Pauline Dispensationalism

[BlessedinHim]

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

Wow, that would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water. :shocked

how do you get universal reconciliation??? I havent seen that anywhere or ever picked up on that idea.

[CountryBumpkin]

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 I am following you here. What is the modern dispensationalism from the 1800's? I have always thought they were the same.

[HeIsEnough]

..

[tekton]

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.

Perhaps knowing the chronological order of Paul's letters might help in learning about and understanding Pauline dispensationalism. :idunno Anyway here they are.

Arranging Paul's letters in the order that he wrote them

We begin by setting up a time line of Paul's ministry. Paul was saved in Acts 9 when the Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Paul would go on to write 13 letters in the New Testament—from the Letter to the Romans to the Letter to Philemon. When we remember that Paul is the subject of at least half of the Book of Acts, we realize that half of the 27 books in the New Testament are either about him (The Book of Acts) or were written by him (13 letters).

Paul's letters are arranged in our Bible by two principles: The letters to the churches are put first—nine letters from Romans to 2 Thessalonians, then the four letters written to individuals—from 1 Timothy to Philemon.

The letters are also arranged by length—Romans is longest and is first, then the Corinthian letters, then Galatians, etc. Longer letters are first, shorter ones later.

Paul's Letters in the order that he wrote them:

The first 6 of Paul's letters can be fit into the Book of Acts—we can read Acts and then read Paul's letters and we can see where Paul was when he wrote these letters.
The Letter to the Galatians is first

In Acts 13,14 Paul and Barnabas went on their first apostolic journey which took them into Galatia—cities like Antioch, Lystra, Derbe, etc. Soon after Paul returned from this journey he wrote the letter to the Galatians (see Galatians 1:6 where Paul writes to the Galatians and says, you are "so quickly turned."). Galatians was written soon after Paul returned from that first journey—soon after Acts 14:27. That makes Galatians the earliest of Paul's letters.
1 and 2 Thessalonians

The next letters Paul wrote are the two letters to the Thessalonians. In Acts 17, Paul, on his second apostolic journey, came to Thessalonica and preached there. Many were saved, but Paul was driven out of town. Paul continued on to Corinth where he wrote the two letters to the Thessalonians. Timothy's return from Macedonia mentioned in Acts 18:5 is also reported in 1 Thessalonians 3:6. And in 2 Thessalonians 2:5 Paul reminds the Thessalonians of his teaching, as if it had not been very long since he had been with them. So the writing of 1 and 2 Thessalonians can be placed into Acts 18 during Paul's ministry in Corinth, and that makes them the second and third letters that Paul wrote.
1 and 2 Corinthians

The next two letters that Paul wrote are the two letters to the Corinthians. In Acts 18 Paul spent a year and a half ministering in Corinth—see Acts 18:11. He later returned to his home base at Antioch (Acts 18:22), and later in his third apostolic journey he arrived in Ephesus (his ministry in Ephesus extends all the way through Acts 19—a period of more than two years, see verse 10). It is here in Ephesus during Acts 19 that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians—see I Corinthians 16:19. Shortly after that Paul traveled to Macedonia (see Acts 20:1 and 2 Cor. 2:13) and that is where he wrote the second letter to the Corinthians.
Romans

In Acts 20:2,3 Paul arrived in "Greece," i.e. in Corinth again, and spent three months there enjoying the hospitality of a believer named Gaius (mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:14). In Gaius's home, in Corinth, Paul wrote the letter to the Romans (see Rom. 16:23).

This is the last letter written during the Book of Acts. In Acts 21:33 Paul was arrested in Jerusalem, and would spend the next 5 years in prison, right through the end of the Book of Acts.

