The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace

[patman]

Most of the Decalogue is repeated in principle in Pauline teaching (Eph. 4-6). Why are people so quick to reject the validity of the words of the Master, God in the flesh? Dispensationalizing away the teachings of Jesus is gross error.

We don't reject the validity, we just acknowledge it was for a different audience than us. When God grafts on Israel again, his words will be in full affect for all who hear. They are in full affect today to the unsaved, until they enter into grace.

Grace and works do not mix by definition.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Most of the Decalogue is repeated in principle in Pauline teaching (Eph. 4-6). Why are people so quick to reject the validity of the words of the Master, God in the flesh?

Most but not all.And are we to follow "the law" in its broad contect,as in the ceremonial law?

Also,the Lord said:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Mt.28:19-20).

Are we supposed to teach others the following thing which the Lord Jesus commanded His disciples:

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not" (Mt.23:1-3).

Are we to preach that believers are to observe the teachings of the scribies?

Dispensationalizing away the teachings of Jesus is gross error.

The gross error is not knowing one dispensation from another.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Lighthouse]

Just to clarify,I believe that there never was a time when salvation could be lost.And I do believe that there was salvation before the Cross,as witnessed by the words of the Lord Jesus to the woman who washed His feet:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).

In His grace,--Jerry

That is not the salvation we now have, which is the Life of Christ. The forgiveness of sins is not salvation, or all would be saved, since Christ shed His blood for the forgiveness of all sins, for all time.

 

[Lighthouse]

For Lighthouse:
You posted #472 on January 8, 2007.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28166&page=32&pp=15
I replied in post #483 on January 8, 2007.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28166&page=33&pp=15
You may reply to that if you wish.
I never heard of Les Feldick.
This sounds like a good church:
Grace Baptist Church
432 W 300 N, Anderson, IN 46012

Are they of the Open View?

 

[Lighthouse]

Most Baptist, Lutheran?, Reformed people would be OSAS and also see Pentecost as the birth of the NT Church. Mid-Acts is a minority position that is not even on the radar in most evangelical or academic circles. Those in the Arminian camp would reject OSAS, so Christianity is split on the issue (though the vast majority in both camps are Acts 2 oriented vs Mid-Acts).

And?

 

[Lighthouse]

Dear Lighthouse,

Thank you for your reply.


I am kind of of the opinion that the twelve disciples except Judas Iscariot were saved before the Crucifixion. godrulz may claim that Judas lost his salvation, but I think he agrees that the eleven disciples were saved before the Crucifixion. Jerry Shugart made arguments that Old Testament saints were indeed saved.

No one could be resurrected with Christ until He was resurrected.

If the eleven were saved before Pentecost, theoretically all the Jews could have been saved before Pentecost too, right? “It is finished” and the curtain being torn from the top downward.

They could not be saved until the resurrection. It was after this they were saved, and since no one else had heard, they [outside the 12 (Matthias included)] could not be saved. Because faith comes by hearing.

It seems to me that if the Jews didn’t have to keep the Law for salvation after Pentecost, MAD is in vain, because the reason for MAD is putting the James and Hebrews passages onto the Jews, and if the Jews were really saved without keeping the Law…

They weren't saved without keeping the law, they just weren't saved by keeping it. They had to have faith.

Jesus gave the law its proper due.

Jesus was born under the law, and so Jesus preached the law, because even if the Jews did not have to keep the law after His resurrection, it was still a requirement beforehand.

You said salvation in every Dispensation is by grace alone! If you can’t be saved by keeping the law, you can’t be damned by not keeping the law.

You can be damned by not having faith, and when the command of God incarnate is to keep the law, then do you have faith if you do not keep it?

So Clete’s view is true of Jews who didn’t hear Paul’s teaching? They would have went to Hell for not keeping the Law?

If they were converted under the gospel of the circumcision, yes. For the reason why, see above.

I posted Bob Hill’s dispensations in post #447.

I see what you mean now. I was saying that the dispensation changed, based on the addition of Christ's death and resurrection to the preaching of the gospel of the circumcision. If I am mistaken, I hope someone I respect will set me straight.

