Pauline Dispensationalism

[BlessedinHim]

Dr. Newell continues:

In His earthly ministry to Israel the Lord Jesus gave none of the great heavenly truths for the present Church dispensation. He but mentioned the Church, giving no explanation. Nor were these vital truths related to the Twelve Apostles. Just as God chose Moses to be the revelator to Israel of the Ten Commandments, and all connected with the Law dispensation, so He chose Saul of Tarsus to be the revelator of the exclusive truths connected with our Lord's death, burial, resurrection, and His ascended, glorified Person.

The word "cross" does not appear in the epistles of James, Peter, or John. These men are not at variance with Paul--not in the least! Their words are included in the statement that "all Scripture is profitable ... " (2 Tim. 3:16).

Nevertheless, Paul is the declarer of the heavenly Gospel to us. Take Romans to Philemon out of the Bible and you are bereft of Christian Church doctrine. For instance, if you were to take Paul's Epistles out of the Bible, you could not find anything about the Church, for no other Apostle even mentions that Body.

You could not find the exact meaning of any of the great doctrines such as Propitiation, Reconciliation, Justification, Identification, Redemption, or Sanctification. Nor could you find what is perhaps the most tremendous fact of every Christian life, that of personal union with the Lord Jesus Christ at the right hand of the Father in glory! Paul is the divinely appointed opener to us of truth for this dispensation of Grace.

You can evaluate a man's ministry by this rule--is he Pauline? [Note well, all ye Pulpit Committees!] Does his doctrine start and finish according to those statements of Church truth proclaimed by the Apostle Paul? (pp. 6,7).

[Aliya]

Yes, he does, and that is why I brought up his name. He rightly divides the word. I heard him first, and then this was presented to me by someone else, I started reading it, and I think, wow, this is just what Les F. was saying. I sure cant deny it lines up. It makes perfect sense. Scripture is more open and understandable.

Listening to Les's teaching about rightly dividing the word of God has made so much make sense to me! It has truly changed my life. Plus, he provides all of his teaching for free.

It is interesting to separate Paul's teachings from the rest of the New Testament and see how much of modern day 'church' lines up... and how much does not. Even those denominations/individuals who do not claim that the church replaced Israel still have some teachings and traditions that suggest otherwise. Paul's dispensational teachings make so much sense - I'm still flying as high as a kite over it! So much to learn, its a feast for the mind. :)

[BlessedinHim]

Listening to Les's teaching about rightly dividing the word of God has made so much make sense to me! It has truly changed my life. Plus, he provides all of his teaching for free.

It is interesting to separate Paul's teachings from the rest of the New Testament and see how much of modern day 'church' lines up... and how much does not. Even those denominations/individuals who do not claim that the church replaced Israel still have some teachings and traditions that suggest otherwise. Paul's dispensational teachings make so much sense - I'm still flying as high as a kite over it! So much to learn, its a feast for the mind. :)

Praise the Lord.

I know what you mean about feasting, too. There will be more to come. And when the Lord comes, big wow then.:pray

[BlessedinHim]

THE TRAGEDY OF ROMANS 5:12
Miles J. Stanford


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between Romans 5:11, and 12, there is a "great gulf," a veritable doctrinal Grand Canyon. Into this abyss the Church [Evangelical Protestant] has fallen, seemingly unable to advance into the realm of the Word specifically and exclusively written for her. Ever since Paul wrote Galatians the Church has occupied Israel's ground, thereby falling short of her heavenly Pauline privileges.

SUBSTITUTION -- Up to and including 5:11 in Romans, Paul is setting forth the Saviour's substitutionary death for our sins--He alone could die for our sins: past, present and future--thereby paying the penalty and redeeming all who believe. "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins." "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered" (Rom. 3:24,25; 4:7).

It is in this forgiveness of sins, new birth portion of the Word that the Church languishes--rightly seeking the salvation of the lost, but inadequately ministering to the development of those brought to the Saviour.

EXAMPLE -- Dr. John MacArthur's ministry is typical of where the Church is today--whether it be the Arminian aspect, or the Covenant. Two of his books tell the incriminating story.

