What is Acts 9 Dispensationalism?
- Thread starter Nimrod
- Start date
This may be true as far as the formal title "dispensationalist" is concerned but I can assure you that Paul did believe and teach that quite a bit had changed since the time Jesus was present in His earthly ministry. He clearly taught that Israel had been cut off and joined, in effect, in unbelief with the gentiles; that there was no longer any distinction between the two with respect to having a relationship with God. He also taught that the Mosaic Law no longer played a part in the life of a believer, that we as believers are no longer under the law. And I could go on and on and on. The point being, that the date is irrelevant to the truth. The question is, "What is or is not true (Biblical) about Dispensationalism?", not "How long has Dispensationalism been a formalized system of theology?"
Resting in Him,
Clete
Sozo
New member
The word "dispensationalism" simply means a belief in the fact that at one time God has dispensed or removed something that was not previously dispensed or removed.
To claim that there is no such thing as a time when God did not dispense or remove something that had not previously been dispensed or removed is the height of ignorance.
Genesis 1
"Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."
Revelation 22
"And there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever."
To claim that there is no such thing as a time when God did not dispense or remove something that had not previously been dispensed or removed is the height of ignorance.
Genesis 1
"Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."
Revelation 22
"And there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever."
1PeaceMaker
New member
:cough:
Sozo.... ahem...
Wouldn't you also say that some of what Dispensationalists say goes against the Gospel?
Sozo.... ahem...
Wouldn't you also say that some of what Dispensationalists say goes against the Gospel?
the church is not a what, Nimrod. It is a who. It is us. We are the church.
1PeaceMaker-
What type of dispensationalist? Acts 2 dispensationalists contradict the gospel. But Acts 9 dispensationalists do not.
Not quite accurate. The body known as the Body of Christ began when Isreal was cut off. Christ at or about the same time met Saul on the road to Damascus, changed his heart and sent him out to preach the Gospel of Grace among the gentiles. Paul had no authority that was not granted him by Jesus Christ.
Nimrod
Member
Jesus speaking to the Jews said in Matt 23 "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."
Jesus said to the "Gentile" Samaritan woman in John 4:20-24 Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Summary Jesus did speak of the Jews being cut off(desolate) and that the gentiles are part of the true believers.
Both Jesus and Paul taught that.
Paul said in Romans chapter 6 to follow the law
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid
Summary , Paul did teach that the law is part of the believer.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
I could go on and on. The point being, dispensationalism is wrong.
philosophizer
New member
The operative part being "because we are not under the law, but under grace"
Paul affirmed that we were not under the Law. The "God forbid" part was meant to be applied to the "shall we sin" part, not the "we are not under the law" part. :doh:
Nimrod
Member
You guys are so confused.
Clete post stated
Then Clete stated
When were believers "under the law" by means of salvation? They never were. It was always saved by God's grace through faith.
Question for philosopher. When were the believers "under the law".
Ok here we go again, dispensationalist are unable to grasp this, but I'll try again. As for SALVATION, being under the law saved no one. In that sense, believers were never "under the law". As for SANTIFICATION believers are to uphold the law. Both Paul and Jesus taught this.
Clete post stated
That statement is false. Paul said "God forbid".
Then Clete stated
When were believers "under the law" by means of salvation? They never were. It was always saved by God's grace through faith.
Question for philosopher. When were the believers "under the law".
Ok here we go again, dispensationalist are unable to grasp this, but I'll try again. As for SALVATION, being under the law saved no one. In that sense, believers were never "under the law". As for SANTIFICATION believers are to uphold the law. Both Paul and Jesus taught this.
philosophizer
New member
Believers are not "under the law." They are in Christ who died to the law. We are no longer slaves, but free. Why should we want to go back under that yoke? Christ's yoke is lighter and his burden easier.
"SALVATION...... SANCTIFICATION......" or do you really mean SAVED and SAVED MORE?
Believers were under the law, before Christ's sacrifice.
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth."
-Romans 10:4
If Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, then there must have been a beginning of the law for righteousness.
"For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them."
-Romans 10:5
Before the dispensation of grace, believers were under the law. They were saved by grace, through faith...with the works of the law. Their adherence to the law were works of faith. They were to circumcise, we are not. Not for the sake of righteousness.
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth."
-Romans 10:4
If Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, then there must have been a beginning of the law for righteousness.
"For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them."
-Romans 10:5
Before the dispensation of grace, believers were under the law. They were saved by grace, through faith...with the works of the law. Their adherence to the law were works of faith. They were to circumcise, we are not. Not for the sake of righteousness.
Nimrod
Member
Obviously Phil ran from answering that question. It was too comdemning for his theology.
But thank you Lighthouse for answering. You gave the reason why Dispensationalism is wrong. Works were never part of salvation!
Since you like Romans, you need to deal with Romans 4
4:3 for what doth the writing say? `And Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him -- to righteousness;'
How do you deal with Abraham being declared "righteous" apart from the law?
When anyone says "works" were required, they are really saying that one can lose their salvation. Dispensationalism teachs that the OT saints could lose their salvation, as if God's grace was not sufficient. They are really saying "God did 99%, now they have to do the other 1%".
But thank you Lighthouse for answering. You gave the reason why Dispensationalism is wrong. Works were never part of salvation!
Since you like Romans, you need to deal with Romans 4
4:3 for what doth the writing say? `And Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him -- to righteousness;'
How do you deal with Abraham being declared "righteous" apart from the law?
When anyone says "works" were required, they are really saying that one can lose their salvation. Dispensationalism teachs that the OT saints could lose their salvation, as if God's grace was not sufficient. They are really saying "God did 99%, now they have to do the other 1%".
