Pauline Dispensationalism

[CarolLyn]

Sorry CarolLyn...it got late when I made my last post, for me anyway. I wanted to get to this this morning. I think Greg did an excellent job identifying a key feature to these discussions and these systematic theologies, "engaged in a conversation with others who disagreed with them, listened to valid criticisms and modified their positions accordingly." Some find weakness in doing something like this, I find a true Berean must do this, especially when you will not compromise with what you have studied, and are fully persuaded of some things. Consequently, I don't necessarily hold to any particular systematic theology, though I will say I am Dispensationalist to the core, and lean in what is described as Revised, with elements of all the others. I see problems with them all, and that will not be conducive to being endeared by any of them. At this point in my life, I think it foolish to think we can extract the in-extractable from God's holy word. As if God should have just shortcuted to "us", and we would have explained it much simpler!

As you research this, you will find the standard debasing of everyone else, to the exclusion of "us", as in we are right "they are all wrong". I'm so tired of this principle between Covenant and Hyper-Dispensationalists, that I am apt to say 'bah' to all of them. Many give much traction to their particular hermeneutic, the most important one which is lost is the Holy Spirit and you, understanding what God is teaching. Here (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:KeDeRWXXjecJ:faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/Biblical_Studies/Eschatology/PDChallenge.doc+progressive+dispensationalism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30&gl=us) is one summation of the differences between, and seems to shed more light then heat, something lost upon the many strident voices out there. Here (http://www.revsdsmith.org/pd.htm) is another mans view which points out issues I have seen as well.

There is much online, but acquiring Bock's book along with reading Chafer's theology is a good place to start. In short, your own understanding must be resolved by points others bring up, then you will more then likely end up with a hybrid theology, and not be liked much by the extremes. Rather than posting much here, I think a new thread would be a good place to start.
Well said, brother. I have read many of your posts over the past few months and found your views to be very insightful and very helpful. I've got the big picture but still trying to sort out some of the details. Thank you for the links. I read the first one in full. It was very helpful. Scanned the second one & will read later. It is in the subject area that I'm trying to sort through now. God bless and thanks again! :thumb

[Beth O]

It may not be as complete as it can be, but here is a start. We can pull this out to a new thread if you think it should be... Yes, please do start a new thread. This one is a bit of a mess.




It is my reading of the chapters of 21 and 22 of the Revelation that there will be no more distinction between peoples. All things are new, including our relationship with each other. Some have made some hay with various words within the text of these last two chapters. I'm not persuaded. It is clear to me the MK is temporal, but not all dispensationalists view it this way, in my understanding. Some have physical Israel remaining that way forever....seemingly. The 'household' of God is one, and God is one with His 'household', or family. The Son has turned over all kingdoms, including the MK. All men have eternal bodies, and we live in an eternal state.

This all made a lot of sense to me! I have been confused by the view of the Jews remaining in the New Jerusalem and the body of Christ remaining in Heaven. I'm also curious about your view of the parable of the 10 virgins. Some believe this is during the 7 year trib and they, (the 10 virgins are Jews) are under the law. The oil is the Holy Spirit and they must remain faithful to hold on to the Holy Spirit. That they are not sealed with the Holy Spirit as we are in this current dispensation. If you start a new thread I can ask this question when appropriate during the discussion.

Mat 25:1-12

[Mechaberean]

Until the ascension, the Holy Ghost was not sealed in man. So, there is another difference between the law and Grace. In the law times, the Holy Spirit came and went as needed or as God saw fit. After the ascension, it is then sealed, never to depart.

After the cross, the penalty for sin had been satisfied, before the cross, the penalty still had not been satisfied, thereby necessitating the sacrifice of animals. In Galatians, they were warned that they could not come to Christ and then return to Judaism and then come back to Christ again, for it would put Christ to an open shame. Galatians 5

Jesus said there is only one way, if there were 2 gospels, would that not make 2 ways?

I can agree there were 2 different groups to preach to, and that would perhaps be cause for 2 different styles of preaching the gospel, but the essence of the gospel is one.---------there is no scripture too back up the sealing after the cross,in fact it wouldnt surprise me that Annanias and Saphira went to Hell. I do believe they died and werent aslepp in the Lord like Lazarus,and thgose in Thessalonians that have gone on before us in the Lord.

[BlessedinHim]

2 Corinthians 1:22 21Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;

22Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
23Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth

Ephesians 1:13 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


Ephesians 4:30 29Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

30And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

We are sealed with the Holy Spirit after the cross.

As far as what happened to Annanias and Saphira, I dont know anything more than that they died because they lied to the Holy Spirit and were buried. The rest is between God and them.

[DJHere]

If Acts II Salvation is the same as ours then why does Ananias and his wife Sapphira fall down and give up the Ghost(Holy Ghost)after Lying to Peter AND the Holy Ghost about how much of THEIR money they gave the Church(they had all things common-This is how they were living then-in fear -like in a real Kingdom-afraid of the wrath of the King).
Acts 5 states:

1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."

9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."

10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Where does this passage state they gave up the Holy Ghost? It doesn't it states they gave up the ghost, in the KJV, they died in the NIV. What does one giving up the ghost imply? One died! So Acts 5 is not stating or teaching they gave up the Holy Ghost but that they died.

I would ask all those reading this to please note the word ghost in verses 5 and 10 is not capitalized. Why? Because it was not referring to the Holy ghost but to the fact they died. That is why we must look at a word in the context it is written.