In The Gospel According to Jesus [Zondervan, 1988], Dr. MacArthur bases Church salvation upon the Sermon on the Mount. But during the time of Jesus' ministry on earth there was no such thing as the Church, or even a Christian. The Messiah's message was to the nation of Israel concerning her Messianic kingdom. With that earthly Gospel of the kingdom Dr. MacArthur would divert and shackle the heavenly Church.

Compounding the error is his Kingdom Living Here and Now [Moody Press, 1980]. This book, directed to the Church for her spiritual development, is also based upon the Sermon on the Mount. All of that Synoptic orientation limits the Church to the matter of sins forgiven for her justification, and Israel's kingdom law for her sanctification.

[BlessedinHim]

PAUL FOR THE CHURCH -- While on earth, prior to the Cross and in His humiliation, Jesus the Messiah gave the "Gospel of the kingdom" (Matt. 4: 23) exclusively to the nation of Israel. When in heaven and glorified, after the Cross, the Lord Jesus Christ gave His "glorious Gospel" (1 Tim. 4:11) exclusively to His Church, primarily through Paul. "The Gospel which was preached by me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1: 11,12). Two totally different Gospels, both based upon the same shed Blood; but one for the earthly, the other for the heavenly.

If it is felt that this evaluation is overstated, or even in error, let us cross the doctrinal canyon in which the Church lies trapped, and consider Romans 5:12 through Romans Eight. Abruptly, from verse 12, Paul is no longer dealing with sins, but rather with their source, the principle of indwelling sin.

IDENTIFICATION -- "As by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all sinned [in Adam]" (Rom. 5:12). Unlike its product, sins, sin could not be forgiven, for it would be sin still. A forgiven thief is still a thief. Hence sin had to be condemned in death. "God sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).

Our sins were forgiven via the principle of substitution, i.e., "Christ died for our sins according to the Gospel" (1 Cor. 15:3). But our sin was condemned via the principle of identification, i.e., "For He hath made Him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21).

The Lord Jesus Christ did not die for sin, but for sins. Being made sin, our sin, He was judged, condemned, and crucified. He, in Himself being the sinless One, died unto sin--out of the realm of sin--having paid the price in full. Thence He was free to rise from among the dead into "newness of life"--heavenly, glorified, "new-creation life."

In order to set forth how the Church relates to sin, it is necessary to go back quite a way, and consider the individual member of that heavenly Body. It may be helpful to proceed in the first person.

[BlessedinHim]

POSITIONAL HISTORY -- Talk about pre-historic! Before anything was brought into being in eternity past, before the universe, the world, or Adam--I, a chosen, elect, and called person was conceived in my Father's heart and purpose.

"He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." "Called us with an holy calling ... which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9).

My Father called the world into being, and then He created Adam to be head of the human race for that world. I was identified positionally with Adam, the source of humanity. Hence, when Adam sinned and thereby died to God, I died in him. When he became flesh, I became flesh in Him. When he was condemned, I was condemned in him.

As Romans 5:12 states, "As by one man [Adam] sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all sinned [in Adam]." Verses 13 to 17 are in parentheses; verse 18, following verse 12, states: "Therefore, as by the offense of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation. "

I, the natural man in condemned Adam, was not forgiven at the Cross. My then future sins were forgiven, but I, as the Adamic old man, the source of those sins, was not forgiven. Sin must be condemned. "For He [the Father] hath made Him [the Son] to be sin for us." "God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 8:3).

While the Lamb of God was on the Cross, my Father laid all my as-yet-uncommitted sins upon Him, and His death for those sins freed me from their penalty. While the Lord Jesus was on that same Cross the Father identified me, in my Adamic life of sin, with His Son who was made to be that sin (2 Cor. 5:21). In Him, I died unto sin.

In my death unto sin in Christ's death I was freed from all that I was in the first Adam, and I was re-created in the Last Adam as He arose from among the dead. "For if [since] we have been planted together (identified, united] in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection" (Rom. 6:5). "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old [Adamicl things are [positionally] passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). I am "His [God's] workmanship, [newly] created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:10).

[BlessedinHim]

MY ESSENTIAL IDENTITY -- My Father, in eternity past, formed me in His mind and heart, positionally, as a unique person. "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unformed; and in Thy Book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them" (Ps. 139:16).

