Pauline Dispensationalism

[CarolLyn]

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.
So far, I don't see where anyone has explained the difference between the views of Modern Dispensationalism and Pauline Dispensationalism. I don't think it matters so much when each began, but rather what each believes and what they base it on. Since you seem to be familiar with both views, I wonder if you could explain the difference and why they are different?

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.
Here is something we need to clear up. When a Jew gets saved during the church age dispensation, does he become a part of the church? Galations 3:28 says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Also, Colossians 3:11 says " a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

Since believing Jews and believing Gentiles are one body in Christ, and that one body is the church, then the books of Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, James, 1, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation should not be rejected as irrelevant to the church. Whether these books are written to Jewish or Gentile believers makes no difference. They are part of the church and therefore what the apostles wrote to them is relevant to the church.

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.
I don't think Israel fully rejected Christ. After Peter's first message following Pentecost, we are told in Acts 2: 41. "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." Then, after Peter's second sermon, we are told in Acts 4:4 " But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand." This took place in Jerusalem. These people were primarily Jews who were saved. The Bible describes that first congregation of believers this way in Acts 4:32. And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them. 33. And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.

This sounds to me like a vibrant, unified, Spirit filled church. I wish the churches of our day could be described like this!

[Leialoha]

This thread is way confusing to me ! :panic

It's hurting my brain too much on a Friday morning! :lol2

[graceforme]

[QUOTE=HeIsEnough;84139]No offense, but this answered nothing for me.

"Paul and Peter were concurrent ministries, so to say it was a different dispensation is not exactly correct".

Yes, you are correct - Peter and Paul did preach during the same period of time, but not the same dispensation. Peter taught Law and Paul taught grace. Peter taught Jews of the things he had seen and heard, and Paul took the message of grace to the Gentile nation. Keep in mind that the nation of Israel had been diminishing - they had stumbled at the Cross by crucifying Christ (four Gospels), they had fallen at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7, and they were set aside by God. (Romans 11:11-12, 11:15, 12:10, 3:22; Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 12:13. The most important things we can learn as we study Scripture are the differences between the Prophesy Program and the Mystery Program. But Peter, during his ministry to the nation of Israel, had no knowledge of the Mystery Program. The Mystery had not been revealed in prophesy, as the kingdom message had been.

Peter and Paul had very different messages and taught from different dispensations. (Keep in mind that a dispensation is merely a way that God is dealing with humankind at any certain time) Peter had been taught by Jesus Christ under the Law during Christ's earthly ministry. And this was clearly the message of the kingdom (Matthew 4:17, 10:5-7) At this time, they had no knowledge of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul had been given a different gospel - the gospel of grace - given to him by divine revelation by the resurrected Savior.

Look at Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they sae that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;"

Let's look at some of the differences between Peter's gospel of the circumcision and Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision: I'll use two examples to point out the differences: water baptism and the Old Testament commandments (the law).

Water Baptism:

Peter's gospel of the circumcision -

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed." (Mark 16:16)

"But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. (Luke 7:30)

Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision -

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Cor. 1:17)

To be saved under the gospel of the circumcision, water baptism was a required expression of faith. Water baptism is not a requirement under the gospel of the uncircumcision. If it were necessary, Paul would not have said in 1 Cor. 1:14 that he was thankful that he had "baptized none of you, other than Crispus and Gaius."

The Old Testament Commandments:

Peter's gospel of the circumcision:

"But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Mt. 19:17)

Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision

"For his is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (Eph. 2:14,15)

Peter's gospel required the keeping of commandments while Paul's gospel did not. Peter and Paul had different gospels. We have to understand which gospel applies to us today if we desire to do what the Lord wants us to do. If you look in Acts 20:24 tells of the "gospel of the grace of God", while Matthew 4:23 tells of the "gospel of the kingdom." This was Peter's gospel - the gospel that he had been taught by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry.
Paul's gospel - the gospel of grace - was taught to him by divine revelation from the ascended Christ.

I did some study on the idea that the disciples "came around" to Paul's message of grace during their ministries. In Galatians 2, I found this: In verse 7 and 8 it is confirmed that the gospel of the uncircumcision was given to Paul and the gospel of the circumcision was given to Peter.

In verse 9, we find this: "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 circimcision." So, even if they understood the message of grace, they still ministered to the circumcision (Jewish nation).

I'm still new at this, and many issues are a great source of much study for me. Please bear with me as I attempt, in my less-than adequate way, to my understanding of some things.