Why does this state they lied to the Holy Spirit? Because they were under the influence of Satan.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary explains:

In response Peter accused Ananias by saying, Satan has.....filled your heart. The verb translated "filled" is efplerosen, from pleroo, which here has the idea of control or influence. THe same verb is used in the command, "Be filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18). Ananias, a believer, was influenced by Satan, not the Spirit! The fact that Peter, asked, How is it...? implies that Satan had gained control because Ananias had not dealt with some previous sin in his life.

What Greek word is used when Satan indwells a person? eiserchomai.

27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. (John 13)

Acts 5 is not teaching Satan entered into Ananias and Sapphira, but that he influenced them to do wrong.

Does God's word teach Satan tries to influence believers? Yes for Luke 22 records Jesus warned Peter:

31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Was Peter already a believer when Jesus said this? Yes (see John 13:1-11).

1 Peter 5 warns:

8Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

Secondly, I would like to note, as the commentary points out, that Acts 5 is not teaching socialism. The commentary explains:

The fact that believers had the right to keep their money shows that this was not Christian socialism. It was a free-will arrangment for the support of the church, used only temporarily because evidently the early church expected Christ to come in their generation.

The commentary goes on to note:

5:5-6 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. As Peter wrote later, judgment begins "with the family of God" (1 Peter 4:17). This is a case of "sin that leads to death" (1 John 5:16). This discipline was severe because it was an example, as Achan was an example,to Israel (cf. 1 Cor. 10:6).

5:7-10 Then Sapphira, not aware of her husband's sudden death, also lied about the amount they got for the land.

Peter accused Sapphira, of agreeing with Ananias to test the Spirit of the Lord. "To test the Holy Spirit" is to see how much one can get away with before He judges; it means to presume on Him, to see if He will perform His Word, or to stretch Him to the limits of judgment (cf. Deut. 6:16; Matt. 4:7).

The commentary also notes this:
5:11 As a result of the dicipline of this couple, all the believers and unbelievers who heard about it felt great fear, a consequence already stated in verse 5 and repeated here for emphasis (cf. 19:17).
The purpose of this account in the narrative is manifold: (1) It revealed God's displeasure with sin, particularly dishonesty in His body, the church. (2) It marked the church off as distinct from Israel, for such discipline was not seen in Israel. The word church (used here for the first time in Acts) refers to the universal church here and in 9:31 and 20:28, and to local congregations in 11:26 and 13:1. (3) It indicated God was at work in this new group.
God's word never teaches there are two bodies of Christ does it? Therefore the church spoken of in Acts 5 and 15 is the same church spoken of in the rest of the NT including 1 Cor. 12 and 15 and Eph. 2 and 3.

This is not Pauline Grace of God doctrine-you are jumping around the NT using and appropriating passages to fit your theology-listen to mechabearian-
Scripture always backs up scripture. Post 496 clearly shows Peter and Paul preached the same gospel message. Paul clearly stated this was the fact when he wrote:

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born................................11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed..

So who has it right you or Paul?

[DJHere]

Hey brought my laptop on my trip. It isn't the same message they first had to accept John's water baptism, given to Israel;John1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. They had this before the cross but the one being manifest had died was the only change.
Did Jesus say it was a different gospel? NO for what did Jesus tell them after He rose from the dead? To the two on the road to Emmaus He said:

25He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (Luke 24)

To the eleven He said:

36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Did you note the words in red? What are they speaking about? The gospel message. The same one Paul taught:

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Cor. 15)

Paul stated very clearly: 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. (1 Cor. 15)

Why do you refuse to listen to what the word of God clearly states and teaches?

[DJHere]

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."----------Yep blessed through Israel and meeting in synagogues as Jews or blessing Israel with much alms is what gentiles would be doing if the nation accepted Jesus.(sheep nations,or goat=blessing Israel or not)
What does this state? The promise is for you and your children referring to Jewish people then what does it state: AND FOR ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF—FOR ALL WHOM THE LORD OUR GOD WILL CALL.

Who does God call? All believers!

So that statement is not just referencing the nation of Israel is it?

Paul wrote:

6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

[HeIsEnough]

Peter accused Sapphira, of agreeing with Ananias to test the Spirit of the Lord. "To test the Holy Spirit" is to see how much one can get away with before He judges; it means to presume on Him, to see if He will perform His Word, or to stretch Him to the limits of judgment (cf. Deut. 6:16; Matt. 4:7).

Amen Darcy.

To whom it may concern. There is little if any compelling reason to somehow pull a doctrine out of the account of Ananias and Sapphira. There are many reasons to pull out of the account an exceedingly reverential respect for our great God Almighty. He has given us His matchless grace, full pardon and welcome arms. The Lord is a jealous God. Not that He will react as we do as mere men, but that the principle is the same. Presume too much with God and His graces, we can expect swift judgement. That, in my estimation, has always been reserved by the Lord, no matter what dispensation. If He does not, account it as patience by Him, because we do and think some very stupid things sometimes.

[Mechaberean]

Nothings perfect until 2nd Corinthians not even salvation. everythings in part but when that which is perfect is come then the in part is done away with. Well perfection,and sealed isnt mentioned until 2nd Corinthians. Also Annanias and Saphira DIED they werent asleep like Thessalonians says or Lazarus I repeat

[Mechaberean]

Sorry Romans through Phileman wouldnt have been there for you too cram back to the cross had Israel accepted Jesus.