Pauline Dispensationalism

[Topped 3]

Only Paul's Gospel is unique and supercedes the message by Peter and the Disciples in this dispensation. God put the Jewish Nation in Abeyance until He reinstates it after the Rapture . That is your 2 Gospels . One message that flowed into the dispensation of Grace we now live in . Differences ? Miracles ceased .Signs ceased. Healings ceased.Early Acts socialism ceased.The Kingdom of Heaven(Christ on David's Throne )didn't Shortly follow . 4 things happened that may have been the catalyst that suspended the Hastening of the Messianic Kingdom and caused God to commission Paul instead . 1)They crucified their King. 2)They stoned Steven.."Ye always resist the Holy Ghost".(strike one) . 3) They worshipped Herod.."It is the voice of a god and not a man"(strike two) . 4) They rejected Paul when he preached to the Jews first.."From henceforth we go to the Gentiles"(strike three,they're out,now God recognizes no national affilliation,male nor female , Jew or Gentile.)

I feel this is dragging on like a Fleetwood Mac song . When we focus soley on Doctrine and scripture,and do not pay attention to Historical events surrounding the word,we miss out on how God may be reacting and observing what is transpiring.Jesus Prophesies,God Honors that,we need to heed those prophesies in watching Israel' s future.Jesus said in the Temple(paraphrased)"Ye shall not see me here again,not till you learn to say,"Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord". This ,plus"there shall be no stone left upon another that shall not be thrown down" Now,with these things being said,why would God even bother dealing with Israel if Their demise as a nation had been decreed ?Plus with all their offenses after the cross (listed above in prior post),It would seem Christ's return was Imminent after the Acension,but as the veil of the temple was rent in twain after the cross,the temple doors were shut on the Gentiles and Proselytes in acts ch.21,and the Jews would have beaten Paul to death if the Guards hadn't stopped them.Then the Jews folled The captive Paul crying "Away with Him" :sound familiar ?

[HeIsEnough]

I feel this is dragging on like a Fleetwood Mac song . When we focus soley on Doctrine and scripture,and do not pay attention to Historical events surrounding the word,we miss out on how God may be reacting and observing what is transpiring.Jesus Prophesies,God Honors that,we need to heed those prophesies in watching Israel' s future.

Doctrine+Historical Events=Prophecy.

Jesus prophesied everything that was going to happen (of consequence that is). Whether the church "grace" age or not. When I read and study His words, it is plain as daylight. To honor your interpretation, I must view His prophetic words as not in the church dispensation. I tried it, and was wholly rebuffed by His words. He said the son of Man must suffer. He told them they must suffer. He told them this gospel will be preached to the whole world, in a staged plan. He told them to watch out for false prophets. He told them of signs leading to His coming. He told them many things that make no sense if the physical aspects of the Kingdom were planned to transpire shortly after His death, including the way we understand it today, which His death itself made no sense, in that sense. Time nor space allows for further pontification on my part, but you get what I am saying.

Everything you cite as a catalyst of further actions by God, I see as prophetic fulfillment. It was, obviously, not God's plan to institute the MK at that time. His kingdom had other fulfillment considerations before He reigns visibly, and in total and complete obeying of His every precept and law. The differences you cited can be understood as God's direct governance, visibly, causing direct and immediate justice, and the establishment of His gospel, in signs and wonders.

[Topped 3]