If Jews didn’t have to keep the Law between Acts 2 and Acts 9 for salvation in the Kingdom Offered part of THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION, they shouldn’t have had to keep the Law for salvation in the whole THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION, should they?

I never said they didn't have to keep it, did I? I just said they weren't saved by it. Pay attention.

That’s not the way it was in Left Behind. Will there be salvation by works in the Millennium too?

So? Who cares how it was in a book series? What matters is the Bible. As for the Millenium, you'll have to ask someone else, because my eschatology is not very good.

What about John 3:16? What about Romans 10:11-13?

What about them? Romans was written for this dispensation, by the way.

Did the saved Jews of the Circumcision have to sacrifice? If not, when did they stop it?

Of course not! Christ was the final sacrifice. You should know that.

Now you do say that salvation is always by grace and not by law/works which do not save?

When have I ever not said that? [And don't try to be smart and talk about before I believed it].

If they were required to keep the Law but not for salvation, does it not make sense that keeping the Law was for inclusion in Israel, God’s high priestly nation, and not for salvation which was through faith in the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world?

Bingo!

What differences are there between what you really believe and Acts 2 Dispensationalism?

Acts 2ers believe they are part of Israel, so they do things to be included in Israel. They think the Bride and the Body are one and the same.

That statement is ridiculous.

How so?

Can you not see that I know Acts 2 Dispensationalism can teach salvation by grace through faith plus nothing and indeed I am arguing that is the way salvation always is?

Either way, they still teach you to keep the law, for inclusion in Israel.

If you have a hangup about confessing your sins all the time, see the thread A conversation with Mutt and Jeff by elected4ever in Exclusively Christian Theology.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34660

I don't need to ask for forgiveness, when I've already been forgiven. [See: Christ on the cross]

 

[lightninboy]

Dear Lighthouse,

Are they of the Open View?

Here is their website.
http://www.gracebaptist-anderson.com/
I am not saying you would necessarily like going there, and I am not saying it is necessarily the only good church in the Anderson, Indiana region. The Southern Baptist Church may be rather Calvinistic, but this one is an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. You might think that Fundamentalist Baptist churches aren’t any fun, but this one seems active.

I basically didn’t even hear of the Open View until I came on TOL. It still seems like more trouble than it is worth to find out what people think it really is.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That is not the salvation we now have, which is the Life of Christ. The forgiveness of sins is not salvation, or all would be saved, since Christ shed His blood for the forgiveness of all sins, for all time.

You said that no one before the Cross was saved but when I quoted the Lord Jesus telling a woman that she is saved before the Cross now you say that this in not the salvation we now have.

Was she saved or not?

And are we supposed to believe that Moses and Elijah were not saved even though Perter,James and John saw them on the holy mount?:

"And was transfigured before them: and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with Him" (Mt.17:2-3).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[lightninboy]

Dear Jerry,

If I recall correctly, you did accuse patman of saying that Paul taught the Law of Moses or something when patman didn't mean anything of that sort.

It would be okay to apologize to him, wouldn't it?

If you are going to debate Lighthouse too, please don't make him mad.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dear Jerry,

If I recall correctly, you did accuse patman of saying that Paul taught the Law of Moses or something when patman didn't mean anything of that sort.

No,I never accused patman of saying that.I merely stated that Paul tells the Christian to follow the commandments (1Thess.4:2).

He thought that when I used the word "commandment" that I as referring to the law,and that is understandable.

It would be okay to apologize to him, wouldn't it?

If you think that I accused him of that then please quote me.

If you are going to debate Lighthouse too, please don't make him mad.

Who has assigned you to be the "political correct" judge on this forum.I merely quoted verses to him which I think proves his ideas wrong in regard to salvation before the Cross.I do not think that that will make him mad.

lightinboy,so far I have not seen you contribute in any way positively to the subject of this thread.When I asked you to address the verses which I quoted that demonstrate the ideas of Acts 2 dispensationalist Charles Ryrie are in error you remained silent.When are you going to finally address those verses?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[lightninboy]

Dear Lighthouse,
Thank you for your reply.

They could not be saved until the resurrection.

Did you say they were sort of saved?

If they were converted under the gospel of the circumcision, yes.

