Bro. Luke,
If you go to www.racestreetbaptist.org/ and check the sermons out, you'll see bro. Freeman (Paul Freeman's son) sermons on Study of Dispensations 1-6. This may be good for you. It's in the K.I.S.S.(keep it simple stupid!) made for folks like me. Easy to understand.

Greektim and others,

I believe that Luke has a good grasp of the issue actually, even though it is always good to ask for further clarification, hence the thread.

But the main issue is that in the Millenium, salvation cannot be through faith alone, as faith is defined in the Bible (Heb 11:1). Christ will be present, reigning in Jerusalem and all over the daily news. Therefore salvation will come through something else. This establishes that there are multiple ways to salvation, besides our Church Age plan, which we all agree on (hopefully).

Paul spent so much time on the Law b/c the great misconception was that the Law saved. That was never its purpose. THe Law is a tutor revealing the great inadequacies of man to merit salvation with works. Romans 4 is a great passage proving that Abe was saved by faith alone in the past. That same truth is true in this dispensation.

The problem with having a works-based salvation in any dispensation is that no one would ever be saved. Rom. 3:10-18 & Isa. 64:6 makes it clear, the best man has to offer to God by way of works is nothing but filthy rags (do a word study in Isa. 64:6 for "filthy rags" if you want to be grossed out). The point is that no man could ever be saved by works no matter the dispensation.

Hi Luke,

It might be worth checking out the Berean Bible Society at: www.bereanbiblesociety.org.

The organization is Acts 9 dispensationalist and they are more than helpful when I have emailed them with endless questions.

Hope this proves profitable to you,

God Bless

Some consider the Berean Bible Society as "ultra-dispensationalist" or "hyper-dispensationalist" for not believing in water baptism and/or Lord's supper for this age. It seems that the "Bereans" failed to see the difference between the baptism as given to the twelve from the baptism as given to Paul, nor did they see the distinction between the Lord's supper as given to Israel through the Twelve and the Lord's supper as given to the Church (Body of Christ) through Paul.

Biblestudent,

Would you mind explaining this statement, brother?

Stuff like this has always been hard for me to understand. Especially the part about the Lord's supper. I think I have a pretty good handle on baptism but a refresher will always help.

Thanks.

You said the Law pointed to Christ (or the Messiah). But Abraham had no Law.

If you can find reference to any man under the Law of moses during the dispensation of Law who was saved by faith alone without keeping the Law of God (not a prophetic reference), then you may have something. Now, I am not claiming there isn't anyone, but I haven't come across anyone yet.

Luke, what about this: (since I'm not a locked-in dispensationalist, law means law)
Looks to me that Abraham lived under God's law. It even appears that there may have been something written down. - commandments - statutes - laws

And the verse preceding puts it in context

Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;


God passes on his promise to Isaac here. It has nothing to do with Salvation of Abraham. Abraham was saved back in Genesis 15:6 (by believing God - there was no Law at this time).

Also, are you implying that Abraham had the 10 commandments, or the other Mosaic Laws?

Luke, how about Hab. 2:4 "the righteous will live by his faith" which is also quoted by Paul to prove a grace through faith salvation (cf. Rom. 1:17 & Gal. 3:11 which also states that the Law cannot justify); other Scripture speaking of faith or belief in the OT that is pertinent is Exo. 4:5, 2 Chron. 20:20, Isa. 7:9, 43:10, Psalm 78:21-22, Dan. 6:23, & Jonah 3:5.

To be honest, I have not ever seen one Dispensationalist write of a multiple way of salvation scenario. I wonder what you, who have not been formaly trained, are seeing that the rest of us are not. Reformed theologians used to accuse dispensationalist for teaching such a doctrine to which Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, and others vehemently denied and corrected.

You partially admitted that it was clear that Abe was saved through faith. I don't think ABe was under the dispensation of the Law, but what passage of Scripture can you offer that says the Law was given for Israel's salvation by works. You get just the opposite in the NT where Paul and others argue that the Law could never nor was it ever intended to save (cf. Rom. 3:20, 3:28, 5:20, 8:3, Gal. 2:21, 3:11, 3:19, 1 Tim. 1:8-9+, & Heb. 7:19). I am truly baffled by such a view. This is not a Normative Dispensational teaching and it is certainly not Biblical.