Dispensationaism Proven.

binyamin7

New member
It is not Biblical to say that God is saving people who reject Christ, and this is not what dispensationalism teaches.
It is also not Biblical to say that God completely replaced natural Israel, when in fact we are clearly told "All of [natural] Israel shall be saved" in the future in Romans 11:25-26.

We clearly see in Zechariah 12 that natural Israel will be surrounded and under attack from "all the nations" (Zech 12:2-3) and Israel prays and is sent the One "whom they pierced" (Zech12:10-11). So you see Israel gets saved by crying out humbly to YH and then Christ comes to save them. This lines up precisely with what Jesus said in Matt 23:39 when He said to the Pharisees and specifically Jerusalem they would "see Me no more till you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!". (Matt 23:37-39)

God will bring back natural Israel in the latter years (Ezek 37:12, 38:8, Lk 21:24, etc etc) and Honor the covenant He made with natural Israel in Genesis 15. How do we know this? Well two very clear reasons we can conclude this are:

1. God has spoken many unfulfilled prophecies pertaining to natural geographic Israel and surrounding nations that have yet to be fulfilled- and we are seeing them being fulfilled. (Dan 9:24-27, Ezek 37-39, Dan 11:35-12:4, Joel 3, Ps 83, Zech 12-14)
2. Paul very explicitly said that "Israel has been blinded in part until the period of the Gentiles is fulfilled. And so, as it is written, ALL OF ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED" -Romans 11:25-26.


Spiritually Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ, yet God still made a covenant with natural Israel in Gen 15 which He will honor. Men and women are one, and have different purposes and positions. Members of the Body of Christ are one, and still have different functions and purposes. This is not a contradiction.

If replacement theology was true, then why is God literally fulfilling all the prophecies in the Word systematically in front of our eyes?!
 

genuineoriginal

New member
It is not Biblical to say that God is saving people who reject Christ, and this is not what dispensationalism teaches.
It is also not Biblical to say that God completely replaced natural Israel, when in fact we are clearly told "All of [natural] Israel shall be saved" in the future in Romans 11:25-26.

We clearly see in Zechariah 12 that natural Israel will be surrounded and under attack from "all the nations" (Zech 12:2-3) and Israel prays and is sent the One "whom they pierced" (Zech12:10-11). So you see Israel gets saved by crying out humbly to YH and then Christ comes to save them. This lines up precisely with what Jesus said in Matt 23:39 when He said to the Pharisees and specifically Jerusalem they would "see Me no more till you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!". (Matt 23:37-39)

God will bring back natural Israel in the latter years (Ezek 37:12, 38:8, Lk 21:24, etc etc) and Honor the covenant He made with natural Israel in Genesis 15. How do we know this? Well two very clear reasons we can conclude this are:

1. God has spoken many unfulfilled prophecies pertaining to natural geographic Israel and surrounding nations that have yet to be fulfilled- and we are seeing them being fulfilled. (Dan 9:24-27, Ezek 37-39, Dan 11:35-12:4, Joel 3, Ps 83, Zech 12-14)
2. Paul very explicitly said that "Israel has been blinded in part until the period of the Gentiles is fulfilled. And so, as it is written, ALL OF ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED" -Romans 11:25-26.


Spiritually Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ, yet God still made a covenant with natural Israel in Gen 15 which He will honor. Men and women are one, and have different purposes and positions. Members of the Body of Christ are one, and still have different functions and purposes. This is not a contradiction.
All of this is true, but there are a lot of other things taught by Dispensationalists that are not true.
 

binyamin7

New member
All of this is true, but there are a lot of other things taught by Dispensationalists that are not true.

Depends on what type of Dispensationalist teaching you adhere to. I am definitely not mid-Acts nor do I subscribe to the Israelites being saved without belief in Christ, as explained in my original post.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Depends on what type of Dispensationalist teaching you adhere to. I am definitely not mid-Acts nor do I subscribe to the Israelites being saved without belief in Christ, as explained in my original post.

What do you think determines the beginning of the present dispensation or stewardship?
 

binyamin7

New member
What do you think determines the beginning of the present dispensation or stewardship?

I believe we entered into the dispensation of the grace of God/ Church age/ period of the Gentiles upon the Resurrection. The Jews offering sacrifices were not saved from 33AD- 70AD. Neither will they be when they reestablish the sacrifices in the near future UNTIL they call out to God with humility in Zech 12:10/ Matt 23:39 and God literally sends the Son to their aid to prevent their total annihilation (Zech 12:10, 14:3-4). Notice they weep and mourn as one who lost their only son in Zech 12:10. Then, and only then, will "all of Israel be saved as it written" Romans 11:26. We can already see God has turned His attention back to the natural branches, Romans 11, and that signals the end of this age is coming soon- in our generation (see Luke 21:24, 21:32).
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
I believe we entered into the dispensation of the grace of God/ Church age/ period of the Gentiles upon the Resurrection.

