery/grace from the Jewish plan/prophecy/law, things do make sense, not just for now, but for the end times prophecies.

I continue to study, to compare scripture with scripture, and yes, even to the horror of others here, I look at what is NOT said as well as what is. It is significant to me that Peter, James and John do not speak of the things listed above that Paul claims were revealed to him. It is significant to me that some of what Peter, James and John say is not repeated by Paul.

I hope that you continue on, comparing scripture with scripture. If you come to other conclusions, I am also a Truth-seeker and would gladly listen.

Aliya

[CarolLyn]

Thanks, Aliya, for the list. I'll look these things up.

In regard to "rightly dividing the word", I agree that certain scriptures are referring to different dispensations and don't apply to us in this dispensation. There were many things in the OT that applied to the Kingdom dispensation. So it makes sense that some NT scriptures would also apply to the Kingdom dispensation. I guess the problem I have is in knowing which scriptures do, or do not, refer to this dispensation. I don't believe we can simply go by 'who wrote it'. Rather, I think we must carefully consider the context and compare scripture with scripture to discern these things. To 'write off' entire books of the bible as irrelevant today, or to say that baptism is no longer required (just because it was not stated by Paul to be necessary) is going way, way too far. I believe there are many (actually most) of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels that are applicable to this dispensation. And likewise, many things in the books of Peter, James and John. God bless! :)

[Aliya]

To 'write off' entire books of the bible as irrelevant today, or to say that baptism is no longer required (just because it was not stated by Paul to be necessary) is going way, way too far. I believe there are many (actually most) of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels that are applicable to this dispensation. And likewise, many things in the books of Peter, James and John. God bless! :)

I want to clarify one point, Carolyn: I NEVER EVER said that any book of the bible was irrelevant. Please do not put words in my mouth or read into what I am saying. All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. I am sorry you don't see what I'm saying, and I wish I were in a better position to clearly show it, but I'm afraid I just don't have the skill required (yet). But saying we see parts of the bible as irrelevant misrepresents this position and may lead other people reading this astray. The dispensational position is to divide prophecy/law/jewish program from mystery/Grace/Body of Christ rather than at Acts chapter 2.

I wish you all the best in your study
Aliya

[CarolLyn]

I want to clarify one point, Carolyn: I NEVER EVER said that any book of the bible was irrelevant. Please do not put words in my mouth or read into what I am saying.
I wish you all the best in your study
Aliya

I'm so sorry, Aliya. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth or insinuate that you have a view that you don't have. What I actually said is...
To 'write off' entire books of the bible as irrelevant today, or to say that baptism is no longer required .....
I said "as irrelevant today". By "today" I meant that it is irrelevant for this dispensation. Which would infer that it is relevant for another dispensation (such as the Millennial Kingdom). Have I misunderstood your position? If so, please correct me and please accept my apology for misstating your position. God bless you, brother. :)

[God's Trombone]

God bless you, brother.
07-13-2007 04:45 PM

Aliya is a Sister!:)(I hope I am correct, but that is what i think)

[CarolLyn]

Aliya is a Sister!:)(I hope I am correct, but that is what i think)

Oh, thanks, GT. God bless you too! :hug

[God's Trombone]

Here is the first installment of my review. I am up to the last chapters of Acts and Romans 8.

My notes as I reviewed are meant to focus on the questions raised in this thread as to the existence
of two separate Gospels during the time Acts covers.

Begin Survey:
Pauline Doctrine survey

A reading of Acts juxtaposed with the letters of Paul

Acts 1:3- Kingdom of God mentioned. Context is Christ after resurrection speaking concerning the prophetic kingdom on earth. Prophecy doesn't
ever mention any other kingdom than that on earth.
3:1- Continuation of temple worship by the kingdom saints. They didn't abandon Judaism.

3:18- Suffering of Christ was prophesied, But not the Mystery. Cannot be both prophecied and hidden so it is wrong to claim otherwise. Conclude from this: Prophecy and Mystery are separate and different.

