Outline of major dispensations

[HumbleStudent]

Could someone please give me the basic outline of dispensations?
I have a good concept of dispensationalism, but i'm not 100% on all of the specific dispensations.
THANX

[Jerry Shugart]

HumbleStudent,

You might want to look at this article that I wrote that lays out the "universal" Dispensations:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/3717/shugart.html

In His grace,--Jerry

[drbrumley]

Humble,

If I may direct your attention to 12 Dispensations by Bob Hill Thread under Theologyonline News, for this gives the best outline of dispensations that I have seen. Of course I am being biased. LOL! See ya there.

[Ian Day]

Four dispensations:

1. Creation & innocence (Gen 1 & 2)

2. THe broken covenant, and a promised redeemer (Gen 3 - Malachi)

3. The New Covenant, salvation through the blood of Christ (Matthew - Revelation)

4. Glory, in the New Heaven & New Earth, the full realisation of the Covenant, promised through Scripture.

My advice is to forget dispensationalism.

Whatever our precise views, the people of God are saved by the blood of the Everlasting Covenant.

[drbrumley]

Ian,

My advice is to forget dispensationalism.

I have to ask why you say that.

[Ian Day]

Originally posted by drbrumley
Ian, "My advice is to forget dispensationalism. "

I have to ask why you say that.
Dispensationalism, as taught by Dallas, Bob Hill, Jerry, et al is a system of theology which sees a series of dispensations after Christ returns. The focus of their theology is ethnic Israel, rather than the people of God in Christ. They see a millennium on earth, where the church is removed ("raptured") & Israel, both people & land is central, & Jesus reigns in person from Jerusalem.

Covenant theology sees Christ as central, and his return in glory to raise the dead for judgement; the believing dead to share his glory in the New Heaven & New Earth, & the wicked dead to suffer eternal wrath in hell.

Dispensationalism sees two gospels, one taught by John, Christ, Peter & the apostles for the Jews, & one taught by Paul for the Gentiles & for the Jews since Acts 9 or 28. It teaches that the Jewish gospel will again apply in the millennium.

THe virtue of dispensationalism is that they agree with us on the gospel for the present gospel dispensation of grace, so that we can unite in fellowship at present.

Let's build on that, & work & worship together for God's kingdom, & leave the way God works the future out to him.

Jhn 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [shall] this man [do]?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me.

[drbrumley]

Ian,

Thanx for clarifying your position. I see you are a covenant theology person. Look forward to discussing topics with you.

God Bless

[Elect]

which explains problems with dispy'ism:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=642

Disclaimer: The discussion concerning the millennium is from the author's opinion, the rest is pretty accurate.

[HumbleStudent]

ok.....i think that none of the dispensations after Jesus really matter......well maybe they do.....I haven't educated myself enough on the subject yet.....but what could be important after the death of christ.........Maybe someone could just give a definition of "dispensation" for me.....sorry if i seem like a newbie, but i am....i've only been at this for a couple months

[Knight]

HS -try this. (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1653)

[drbrumley]

Humble,

I was like you for a time also, so I know where your coming from.

Theres more truth in dispenstionalism then how it is presented here. Im no expert on Dispensations but I know what the Holy Spirit has showed me thru godly men as Bob Hill and Bob Enyart and some others. I was once a covenant person, even though I really didn't know what that meant and things just didn't add up as to what Covenant Theologians were saying. But I just accepted it as fact even though scriptures were screaming at me that while they were right in some things, it had alot to be desired as to what scripture was actually saying. I hope this helps in some way, and look forward to discussing anything you need addressed.

God Bless

[Ian Day]

Humble,

This was posted on page 16 of the "did Paul preach the same Gospel as Peter] thread. The great error of dispensationalism which was apprarent there was the idea that the "dispensation of grace" began with Paul, not Christ.


On the TOL forum you will see many postings arguing that the simple Gospel we know and love as the basis of our salvation began with Paul. THey claim it was not preached by John, Jesus, the twelve. THey claim they preached a distinct Gospel of the kingdom foro the Jews only. THey claim that Paul was given a separate Gospel for the Gentiles by which Jews could be saved also, so that two different Gospels were preached during the Acts period.

Some will even claim that baptism (in water) was an Old Covenant ritual which has no place in a Covenant of Grace church. (THe Covenant of Grace being different from the New Covenant. {Which is only with the Jews.})

The marrow of the discussion/argument is "What is the Gospel ???"