In time He formed me, actually (condition), in my dear mother's womb. My identification with the fallen Adam did not unmake me as a particular elect and called person; nor did my new-birth identification with the ascended Last Adam unmake me as that person. What is intrinsic to my personhood I never lose; my essential identity is unalterable.

Whatever change I passed.through in my new birth as to spirit and soul, whatever change awaits my body at the Rapture, I shall never lose my essential identity--what my Father conceived me to be before the foundation of the world.

My crucifixion with the Lord Jesus did not affect my unique identity as newly created in Him risen. Rather, it positionally destroyed all that I was in the fleshly Adam. "Ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit." "Behold, old [Adamic] things are passed away," positionally (Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 5:17).

I, the old Adam man, was crucified with the New Adam Man, that the body of sin [sin in toto] might be destroyed, condemned in death--not merely forgiven. I, the sinful one, was condemned in the death of the Cross in order that I might be re-created in the risen and ascended life of the Last Adam. Had I been forgiven, I would have remained in fallen Adam--and, "in Adam, all die" (1 Cor. 15:22).

[CarolLyn]

Dr. Newell continues:

In His earthly ministry to Israel the Lord Jesus gave none of the great heavenly truths for the present Church dispensation. He but mentioned the Church, giving no explanation. Nor were these vital truths related to the Twelve Apostles. Just as God chose Moses to be the revelator to Israel of the Ten Commandments, and all connected with the Law dispensation, so He chose Saul of Tarsus to be the revelator of the exclusive truths connected with our Lord's death, burial, resurrection, and His ascended, glorified Person.

The word "cross" does not appear in the epistles of James, Peter, or John. These men are not at variance with Paul--not in the least! Their words are included in the statement that "all Scripture is profitable ... " (2 Tim. 3:16).

Nevertheless, Paul is the declarer of the heavenly Gospel to us. Take Romans to Philemon out of the Bible and you are bereft of Christian Church doctrine. For instance, if you were to take Paul's Epistles out of the Bible, you could not find anything about the Church, for no other Apostle even mentions that Body.
You could not find the exact meaning of any of the great doctrines such as Propitiation, Reconciliation, Justification, Identification, Redemption, or Sanctification. Nor could you find what is perhaps the most tremendous fact of every Christian life, that of personal union with the Lord Jesus Christ at the right hand of the Father in glory! Paul is the divinely appointed opener to us of truth for this dispensation of Grace.

You can evaluate a man's ministry by this rule--is he Pauline? [Note well, all ye Pulpit Committees!] Does his doctrine start and finish according to those statements of Church truth proclaimed by the Apostle Paul? (pp. 6,7).


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.

[CountryBumpkin]

I am a dispensationalist too but I lean more to mid-Acts dispensationalism. As always there are extremes - I know some people who are Acts 28 dispensationalists and they believe in universal reconciliation - they throw out half of Pauls epistles. :doh

[BlessedinHim]

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.

I will have to re-read, I didnt quite catch that point in there. I am new at this, I was given this site and was very excited,and wanted to share, so, I am learning, too.

You do realize there are 2 different dispensational theologies out there, right?

the Pauline dispensationalism
and the Modern dispensionalism that began in the 1800's.

I am not sure what order the books are in the bible, as to whether they are chronological or not, the way I understand it this far, is after the cross, we go by the gospel of grace that is presented in the Pauline writings. Before the cross, that gospel was preached to give the Jews the first chance at accepting Jesus as the Messiah, but of course we all know they didnt and Jesus was crucified.

If you could point me to the post that is causing you this question, I will read it more carefully and study it out. I am sorry, you gave me the part troubling you.:doh

I will just add here: Paul states that there is no difference between Jew or Gentile in his writings. I am pretty sure that would take care of that question. The kingdom gospel was to the Jews, given by Jesus and the 12 Apostles, the gospel of Grace was given to the Gentiles after the cross because the Jews rejected Jesus. But of course the gospel of grace is for all after the cross.

The Jews are different that we are, just in the fact that they are jews and we are gentiles. They would have different questions concerning the Jewish faith, that we would not have. That doesnt diminish the fact that all doctrine in the bible isnt good for us, too. We have a little different focus. but I think only a little due to the cultural differences between Jews and Gentiles. I hope I am clearer than mud.

Just remember, I am just learning this thing about Pauline dispensationalism.:)