I believe that the present dispensation began when Paul started preaching the gospel of grace. Here are three quotes from him where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you"
(Eph. 3:2).​

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).​

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me"
(1 Cor.9:17).​

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God"
(Acts 20: 24).​

I believe that Paul first began to preach the gospel of grace when he began preaching a gospel to the Gentiles at Acts 13:46-48.

The Bibical dispensation is a "stewardship" and all those who have been given a stewardship have a responsibility under that stewardship. What stewardship responsibility was exercised when you say that the present stewardship had its beginning?
 
Last edited:

binyamin7

New member
There was no difference in the Gospel that Peter preached and the Gospel that Paul preached. Peter says what in 2 Peter 3:15-16? He tells us that he and Paul both write epistles to the same groups. Why? Because it is the same Gospel, they can preach interchangeably. Then Peter tells us that some people will come up with things like Mid-Acts, or what Martin Luther did when he removed James' writings, because they can't understand his writings so they twist them to their own demise.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
There was no difference in the Gospel that Peter preached and the Gospel that Paul preached.

The preaching of the "kingdom of God" was the same exact "gospel" which the Twelve preched to the Jews in the following passage:

"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick...And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where" (Lk.9:1-2,6).​

The facts reveal that when they were preaching that gospel the Twelve were not even aware that the Lord Jesus was going to die. After being given that command and after preaching that gospel the transgiguration followed (Lk.9:29-36; Mk.9:2-13). Then after the Twelve preached the gospel of the kingdom and after the transfiguration we read the following exchange between the Lord Jesus and the Twelve:

"They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, 'The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.' But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it" (Mk.9:30-32).​

The facts reveal that the Twelve did not even know He was going to die as late as shortly before the Cross:

"Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.' The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about" (Lk.18:31-34).​

These facts prove conclusively that the gospel which the Twelve were preaching at Luke 9:6 was not the same gospel which Paul referred to in the following way:

"For the message of the cross, is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor.1:18.).​

The "gospel of the grace of God" cannot be preached apart from the fact that believers are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (1 Pet.18-19) and that is exactly the same "redemption" Paul speaks about when declaring the "gospel of the grace of God," that believers "are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).

So please tell me how the gospel which the Twelve were preaching at Luke 9:6 is the same gospel preached when Paul declared that "Christ died for our sins" since the Twelve didn't even know that He was going to die at the time of Luke 9:6.

You can also can tell me what was the dispensational responsibility at the time when you say that the present dispensation began. By the way, I am confused as to when you say that it began because you named more than one time when it began--was it at the beginning of the Church or at the time of the resurrection? Which one? And what was the dispensational responsibility at the time when you say that it began?
 

Right Divider

Body part
There was no difference in the Gospel that Peter preached and the Gospel that Paul preached. Peter says what in 2 Peter 3:15-16? He tells us that he and Paul both write epistles to the same groups. Why? Because it is the same Gospel, they can preach interchangeably. Then Peter tells us that some people will come up with things like Mid-Acts, or what Martin Luther did when he removed James' writings, because they can't understand his writings so they twist them to their own demise.
Here we go again with the completely confused Acts 2 dispensational "position".

Why Paul at all then? There were already TWELVE apostles according your theory.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Like what and by whom?

Vague accusations are simply that.

The dispensationalists who I call the Neo-MADs teach that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works despite the clear words found here:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).​
 

binyamin7

New member
So please tell me how the gospel which the Twelve were preaching at Luke 9:6 is the same gospel preached when Paul declared that "Christ died for our sins" since the Twelve didn't even know that He was going to die at the time of Luke 9:6.


They were preaching that the Messiah came without knowing the full Gospel, same as John the Baptist. Are you implying that the 12 did not preach the death burial and resurrection after it occurred?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
They were preaching that the Messiah came without knowing the full Gospel, same as John the Baptist. Are you implying that the 12 did not preach the death burial and resurrection after it occurred?

No such thing as "the full Gospel." The 12, including Judas, for almost 3 years, were preaching the gospel of the kingdom, the same good news that the Master preached, and it's foundation excluded the death, burial, resurrection, the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV. The 12 had no idea, at least prior to the dbr occurring, that Christ would die, and rise again-it was hid from them. The "gospel of the kingdom" is not equivalent to the gospel of Christ.
 

binyamin7

New member
Here we go again with the completely confused Acts 2 dispensational "position".

Why Paul at all then? There were already TWELVE apostles according your theory.

12 Apostles or 12 Original Apostles? There are many more than 12 Apostles. Do you understand what a Biblical Apostle is?
 

binyamin7

New member
No such thing as "the full Gospel." The 12, including Judas, for almost 3 years, were preaching the gospel of the kingdom, the same good news that the Master preached, and it's foundation excluded the death, burial, resurrection, the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV. The 12 had no idea, at least prior to the dbr occurring, that Christ would die, and rise again-it was hid from them. The "gospel of the kingdom" is not equivalent to the gospel of Christ.

Do you believe that the 12 did not preach the Death, Burial, and Resurrection after it occurred?
 
Top