But Paul said there was no difference between Jew and Gentile.

So? Who cares how it was in a book series? What matters is the Bible. As for the Millenium, you'll have to ask someone else, because my eschatology is not very good.

Show me where it is in the Bible that there will be no salvation by grace alone in the Great Tribulation.

What about them? Romans was written for this dispensation, by the way.

Show me where that is said in the Bible.

Of course not! Christ was the final sacrifice. You should know that.

But isn’t making sacrifices part of the Law?

When have I ever not said that? [And don't try to be smart and talk about before I believed it].

Salvation was, yes. But the law was still to be upheld and honored.

No. Because they still kept the law, and were required to. They just weren't saved by it.

Bingo!

Bingo! We agree on that? But that was the Acts 2 Dispensationalism point of view I was arguing for.

Acts 2ers believe they are part of Israel, so they do things to be included in Israel. They think the Bride and the Body are one and the same.

Do you think it is impossible for an Acts 2 Dispensationalism church to teach salvation by grace through faith plus nothing?

I don't need to ask for forgiveness, when I've already been forgiven. [See: Christ on the cross]

I wasn’t arguing FOR confessing your sins all the time.

 

[lightninboy]

Dear Jerry,

Whatever.

Paul Sadler had an article about Ryrie.

Even if you're right, you didn't tell me what to tell 'em.

I concluded you are nuts and you proved it to patman.

 

[Lighthouse]

Dear Lighthouse,

Here is their website.
http://www.gracebaptist-anderson.com/
I am not saying you would necessarily like going there, and I am not saying it is necessarily the only good church in the Anderson, Indiana region. The Southern Baptist Church may be rather Calvinistic, but this one is an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. You might think that Fundamentalist Baptist churches aren’t any fun, but this one seems active.

I basically didn’t even hear of the Open View until I came on TOL. It still seems like more trouble than it is worth to find out what people think it really is.

I'm moving to Indy to be a part of another church, anyway. As for what part, I'm not saying right now, because I think it might scare some people.:chuckle:

 

[Lighthouse]

You said that no one before the Cross was saved but when I quoted the Lord Jesus telling a woman that she is saved before the Cross now you say that this in not the salvation we now have.

Was she saved or not?

And are we supposed to believe that Moses and Elijah were not saved even though Perter,James and John saw them on the holy mount?:

"And was transfigured before them: and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with Him" (Mt.17:2-3).

In His grace,--Jerry

It was a semantic issue, and I did not realize you did not understand me. So I explained myself. Do you seriously disagree with what I have said?

 

[Lighthouse]

Dear Lighthouse,
Thank you for your reply.

You're welcome.

Did you say they were sort of saved?

No. I said they did not have the salvation we have. That is not to say they do not have it now.

But Paul said there was no difference between Jew and Gentile.

Where is there no difference? In the body of Christ. That's where. So those outside the Body, including the Bride are different, especially from the Body.

Show me where it is in the Bible that there will be no salvation by grace alone in the Great Tribulation.

Do you mean, where it says they will have the requirements of the law, such as circumcision and baptism?

Show me where that is said in the Bible.

That Romans was written to this dispensation? Paul continuously refers to himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, and speaks of the mystery God revealed to him, which is the dispensation of the grace of God. All of Paul's writings are to this dispensation.

But isn’t making sacrifices part of the Law?

Not when the final sacrifice has been made.:nono:

Bingo! We agree on that? But that was the Acts 2 Dispensationalism point of view I was arguing for.

If it was, I did not realize it.

Do you think it is impossible for an Acts 2 Dispensationalism church to teach salvation by grace through faith plus nothing?

Not necessarily, but the majority of them teach that salvation can be lost, if you break a commandment.

I wasn’t arguing FOR confessing your sins all the time.

Oh. Okay. Good.

 

[lightninboy]

Dear Lighthouse,
Thank you for your reply.

They had salvation of a sort, and I call them saved.

Doesn’t your Clete idea of them being damned for breaking the Law contradict Paul saying there is no difference between Jew and Gentile? If the Jews of the Circumcision were saved, they had eternal security just like the saved Gentiles.