We've got to understand what the Gospel is before we can discuss it !

Jerry & others believe in many dispensations, many covenants, with many ways of salvation. And at least two Gospels.

I believe that there is essentially ONE GOSPEL from the Fall onwards, which has been progressively revealed by types & shadows until CHrist himself came, and died and rose again.

I believe that salvation is only and always through the Everlasting Covenant, the New Covenant in Jesus blood being the Everlasting Covenant made clear.

If I am right, then we can read the Gospels, Acts, Letters, and build up our understanding of God's revealed truth to man.

If Jerry is right, we have to consider that much of New Testament teaching does not apply to us as members of the Church. The Old Testament prophecies apply to the Jews & not the Church.
[i]
2Cr 1:20 For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

1 Cr 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

[drbrumley]

Humble,

This is by Bob Hill. I want to post this because this is as accurate a thesis on the presentation of the two gospels as you will find. I will divide this into 3 parts for you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I knew a couple who had two children. They were good parents. They made sure their children had the education and spiritual food they needed. One day they heard about a young girl who had been abused who was a ward of the state. They decided to adopt her and love her. They carried through and did what they decided to do.

At first they poured out their love to her. But soon, other people could see a discrimination between her and the natural children. She couldn’t do things the way her parents expected, but the other children always did. She couldn’t be trusted, but the other children were. She didn’t get good grades, but they did. After a while, the parents were sorry they had adopted her. By this time she had developed some severe emotional problems.

If you were a child observing this situation, you would never want to be an adopted child. When we read Galatians 4:3-7 in this light, we may not want to be an adopted son either.

Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

But let’s notice some important things in this passage. The promise of this adoption shows a great change in our present lives. We are no longer slaves but sons. We are now heirs of God.

What does this adoption mean? We can change wills all we want, today, but it was different in ancient Greek law. In Galatians 3:15, it says, “Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant[1] yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.” The great Asia Minor archaeologist of a hundred years ago, William Ramsay, helps us understand the meaning of this word, diatheke, which can be translated covenant or will. He wrote,

An illustration from the ordinary facts of society, as it existed in the Galatian cities, is here stated: “I speak after the manner of men”. The will (diaqhkh) of a human being is irrevocable when once duly executed: hence the Will of God, formally pledged to Abraham, that all nations should be blessed in his seed, i.e., in Christ, cannot be affected by the subsequent act of God executed centuries later, vis., the giving of the Law. The inheritance of blessing comes from the original Will, and cannot be affected by the subsequent Law. . . . The question as to the sense of the Greek word Diatheke in this passage must be carefully distinguished from the far more important question as to its general Biblical meaning. Here the word is used in allusion to every-day life among ordinary men. The Biblical usage is a different topic. . . . That the word must in this passage be taken in the technical sense of Will is shown by the following reasons. In the first place the Diatheke is proved to indicate a Will by the fact that an inheritance, klhronomia, is determined by it, 3:18. Secondly, Paul says that he is speaking “after the manner of men,” 3:15. He therefore is employing the word in the sense in which it was commonly used as part of the ordinary life of the cities of the East. What this sense was there can be no doubt. The word is often found in the inscriptions, and always in the same sense which it bears in the classical Greek writers, Will or Testament. But, if Paul is speaking about a Will, how can he say that, after it is once made, it is irrevocable? It is this difficulty that has made the commentators on this passage reject almost unanimously the sense of Will. They do not try to determine what was the nature of a Will among the Galatians, but assume that an ancient Will was pretty much of the same nature as a modern Will. Our procedures must be very different. We have to take the word Diatheke in its ordinary sense “after the manner of men”: then we observe what is the character attributed by Paul to the Galatian Will: finally we investigate what relation the Galatian Will bears to the known classed of Will in other ancient nations, and so determine its origin. In Hellenized Asia Minor, at the time when Paul was writing, the Diatheke or Will was a provision to maintain the continuity of the family with its religious obligations. . . . It is here plainly stated that when the Will has been properly executed with all legal formalities, no person can make it ineffective or add any further clause or conditions. . . . We are confronted with a legal idea that the duly executed Will cannot be revoked by a subsequent act of the testator. Such irrevocability was a characteristic feature of Greek law, according to which an heir outside the family must be adopted into the family; and the adoption was the Will making. Galatian procedure, evidently, was similar. The appointment of an heir was the adoption of a son, and was final and irrevocable. The testator, after adopting his heir, could not subsequently take away from him his share in the inheritance or impose new conditions on his succession. That is a totally different conception of a Will from our modern ideas. We think of a Will as secret and inoperative during the life-time of the testator, as revocable by him at pleasure, and as executed by him only with a view to his own death. A Will of that kind could have no application to God, and no such analogy could have been used by Paul. But the Galatian Will, like God’s Word, is irrevocable and unalterable; it comes into operation as soon as the conditions are performed by the heir; it is public and open. Such also was the original Roman Will; but that kind of Will had become obsolete in Roman law. It could have been familiar to no one except a legal antiquary; and neither Paul nor any other Provincial is likely to have known anything about that ancient Roman idea. . . . Galatian law was evidently of kindred spirit to Greek law and unlike Roman, just as we found to be the case in regard to adoption and heirship. The exact sense of [verse] 15 must be observed. Paul does not say that a supplementary Will (epidiaqhkh) cannot be made; but that the new Will cannot interfere with or invalidate the old Will. . . . The Roman-Syrian Law-Book . . . well illustrates this passage of the Epistle. It actually lays down the principle that a man can never put away an adopted son, and that he cannot put away a real son without good ground. It is remarkable that the adopted son should have a stronger position than the son by birth; yet it was so. . . . When diaqhkh is understood thus, the paragraph becomes full of meaning; but this sense could hardly have existed except in a country where Greek law had been established for some considerable time. . . . The expression in v. 15, “when it hath been confirmed,” must also be observed. Every Will had to be passed through the Record Office of the city. It was not regarded in the Greek law as a purely private document . . . It must be deposited, either in original or in a properly certified copy, in the Record Office; and the officials there were bound to satisfy themselves that it was a properly valid document before they accepted it. If there was an earlier will, the later must not be accepted, unless it was found not to interfere with the preceding one.[2]