In this Gospel(before Paul's revelation) their sins are not blotted out until the day of
the Lord (Christ's return.) Sins are "remitted" until the Atonement.

Chap. 6- Stephen (falsely)charged with subverting Moses law. (No reason

given.)

7:38 "Church" mentioned by Stephen. Here Means called out ones in the wilderness. Not church of Acts nor today. many "churches" in scripture.


7:51- "Uncircumcised in heart" and ears means no faith in Christ.
:53- They have not kept the law either.
:56- Some interpret as judging of Israel here.
Acts 8- Scattering of saints from Jerusalem except the apostles.
Samaria recvd the word. 8:14
9:10 Ananias was a disciple of the 12 in Damascus. His vision of Christ only told him what to do, didn't reveal the mystery told to Paul. We don't
know if Christ wanted Saul water baptized, but he was since at the tme it was required of believers. Certainly Christ didnt tell Ananias to water
baptize Saul in the scriptural record.
9:26- Saul in Jerusalem. Not said that he wanted to become one(in doctrine) of them, only that he "assayed to join himself to the disciples."

Acts 10:28- Peter learned from vse. 10:15 not to call Gents "unclean."However this is not a full revelation to Peter that Jew and Gentile will become One before God. Peter doesnt have that revelation at that time, as verse 35 shows. In other words, as long as Cornelius came to feet of Messiah and believed, obeyed the law etc. God wud

accept him. This is clearly not the full revelation Paul had.

This is sustantially why we insist that at that time there existed two "Gospels" , two kinds of "good news." That revealed to Paul, and what

had been previously revealed to Peter in prophecy and from Jesus' lips.

Indeed, if it had been revealed to Peter in prophecy or from Jesus, why did Christ reveal it to Paul and say it was hidden from the foundation of the world? (Rom. 16:25)

Cornelius had been devout toward the God of Israel, had given alms and prayed to the Jew's God. Peter recognized that (!0:35)

Up til then, Peter had gone to no Gentiles with his Gospel. He had been told by Christ that after the nation of Israel had come to Messiah, then

they shud go on to the Gentiles. Peter knew that Israel had rejected Christ.Peter was witnessing with his own eyes in Acts 10 that Christ would save Gentiles anyway regardless of Israel's failure. This prepared him for the council in Acts 15, in which he helped Paul's cause
among the Gentiles. Paul's cause having no connection with having to become a Jew to be sa ved, but was founded upon the revelation of
the Gospel of Christ revealed only to Paul.

Acts 10:36- Peter refers not to Paul's gospel here but to what John the baptist and Peter preached. quote verse.36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

Acts 10:45- Holy Spirit falls on Gents as did on Jews at Pentecost. Peter's group "astonished."
Why wud they be "astonished" if they had the same message of "no difference" that Paul had?

To be continued God willing.

[God's Trombone]

Acts 13:39-Acts 13:39-43 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Paul here preaches the Gospel of grace, i.e., salvation apart from the observance of the law, to both Jew and Gentile.

Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

Verse 46- Paul and Barnabas turn to the Gentiles of the area.

Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Again, this is clearly not the same Gospel Peter preached to Israel in Acts 2, 3,4 etc. His was not addressed to Gentiles at all.

Chap. 14-In Iconium, Paul and Barnabus again go into the synagogues of the Jews with their message.
14:4- Scripture calls Paul and Barnabus "Apostles."
14:21,22-Here, "Kingdom of God" is used again, but this time, consistent with Paul's Gospel, it would appear not to
refer to the earthly kingdom to be established future, but to the present Kingdom of God which includes the heavens.

LEAVE ACTS AND GO TO
GALATIANS:(Said to Paul's first letter)

1:17- Paul went to Arabia, then returned to Damascus.
Paul's revelation was for both Jew and Gentile.
Fourteen years after meeting Peter, Paul went to Jerusalem BY REVELATION with Barnabus and Titus.(refer to Acts 15 for this visit.)