So, to sum up what we have seen so far, from Acts 9 through Acts 28 we read of the earlier ministry of the Apostle Paul and find that during these years he wrote 6 of his 13 letters. The order of these first six books is:

1. Galatians—end of Acts 14

2. 1 Thessalonians—Acts 18

3. 2 Thessalonians—Acts 18

4. 1 Corinthians—Acts 19

5. 2 Corinthians—Acts 20

6. Romans—Acts 20

In Acts 21 Paul was arrested and remained a prisoner through to Acts 28, and beyond.
The Prison Epistles—Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians

Shortly after the end of the Book of Acts, while he was still a prisoner, now in Rome, Paul wrote four letters—the "prison epistles": Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians. In each of these letters he writes of his "chains"—see Ephesians 6:20, Colossians 4:18, Philemon 13 and Philippians 1:13.
The Pastoral Epistles—The letters to Titus, First and Second Timothy

Paul was released from this imprisonment and continued his ministry for a few years, perhaps 3 years. During this time he wrote the three letters known as the "Pastoral Epistles," because these letters were written to Paul's co-workers—Pastor Timothy and Titus. Finally at the end of his life he is again in prison. This time he anticipates being beheaded for the Lord and writes the last letter, Second Timothy.
Summary:

We have surveyed the 13 letters written by the Apostle Paul, arranging them in the order in which Paul wrote them:

During the Book of Acts—6 letters:

1. Galatians

2. & 3. The Thessalonian letters

4. & 5. The Corinthian letters

6. Romans

Then after the Book of Acts ends—7 more letters:

The 4 Prison Epistles:

7. Ephesians

8. Colossians

9. Philemon

10. Philippians

Then the 3 Pastoral Epistles:

11. Titus

12. 1 Timothy

13. 2 Timothy

[God's Trombone]

SBG06, quit asking the same question over and over, the answer is given, if you dont like the answer, then refute and give a good reason why it is wrong, but in the above case, you will be arguing with the bible, not me.

I agree with BIH. SBG06: You obviously know little or nothing of this subject. Why do you ask for BIH to look up words? You can look them up yourself!

What you need to do is earnestly seek to understand; not to take on an attitude which displays the fact that you don't want to deal with something "new" to you.

Now, with that out of the way I have comments on the OP of Miles Stanford's article.

To be continued.

[God's Trombone]

If we admit of the existence of a "modern dispensationalism" supposedly begun in 1800 or so, it would be that espoused by the likes of Miles Stanford, who the OP quotes extensively.

Any "Pauline Dispensationalism" worthy of the name is that implicit in the writings of Paul in the scriptures- Romans through Philemon.

What Miles Stanford describes in the article is in blatant disagreement with Paul's letters.

Paul received his revelation from Christ after the events of Acts 2. How one can err so greatly about the simple facts of scripture is hard to understand. Peter preached to Israel in Acts 2, 3, etc. Israel is not the church. The church, the Body of Christ began with Paul as its first member in Acts 9.

Nor did the 12 Apostles ever preach Paul's message. They were first sent out by Christ with a commission to go to Israel and after Israel had come to the feet of Messiah, they would then go to the whole world.

This never happened, as Israel fully rejected Christ both before and after the cross.

As Paul preached the Gospel Christ gave him in synagogues and later to the far off Gentiles (Ephesians Collosians etc.) the 12 apostles limited their activities to merely "feeding the flock", the circumcision Jews. (Acts 15 , Gal. 2)

This is what the scriptures teach when rightly divided. This "Word of Truth" was lost to most people while Paul STILL was alive. He wrote to Timothy-
"all that be in Asia have turned against me (my gospel).

I cannot understand how so-called "Acts 2 dispys" can take the stand they do nor why they do. It must be out of compromise with the false teachings of "Christendom."

[HeIsEnough]

..

[graceforme]

Maybe someone already posted this and I missed it. If so, I'm sorry. But I think I can help clear up the question about Peter and Paul and whether they taught different gospels or not. They clearly did.

Peter, being one of the original disciples, knew nothing of grace. Grace had not been introduced at the point of Christ's teachings. Keep in mind that grace was introduced through the Apostle Paul. People throughout history were not saved the same way we are today.

From "Are There Contradictions In The Bible?" by David Reid:

'The Bible clearly teaches that people are saved by different gospels (ie. different good news) at different times. Despite differences in the gospel at different times, there are some things that are always true.