With this understanding of diatheke, diaqhkh, will, Paul’s message of adoption and its implications for our security become very clear. Adoption, uioqesia, means son placed. You are made a son as soon as you are saved. Romans 8:14-16 establishes that.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

However, we have not arrived at the time of our adoption yet according to Ephesians 1:5, “having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.” Once we trust Christ as our Savior, we become part of God’s predestinated program of adoption. Our adoption is absolutely certain. Its basis is God’s predestination. Nothing can change that Will.

[drbrumley]

Humble tell you what , let me link you to the article. This was alittle longer than I really thought

Two Gospels and Adoption (http://biblicalanswers.com/Articles/Two%20Gospels%20and%20Adoption%20the%20Basis%20of% 20Eternal%20Security.htm)

God Bless

[Elect]

Acts 7:37--"This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38 This is he, that was in the church(ecclesia) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:"

[Ian Day]

drbrumley

Two Gospels and Adoption

Apart from the fact that the link doesn't, I think you are a very brave man, defying the curse of God on those who maintain that there is "another gospel". (Gal. 1)

Bob Hill tried to argue for two gospels on the "Did Paul preach the same gospel as Peter ?" thread & showed the consequences of his folly in his handling of New Covenant Scriptures.

Humble Servant - don't listen to them.

[drbrumley]

Ian,

Paul's "My Gospel" is mentioned because it stands in contrast in the Roman epistle to the gospel of God which God promised before by His prophets.

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith-- Romans 16:25-26

The prophets in this passage are manifestly not Old Testament prophets, for Paul states that this message was kept secret since the world began and only now (in Paul's lifetime) has it been made manifest. In the exegsis of this passage it may be questioned whether Paul is speaking of two different things, "my gospel," and "the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery," or whether the word "and" has the sense of "even" as the Greek kai often has; in which case the passage would read: "according to my gospel, even the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery." In either case Paul's preaching was an advance on the gospel of God, for he preached not only that but the truth of the mystery.

George Williams states in The Student's Commentary 1949

"My Gospel" (v. 25), i.e., the glad tidings concerning the secret revealed to him.

"The preaching of Jesus Christ," i.e., salvation for all nations through Him on the principle of faith-obedience (as opposed to works) as commanded by the everlasting God. So Paul had a double ministry, that of the Gospel, and that of "My Gospel" i.e., the Gospel of the Mystery.