I feel this is dragging on like a Fleetwood Mac song . When we focus soley on Doctrine and scripture,and do not pay attention to Historical events surrounding the word,we miss out on how God may be reacting and observing what is transpiring.Jesus Prophesies,God Honors that,we need to heed those prophesies in watching Israel' s future.Jesus said in the Temple(paraphrased)"Ye shall not see me here again,not till you learn to say,"Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord". This ,plus"there shall be no stone left upon another that shall not be thrown down" Now,with these things being said,why would God even bother dealing with Israel if Their demise as a nation had been decreed ?Plus with all their offenses after the cross (listed above in prior post),It would seem Christ's return was Imminent after the Acension,but as the veil of the temple was rent in twain after the cross,the temple doors were shut on the Gentiles and Proselytes in acts ch.21,and the Jews would have beaten Paul to death if the Guards hadn't stopped them.Then the Jews folled The captive Paul crying "Away with Him" :sound familiar ? If all this adds up to one Gospel,why did Peter and the Apostles acknowledge to Paul that HIS grace message was unique,and not part of their original ministry Gal Ch.2(all),or specifically vs.7-9:& 11-14 .Paul even rebuked Peter for trusting ,preaching and supporting Paul's Gospel when he(Peter)was around the Gentiles,but as soon as the Jews showed up ,Peter rejoined their(jewish)clique of believers,and displaying a double standard to everyone,supporting Judaeo Christian beliefs and Pauline Christian beliefs; both now incompatible.If they are so compatable and the same,then why did Peter not fulfill Christ's mandate to preach the Gospel to every creature,but instead remain in Jerusalem to be Martyred ? And why would they sanction Paul's Ministery to go to the Gentiles ,Vs.9,If their had not been a legitimate precedent for them not to fulfill their Great Commision ?

[HeIsEnough]

If all this adds up to one Gospel,why did Peter and the Apostles acknowledge to Paul that HIS grace message was unique,and not part of their original ministry Gal Ch.2(all),or specifically vs.7-9:& 11-14 .

I think the original Apostles were more then once surprised by God's movements. Peter's acknowledgment by his own mouth that the gentiles would first hear the gospel, and it surrounding events as an example.

Paul even rebuked Peter for trusting ,preaching and supporting Paul's Gospel when he(Peter)was around the Gentiles,but as soon as the Jews showed up ,Peter rejoined their(jewish)clique of believers,and displaying a double standard to everyone,supporting Judaeo Christian beliefs and Pauline Christian beliefs; both now incompatible.

Paul's rebuke was based upon truth. That is, Peter knew it was true for everyone, and the rebuke was needed so that Peter would act arightly, not that Peter should fall back and entrench himself to only the Jewish brethren.


If they are so compatable and the same,then why did Peter not fulfill Christ's mandate to preach the Gospel to every creature,but instead remain in Jerusalem to be Martyred ?

Peter's travels are easily inferred from scripture, RCC evidences notwithstanding. Certainly, John's travels are indisputable in my mind, even so much as being an elder to a gentile church.


And why would they sanction Paul's Ministery to go to the Gentiles ,Vs.9,If their had not been a legitimate precedent for them not to fulfill their Great Commision ?

A focus question for sure, but it is not geared towards the message proper. The fact is, we do not know the extent of their travels. To infer it was none, is an unwarranted leap, imo.

[Topped 3]

Doctrine+Historical Events=Prophecy.

Jesus prophesied everything that was going to happen (of consequence that is). Whether the church "grace" age or not. When I read and study His words, it is plain as daylight. To honor your interpretation, I must view His prophetic words as not in the church dispensation. I tried it, and was wholly rebuffed by His words. He said the son of Man must suffer. He told them they must suffer. He told them this gospel will be preached to the whole world, in a staged plan. He told them to watch out for false prophets. He told them of signs leading to His coming. He told them many things that make no sense if the physical aspects of the Kingdom were planned to transpire shortly after His death, including the way we understand it today, which His death itself made no sense, in that sense. Time nor space allows for further pontification on my part, but you get what I am saying.

Everything you cite as a catalyst of further actions by God, I see as prophetic fulfillment. It was, obviously, not God's plan to institute the MK at that time. His kingdom had other fulfillment considerations before He reigns visibly, and in total and complete obeying of His every precept and law. The differences you cited can be understood as God's direct governance, visibly, causing direct and immediate justice, and the establishment of His gospel, in signs and wonders.

I agree somewhat , but that is not the point I was trying(endlessly,eternally,it seems) to elaborate upon.For all participating in this doctrinal debate,the pupose is not to dispute any instruction by Jesus,Peter,James,The Gospels,john,etc. The point Paul is making is that we (church,today,now)are to trust in and preach the cross of Christ,and Him crucified.We have grace and the written word and the Holy Ghost within;thats it. No Cavalry(not Calvary) is coming over the Hill to save us(like during Jesus Ministrey).All these truths and commands Jesus commanded the Jews won't justify US or get us born again or keep us saved.It is entirely (for us)by god's grace .The Spirit draweth us+we are given faith to believe in the cross sufficiency to pay for our sins+we repent= Salvation.You can trust in your good works,but they won't save you.If the Holy Ghost doesn't compell us to serve "in Christ" and we trust in "flesh verses to inflate us,it's vanity.