Everyone who has ever been saved or will be saved is saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). Everyone who has ever been saved or will be saved is saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). The manner in which the gospel differs at different times is in the content of the faith required and whether works are required as an expression of that faith. Although works are not required as an expression of faith under the present day gospel of grace, works are required under the gospels that apply during other periods of time. (emphasis mine)

For example, consider Noah. The content of his faith was not the shed blood of Jesus Christ but what God had said to him about the coming flood. God gave Noah the good news that Noah would be saved from the Flood - provided that he obeyed God. Noah demonstrated his faith in what God had said by performing works, i.e. building an ark. Had Noah not built the ark he would have drowned, and thus, it is obvious that works were required as an expression of his faith.

Another gospel that requires works as an expression of faith is found during the future period of the tribulation. During the tribulation, believers will have to refrain from worshipping the beast or taking the mark of the beast to be saved. Since worship of the beast and taking the mark are sins that cannot be forgiven (Revelation 14:11), the work of avoiding these sins will be a required expression of faith. Those believers will obviously not have eternal security while still alive because there is a possibility that they will take the mark of the beast at some time in the future and be ****ed.

Noah's gospel and the gospel during the tribulation are different from the present day gospel of grace. The content of saving faith today is complete trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins. This faith is manifested today without any required expressions of works. Since there is no required expression of works under the gospel of grace, believers today are eternally secure from the moment that they trust in the blood that Christ shed on the cross.

We should not be surprised that the content of saving faith differs at different points in time. At different times in history, God has given different revelations of what he required of man at that time. (dispensations) Therefore, it naturally follows that the content of the required faith at any particular time would depend on God's particular revelation during that time.

While Christ is the Savior for all who are saved, it is not the case that everyone throughout history was saved in the exact same manner.'

I hope this helps clear up some questions.

And, just so no one jumps on the "works" bandwagon - works are not required to be saved, but will follow naturally and out of love after a person is saved. Works are a result of love, not a condition of salvation.

[HeIsEnough]

..

[graceforme]

One thing that I think creates confusion in people concerning dispensationalism is that we have been taught all our lives that the birth of Christ is the beginning of the New Testament.

Again, from "Are There Contradictions in The Bible? by David Reid

'The New Testament did not being at the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to the Bible, the New Testament cannot begin until some time after the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament. that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." (Hebrews 9:14-17)

The New Testament could not being until the death of the mediator of the New Testament, who is the Lord Jesus Christ. Since Christ does not die until the end of each of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), these four books contain Old Testament information. While the four gospels are in a group of books that we call the "New Testament", it would be accurate to say that the four gospels are Old Testament books doctrinally.
To say the same thing in a different way, God was operating the universe according to Old Testament principles during the same time period recorded in the gospels.

Are we living under the New Testament?

Since we live after the cross, it might seem that we must be living under the New Testament. However, just as the Bible has a precise meaning for Old Testament, it also has a precise meaning for New Testament. The New Testament (also called the new Covenant) is defined in Jeremiah 31.

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" (Jeremiah 31:31).

Notice that the promises of the new covenant belong to the house of Israel and house of Judah. We, who are not of the house of Israel or Judah, have no right to claim these promises. They do not belong to us.

Although we are living after the cross, we are not living in the New Testament. We live during a different dispensation - the dispensation of grace.

If the Old Testament did not end until the cross of Christ, then under what dispensation did Christ live?

Christ lived under the law.

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law", (Galatians 4:4)

This conclusion is confirmed by the dialogue that Jesus had with the rich young ruler.

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments". (Matthew 19:16-17)

During Christ's earthly ministry, the way to obtain eternal life was through the observance of the Old Testament law, including the offering of animal sacrifices as a temporary covering for sin. God had not yet given the revelation of the gospel of the grace of God. Everything that we find in the Bible confirms that the Lord Jesus Christ lived under the Old Testament dispensation of the Law.'

This explains why there is much confusion in some denominations concerning grace/works. Not understanding under what dispensation Christ taught leads them to take their doctrine from the teachings of Christ, and this leads to legalistic thinking: "If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."