Thus the epistle begins with the Gospel, always revealed, never hidden, and closes with Paul's Gospel, always hidden, never revealed. This mystery, i.e., secret, is the theme of the epistle to the Ephesians.

O'Hair has this comment on Paul's "my gospel":
All of the apostles were preaching 1 Corinthians 15:1 to 4. Paul was not referring to that. When Paul wrote Timothy to be a partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel, he was not referring to "the gospel of the Kingdom," or merely to the Gospel of salvation of Ephesians 1:13. No, Paul was referring to the Divine truth designated "the mystery." This truth was not revealed by Christ to the twelve apostles. What they knew of the mystery they first learned from Paul."

People who do not recognize the dispensational principle in Scripture see nothing distinctive about Paul's gospel. They are forced to say that the mystery is simply the fact that God would one day save Gentiles as well as Jews, but surely there is nothing hidden or secret about this fact, for the Old Testament is full of predictions about Gentile salvation. And they are forced into another contradiction of saying that the Scriptures of the Old Testament prophets make manifest the truth that was hidden from them.

Paul uses this expression in only two other places, Romans 2:16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel
and
2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel,

His expression in Ephesians 6:19, "the mystery of the gospel," is apparently equivalent to his "my gospel," as it includes not only salvation but salvation into the heavenly blessings of the Body of Christ.

God Bless

[HopeofGlory]

drbrumley,

Dispensationalist teach that the gospel of the kingdom is a faith plus works gospel and that Christ Jesus taught the same. They also teach that Paul was the first to reveal that Christ died for our sins.

Is this correct and do you believe the same?

In Christ
Craig

[drbrumley]

HopeofGlory,

Dispensationalist teach that the gospel of the kingdom is a faith plus works gospel and that Christ Jesus taught the same.

Thank You for your post.

I want to make this as clear as I can.

It appears that there have been overstatements on both sides of this issue. On the one hand, it is contended dogmatically that there is but one Gospel in the Bible, and on the other hand dispensationalists argue just as dogmatically that there are several gospels in the Bible. The misunderstanding appears to arise largely from the use of the word GOSPEL. Most use the word gospel as the equivalent of how to be saved. They argue, and rightly so, that no one has been saved by his own works; that salvation in every dispensation has been by God's grace, but they contend that dispensationalists argue for salvation by works for those in a former dispensation because they say there is more than one gospel. This is simply a conclusion drawn by anti-dispensationalists which is contrary to the posiitive statements of dispensationalists. Practically all dispensationalists believe that salvation in every dispensation has been based upon faith in the revealed Word of God, but since they believe that the Bible presents a progressive revelation they must of necessity contend that men in former generations did not possess the totality of revelation which is contained in the New Testament epistles. Therefore, there has been a change from time to time in the content of the message. which was the object of faith.

The content of the gospel of the kingdom which was preached by the apostles during the earthly ministry of Christ was completely devoid of the teaching that Christ would die for the sins of the world, be buried, and rise again the third day. And yet that is the heart of gospel preaching in this dispensation. And even more evident is the fact that in Old Testament times faith demanded that men bring animal sacrifices, a practice which is expressly forbidden in God's message for today. But this does not mean that the worshipper understood that the animal sacrifices was a type of the coming Redeemer and that he was actually excercising faith in a crucified and resurrected Savior. God knew and we know today that the death of Christ was the actual basis of salvation in EVERY dispensation (Rom 3:25), even though the worshipper did not understand all that was involved in the councels of God.

Part 2 coming

[geralduk]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory
drbrumley,

Dispensationalist teach that the gospel of the kingdom is a faith plus works gospel and that Christ Jesus taught the same. They also teach that Paul was the first to reveal that Christ died for our sins.

Is this correct and do you believe the same?