[BlessedinHim]

Peter was rebuked for teaching the Gentiles that they should be circumcised if I remember correctly.

[HeIsEnough]

The point Paul is making is that we (church,today,now)are to trust in and preach the cross of Christ,and Him crucified.

And the point many here are trying to elaborate upon is that it always was by faith, demonstrated by Paul culling from the OT in many ways and places. That Israel, the leaders anyway, tried to make it by works was not by design of God, nor was it the message of Peter. That Peter incriminated those hearing his voice at Pentecost, was only because they were the actual people present at Christ's death, hence told in so many words to repent of this evil deed. We don't need told that, we need told to believe what happened, as a crude analogy. Modern Jews don't need told that either, they need the same message Paul brought.

The Apostles message was about timing and the particular audience. The content was the same for the audience. Israel did not need convicted of believing there is a God, like many gentiles might, as an example of a focused message to a particular people. They did however need to be convicted of not believing what their own God said, as another.

Many dispensationalists who are not Paulinists, see this as a claim of the content changing for the gentiles, as opposed to Israel. I don't see the content change.

[HeIsEnough]

Peter was rebuked for teaching the Gentiles that they should be circumcised if I remember correctly.

I believe Peter was rebuked for going back on what he was living out. That is, he ate with gentiles, a very strict Jewish prohibition, and then when he was around Jews he acted as if it was still prohibited. Paul called it hypocrisy, which it was, when Peter knew it was no longer something the Jews needed to adhere to...

[graceforme]

I agree somewhat , but that is not the point I was trying(endlessly,eternally,it seems) to elaborate upon.For all participating in this doctrinal debate,the pupose is not to dispute any instruction by Jesus,Peter,James,The Gospels,john,etc. The point Paul is making is that we (church,today,now)are to trust in and preach the cross of Christ,and Him crucified.We have grace and the written word and the Holy Ghost within;thats it. No Cavalry(not Calvary) is coming over the Hill to save us(like during Jesus Ministrey).All these truths and commands Jesus commanded the Jews won't justify US or get us born again or keep us saved.It is entirely (for us)by god's grace .The Spirit draweth us+we are given faith to believe in the cross sufficiency to pay for our sins+we repent= Salvation.You can trust in your good works,but they won't save you.If the Holy Ghost doesn't compell us to serve "in Christ" and we trust in "flesh verses to inflate us,it's vanity.


Good words. It seems like some of us are still trying to focus on what we do, as opposed to staying focused on what Christ did and His finished work on the cross. Folks, it's not about US, it's all about HIM. That was the message that Paul was given to take to the Gentile nations - Jesus and his disciples taught law - Paul brought the message of God's grace to all who would listen and believe. It's all so simple, and I have trouble understanding what the debate is about. We, in our normal human way, have taken something that God wanted to simplify in order for us to understand it, and made it so complicated that many turn away because they can't understand it.

We need to understand that Acts is a transitional book, and to draw doctrine from it can lead to much confusion and error in teaching. The first part of Acts is still under law, and the transition begins in chapter 7 with the stoning of Stephen. This is when the nation of Israel is set aside. Then completed with the raising up of the Apostle Paul to take the message of grace to the nations (Gentiles).

God wants man to know that we could never keep the law, that's why we need to place our trust in Christ as Savior. When we attempt to save ourselves by keeping the law, we exhaust ourselves and still need the Savior.

When the simplicity of the cross is truly understood, peace will reign. We will go about our good works, knowing that they don't save us, but that we can work for God, and maybe help someone else understand the simplicity of the cross.

Resting in peace, (but more alive than ever),
graceforme

[HeIsEnough]

Galatians 2:10-12 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. 11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Peter feared the reaction of the Jews if he continued to eat with the gentiles. Judging from the history, his human fear wasn't misplaced. He would be put out of the synagogue over such activity, as Christ told them they would be.