2:7-Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Introduction of Paul's Gospel (uncircumcision) as different than Peter's Gospel of the circumcision.

See Acts 1337 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.Thus, Paul preached that the law cannot save.
2:8-Peter toward Israel, Paul toward Gentiles.Obviously not same messages. One was for the circumcision and the other for the uncircumcision.

2:9Galatians 2:9 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 circumcision.

Staring one in the face is the "decommissioning " of the 12 to go to the whole world , or "all nations." Clearly, in verse 2:9 they bound themselves to go only to the circumcision.

Galatians 2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

The reason for the request for relief to be given to the saints at Jerusalem (remember the poor) is that those who had sold all they owned were now poor because of the delay in the return of the Lord.

To be continued.

[God's Trombone]

CHRIST THE SON OF GOD
by Cornelius R. Stam

St. Paul opens his Epistle to the Romans by stating that the Lord Jesus Christ was "declared to be the Son of God with power," or "powerfully declared to be the Son of God... by the resurrection from the dead" (1:4).

In Psa. 2:7, we have Christ, in prophecy, saying:

"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto Me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee."

Our Lord was, of course, eternally one with the Father, but the word "begotten" here comes from Israel’s laws, referring to the time when the child was officially declared to be the father’s full-grown son.

But what day was He referring to? On what day did the Father officially proclaim:

"This day have I begotten Thee"?

The answer is found in Acts 13:33, where the Apostle states that God "raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee."

So our Lord was officially -- and powerfully -- declared to be the Son of God at His resurrection from the dead. But what did Paul mean in II Tim. 2:7,8, where he said:

"Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL." The answer is that the twelve had proclaimed Christ as the Son of David, to sit on David’s throne. Theirs was "the gospel of the kingdom." But when the King and His kingdom were rejected, God raised up another apostle, Paul, to proclaim "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24).

Christ was, indeed, raised from the dead to sit on David’s throne, and this will yet come to pass, but Paul has a message for us, here and now: that Christ was raised from the dead to certify our justification and to become the Head of "the Church which is His Body."

I have included this because it is a reinforcement of what I am showing in this thread, i.e., that Peter preached the resurrection of Christ to sit on David's throne, and Paul preached the resurrection for Christ "becoming sin for us" and dying our death. This is the mystery revealed only to Paul.

[God's Trombone]

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

What is this "truth of the Gospel" Paul mentions in this verse? Well, Peter had learned in Acts 10 from God "not to call any man unclean." Here,in
Paul's area of influence, Antioch- Peter stopped eating with the Gentiles that he had been eating with before the group from Jerusalem came to visit.
As I understand this incident- Paul finds Peter's action blameworthy in that he was wavering in what he knew to be right only because of the presence of the Jerusalem "law keepers." Those in the group from Jerusalem would not eat with Gentiles.

2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Paul declares that if he (Paul) goes back under law it is a sin.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Paul teaches his Gospel here. DO NOT MIX LAW AND GRACE! Peter, while living among Paul's Gentile believers "mixed" law in by going to eat at the table with the circumcision people from Jerusalem.
Paul included the story of Peter coming to Antioch as part of his lesson to the Galatians who were also being tempted to go back under the law.

Gal. 3:1-31 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Those to whom Paul writes were Jews from the synagogues Paul had preached in and also some Gentiles. Paul always preached the same Gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16)to everyone- Jew and Gentile alike.

So what then was the circumcision or Kingdom of heaven on earth Gospel preached by the 12 Apostles?
It was the message of the (prophetic) scriptures, i.e., Christ would come and defeat all their enemies, and forgive their sins.

Gal. 5:1-3
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Paul testifies that anyone who is circumcised is required to do the whole law.

Verse 3 above shows that those of the circumcision , although believers in Christ, still followed the law, had to endure to the end to be saved etc. A DIFFERENT BALL OF WAX than what Paul was preaching.

Paul's Galatians converts were being troubled by "Judaizers" who told them they must be circumcised.

Next- Back to Acts 15.