In Christ
Craig

You realy MUST clarify what you say.Else it leads to more confusion.
The salvation of God has ALWAYS been by grace and NOT of works but by FAITH in HIm who FINISHED the work of God on calvary.
Paul has so expounded on that it is a wonder it is still disputed!
From ABLE onwards.the salvation of God has ALWAYS been the same.
The varios DISPENSATIONS of God therfore are the PROGRESIVE revalation of God.
The WORKS that JAMES speaaks of are NOT therefore the same as what PAUL is speaking of.
Paul is speaking of the works of the fleshh according to the law,by which NO one is justyfied or saved by.
This is of the same type of works that CAINE was rejected for.
because he offered the works of his hands.
James is speaking about the works of RIGHTOUSNESS.NOT unto salvation.but to and for the glory of God.
For example;
The children of iSREAL where saved FROM Egypt NOT by thier works but by "the mighty hand of God"
It was only when they entered into thier inheritence did thye strt to do those WORKS that were forordained of God.
Not for thier salvation(they were already saved!)
But were rightous works of FAITH!
The whole vain debate of dispensationlists and covenantists stems from using these great truths as a dogmatic and formulatic means to study the scripture.
This is NOT the way to study the scripture.
For by so doing 'you'become unbalanced and fall into error.

No man is saved by his works EVER!

But is saved by the GRACE of God,through FAITH in the LORD Jesus Christ.
Paul Himself said we are to REST from OUR WORKS even as God did from His!

The works that FOLOW real faith in God comes from thye that "know thier God shall be strong and do great exploits"
You cannot do the WORKS of God without KNOWING Him.
Jesus I speak not my own words but the FATHER who is in me,HE DOETH THE WORKS!"
Did He not say "Even as the FATHER sent me so sendeth I you"?
Therefore it is not we who doeth the WORKS(WE ARE DEAD!) but Christ who liveth IN us.
Therefore even then how can we boast!?
Not at all!
and if it is HE that doeth the works how then can we be saved by them thinking it is our own works!?
WHICHEVER way you look at it we are NEVER saved by OUR works.
But our faith is PROVED by our works.
there is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE!

[drbrumley]

As suggested earlier the problem seems to be concerned with the proper definition of the word gospel and its relation to dispensations and to salvation itself. Gospel means simply good news , and there are many items of good news in the Bible. The greek word is euangelion and the verb is euangelizo . These words are found numerous times in the Septuagint. Most of these pieces of good news have to do with material blessings and have no reference to what we would call spiritual salvation.Thus it is not always the equivalent of salvation. To be sure there is a "gospel of salvation" (Ephesians 1:13) which is basic to all of the other messages of God's good news, but not all of God's good news concerns salvation from sin. Some of the good news concerns what God has saved the sinner to, which might be called good news to the saint. Some good news concerns a particular program of God, such as the gospel of the kingdom, which is good news that God is going to establish His kingdom in the earth. Sometimes the gospel is distinguished according to the people to whom it was sent, such as the gospel of the circumsion and the gospel of the uncircumsion (Galatians 2:7-9). Sometimes the distinction is made as to the messenger to whom the gospel is committed, as when Paul speaks of "my gospel."

Hope that clears some questions.

[HopeofGlory]

drbrumley,

Thanks for your reply but I'm still not clear on what you believe.
The circumcision message of righteous works Peter delivered at Pentecost is evident in the scriptures. Dispensationalism teaches that Christ was a minister of this circumcision gospel.

Do you believe Christ taught a faith plus works (ordinances)salvation as did Peter? If the answer is yes then give me your scriptural references.

In Christ
Craig

[HopeofGlory]

geralduk

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Gen. 17:13 (KJV)
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen. 17:14 (KJV)

Is this not a required work?

Jesus told the apostles....Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. John 20:23 (KJV)

Peter at Pentecost... Repent, and be "baptized" every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ "for the remission of sins", and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 (KJV)

And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. Acts 5:32 (KJV)

Was water baptism not a work to receive remission of sins?

In Christ
Craig

[Hitch]

Originally posted by HumbleStudent
Could someone please give me the basic outline of dispensations?
I have a good concept of dispensationalism, but i'm not 100% on all of the specific dispensations.
THANX This system works as well as any:

Write the titles of the Books of Scripture on seperate pieces of paper.

Pick a number. (usually between one and ten but it really doesnt matter)Well say 6 for now.

Scatter the first pile out on the floor and toss six pieces with the numbers on them over the pile.

Now all you need is to set the order so number one comes earliest(*) in scripture and number two next and so on.