God Bless.
"I owe, I owe, so off to work I go." I'll catch up on the posts later.

[graceforme]

I keep seeing posts that refer to "modern" dispensationalism and "Pauline" dispensationalism. I don't know about others, but my dispensationalism IS Pauline dispensationalism. I don't know about any other dispensationalism.

Many blessings to all.

[BlessedinHim]

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.

If you go back to post 22-25, that is modern dispensationalism. I am not quite sure what the differences are as yet, but from what I have figured out so far is that modern dispensationalism is pointing toward the covenant theology today. or could be considered a cousin of covenant theology. That is what I have gathered so far. But, I could be wrong!!! I am learning along the way here.

Please, post away, I think this is a great study and I very much want your input. Thank you.

God corrects those He loves, correct me lovingly.:)

[CarolLyn]

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)

Thanks, Graceforme, This is good stuff! Yes, Christ lived under the law, and most of His teaching was to the Jews and the necessity for them to obey the OT law and receive Him as their Messiah. However, there are some "nuggets" even in Jesus teaching that pertain to the church today. It takes a great deal of prayerful, Spirit-led study of the Gospels to find those "nuggets". Some of them are things that apply to all dispensations alike and others are things that (I believe) are prophetic references to the church age by Jesus Himself.


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.'
It's interesting that you should mention this account of the rich young ruler. I was just thinking of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus (in John chapter 3). Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews. Jesus said to him "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." He said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". This reminds me of what Paul wrote in
Romans 8: 1. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4. in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Isn't it amazing how the Scriptures harmonize!

Jesus went on to say to this Jewish Pharisse "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

I'm sure it came as a shock to Nicodemus that Jesus said that God loved the "world" and "whoever believes" will be saved. Is Jesus including Gentiles when He says this? Yes! I believe this is one of those prophetic statements of Jesus. He goes on to say " For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."--No mention of the law here!
Again, this harmonizes beautifully with Romans 8:1 which says " There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

My point is, we have to be very careful that we do not indiscriminantely carve up the scriptures by discounting entire sections of scripture as irrelevant to the church. A dispensational approach to scripture is good, but we must be careful about how we go about it.

God bless you!

[HeIsEnough]

I'm still new at this, and many issues are a great source of much study for me. Please bear with me as I attempt, in my less-than adequate way, to my understanding of some things.

Understood. We grow together. I understand all of what you are saying, and have studied these issues on a number of occasions. I will give you my view in response to your statements. Don't worry, I am staunchly dispensational, so you don't need to uphold that viewpoint in general. We are talking specifics within the dispensational framework.

Peter and Paul had very different messages and taught from different dispensations.

...

Look at Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they sae that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;"

I'll just state flat out that it was the same message. If you look around the passage in question, you see why Paul said what he did, and actually affirms what I am saying by the rebuke he gave to Peter.


6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[a] just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Paul Opposes Peter
[B] 11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"[d]

Now, Paul opposed Peter because Peter was not acting in accordance to the gospel. If Peter's gospel was different, he would not have opposed him. If Peter should not have ate and fellowshipped with the Gentiles, Paul would have rebuked him for that because it he would not have been obeying the gospel Peter was given. Paul goes on to relate how it truly is the same message for Jew and for Greek, during the time they both lived.


Let's look at some of the differences between Peter's gospel of the circumcision and Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision: I'll use two examples to point out the differences: water baptism and the Old Testament commandments (the law).

...


"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Cor. 1:17)


Paul baptised in water, and himself was baptised. Baptism was not a requirement for salvation in any dispensation.


13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? [B]14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

The issue in this case was divisions over following men and not Christ. Nor was it over water baptism, but the allegiance to whom we follow.


To be saved under the gospel of the circumcision, water baptism was a required expression of faith.

I won't dive too deep into water baptism, but it is in accordance with the previous dispensation. Even then, it was always a sign of the internal heart. If we both truly feel salvation was the same throughout dispensations, I don't believe you will stand too firm on this point.

[BlessedinHim]

graceforme:

are you saying that water baptism was only meant for the Jews? before Christ died? always? but not for the pauline converts?

I can see more clearly where the dissension among churches comes from now, it comes from not rightly dividing the word. wow

and what I am also seeing now, it looks as though as soon as Paul preached the word, the wolves in sheep skins came along and messed it up almost immediately. I see this is why we should stick to the word.

[BlessedinHim]

CarolLyn:

I think Paul wrote that all scripture is good for learning and all that. I cant remember exactly how that scripture goes. here it is.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[HeIsEnough]

..