Yes. With no salvation by grace alone. Where in the Bible is it said that the Great Tribulation will be like Bob Hill says it will be?

Where does Paul say that salvation by grace alone won’t be in the Great Tribulation? And what is your opinion of John 3:16 being applicable to people in The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace?

Bingo! We are both Acts 2 Dispensationalists? If not, where are we different?

 

[Lighthouse]

Dear Lighthouse,
Thank you for your reply.

They had salvation of a sort, and I call them saved.

I understand that.

Doesn’t your Clete idea of them being damned for breaking the Law contradict Paul saying there is no difference between Jew and Gentile? If the Jews of the Circumcision were saved, they had eternal security just like the saved Gentiles.

I never said they were damned for breaking the law. Please follow along. And anyway, Paul says there is no difference between them in the Body of Christ. The Bride and the Body are two different parties. And the Jews who were required to keep the law were of the Bride [Israel]. And there was a difference between Jews of the Bride, and those in the Body.

Yes. With no salvation by grace alone. Where in the Bible is it said that the Great Tribulation will be like Bob Hill says it will be?

Ask Bob.

Where does Paul say that salvation by grace alone won’t be in the Great Tribulation? And what is your opinion of John 3:16 being applicable to people in The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace?

I don't beleive Paul says it. He does say that it will be this way until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, and that would be the departure, a.k.a. the rapture.

Bingo! We are both Acts 2 Dispensationalists? If not, where are we different?

If you are an Acts 2 dispensationalist, then you are required to keep the law. The problem is that the Acts 2 dispensation is over. So I don't know why you would want to be one.

 

[godrulz]

If you are an Acts 2 dispensationalist, then you are required to keep the law. The problem is that the Acts 2 dispensation is over. So I don't know why you would want to be one.

Huh? The vast majority of evangelical Christians are Acts 2 and solidly Reformational in justification by grace through faith, apart from works. Recognizing that the Church Age started earlier than Paul's conversion (Peter and Paul preached the risen Christ and faith alone in Him...both talked about works, repentance, and faith in their teachings), has nothing to do with legalisms or law keeping. It is a timing issue, not a soteriological issue.

You beg the question and use circular reasoning, the danger in having a preconceived "Plot" theology as a filter for reading the historical narratives instead of exegeting in context.

No believer after the death and resurrection of Christ were required to keep the law (other than in the way that Paul affirmed for the believers...those who love Jesus and are indwelt by the Spirit will not be lawless antinomians...their faith will be evidenced by loving obedience...do you think it is right to murder, adulterate, and worship idols because we are in the age of Grace?). Have you read the Book of Acts and its Christocentric message, even before the conversoin of Paul? Do you miss the gospel in Peter's message because you can't interpret Acts 2:38 properly?

 

[lightninboy]

Dear Lighthouse,
Thank you for your reply.

Ask Bob.

Pastor Hill, please describe the Great Tribulation and the Millennium in detail!

What is your opinion of John 3:16 being applicable to people in The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace?

godrulz addressed the law-keeping issue you have.

 

[Lighthouse]

Huh? The vast majority of evangelical Christians are Acts 2 and solidly Reformational in justification by grace through faith, apart from works. Recognizing that the Church Age started earlier than Paul's conversion (Peter and Paul preached the risen Christ and faith alone in Him...both talked about works, repentance, and faith in their teachings), has nothing to do with legalisms or law keeping. It is a timing issue, not a soteriological issue.

You beg the question and use circular reasoning, the danger in having a preconceived "Plot" theology as a filter for reading the historical narratives instead of exegeting in context.

No believer after the death and resurrection of Christ were required to keep the law (other than in the way that Paul affirmed for the believers...those who love Jesus and are indwelt by the Spirit will not be lawless antinomians...their faith will be evidenced by loving obedience...do you think it is right to murder, adulterate, and worship idols because we are in the age of Grace?). Have you read the Book of Acts and its Christocentric message, even before the conversoin of Paul? Do you miss the gospel in Peter's message because you can't interpret Acts 2:38 properly?

The problem lies in that the dispensation those in Acts 2 were under is over. End of story. And how is Acts 2:38 supposed to be interpreted?