Then develope the necessary antilogical interpretations needed to support your 'dispensations'. Not to worry, over the arbitrary nature of your discoveries, its foundational to the systems in use today and imagination is,next to chance, the primary pillar. Note; When they are found lacking in Scriptural support ...1. Ignore contrary evidence,,2. Cast doubt on the spiritual condition of anyone who disagrees

* Take care in or about Genesis 1.1-1;3 , not to bow the knee to Baal as lesser DFs of the 20th century.


Hitch

[drbrumley]

Hitch,

With all that mumble jumble you just said, give an explanation:D

[Zakath]

I prefer the stair-step approach myself.

1. Write the name of a biblical book on a single sheet of paper.
2. Repeat for as many books as exist in your version of the Bible.
3. Stand at the top of a stairway.
4. Throw the stack of sheets containing the names into the air so they fall onto the stairs.
5. Each step represents a dispensation and you can associate the books that fall on that step with that dispensation.

This method, a variant of a process preferred by some grad students for grading undergraduate quiz papers, is about as logically rigorous as most other methods... ;)

Though to be honest, I thought Hitch's explanation is as clear as any other explanation of how dispensationalism works that I've ever read. ;)

[Jaltus]

Why in the world is Zak posting in this forum?

Strangest thing.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by drbrumley
Hitch,

With all that mumble jumble you just said, give an explanation:D Commenting on Dispensationalism with out 'mumble jumble' is like describing the lawyer class in sweet terms.

Shortly though: Chance is no more or less arbitrary than Scofiled's ,or anyone esle's, dispensational divisions.

Thanx Z . As I recall (been gone a while) you and I dont see eye to eye very often but you nailed my point exactly.

Take care

Hitch

[geralduk]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory
drbrumley,

Dispensationalist teach that the gospel of the kingdom is a faith plus works gospel and that Christ Jesus taught the same. They also teach that Paul was the first to reveal that Christ died for our sins.

Is this correct and do you believe the same?

In Christ
Craig

WHAT DOES THE SCRIPTURES TEACH?

[geralduk]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory
geralduk

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Gen. 17:13 (KJV)
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen. 17:14 (KJV)

Is this not a required work?

Jesus told the apostles....Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. John 20:23 (KJV)

Peter at Pentecost... Repent, and be "baptized" every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ "for the remission of sins", and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 (KJV)

And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. Acts 5:32 (KJV)

Was water baptism not a work to receive remission of sins?

In Christ
Craig

Paul ADEQUATELY dealt with the first question I would not presume to add to it!
If you do not know it then its where he talsk about wa sHe justified before the curcumsicion or after it?
The answer was BEFORE.
" THERFORE BEING JUSTFIED BY FAITH ............."

No man can forgive sins only God the paharaeas rightly claimed.

Remitting a sin is where a person HAS repented and God HAS forgiven Him but the person is not able to receive thre forgiveness of God without hearing the words for one reason and or another. and so a person movignin the Spirit and descerning what needs to be doen says to the person the word of authority.according as He is led.

Concerning the obedeince to receieve the Holy Spirit The Lord said they were to WAIT and do nothing untill they did RECIEV so in OBDEDINECE to the commandm,ent they WAITED!
WAS IT A WORK?
no.
NOONE EARNS the baptism of the HOly Spiirt.
A man was smote with blindenss fro trying it.

Paul spoke that you cannot be saved BY the WORKS of the law.
James spoke of having FAITH proved by WORKS.
Given that BOTH were men of God moved by God to so speak,it is clear then that they were talking about TWO different WORKS!

Paul: the WORKS of the LAW.
bY WHICH NO MAN IS JUSTYFIED.

James: The WORKS of RIGHTOUSNESS.
bY WHICH OUR .........FAITH ...........IS PROVED.

The children of ISREAL were SAVED .... FROM.... EGYPT NOT BY THIER works,but by FAITH in the BLOOD and by the "mighty hand of God"

Where was their work?
There was none.

It was when they came to and crossed over the river Jordan that they began to DO the WORKS of rightousness.

It is intersting to note that yit was not un till the Lord came and CROSSED over that He bagan His lifes WORK.

iT CLEARLY STRATES WITHOUT contradiction and confirmed throughout scripture that "without the shedding of blood there is NO remission of sins"
It was ALWAYS the BLOOD,nver do you see water used in that context.
The only water was in the laver between the sacrafice and the HOLY place.
used by the priests FOR SNACATFACTION AND WASHING BEFORE they did service IN THE Holy PLACE.