Please explain dispensationalism to me
 

Hi,

I am quite confused. On the one hand, I have never really taken a serious study of the Bible (but I am enrolling in TBDI as soon as my text books arrive. Ordered them two weeks ago :D ), but on the other hand, I have gradually moved towards the position held by dispensationalists.

I am inclined to believe that Jesus gospel and Paul's gospel are different. Not in all aspects, but in it's purpose. Jesus Gospel was of righteousness in regards to the Kingdom coming. Paul's Gospel was of imputed righteousness by Christ's death burial and resurrection. There are similarities between the two, and the Gospel of John is almost Pauline in doctrine.

So my question is this, and it may seem ignorant, so please forgive me:

If the gospel of the Grace of God (Paul by revelation of Jesus Christ) and the Gospel of the Kingdom (Jesus Christ & John the Baptist) are different, how exactly?

If they are not, how does one reconcile a works based Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, with a faith without works based Gospel of the Grace of God?

I cannot understand "reformed" theology (including amillennialism & calvinism), because there seem to be too many contradictions within scripture.

:eek: Luke:---One thing at a time. Your Thread title looks like you have a question. You then start to post answers to things,,,yet you say you are "confused"...well---

Okay I'll give you a short reply (as I wasted nearly 45 minutes last night composing a reply to someone else---and got nothing but "typing fingers".) but you must do some clicking and reading,,,OK-?

Dispensationalism basically teaches that there are different stages in The Lord's plan. He acts differently at certain times. They believe that many things that are written in Ezekiel and Daniel and Matthew and Revelation can be mapped out and put in picture (drawing) form . The places that most often teach this are in The Scofield Study Bible, and the Ryrie Study Bible and others. Chick publications does much on this. Many colleges and Seminaries would hold to that line. Dallas Theo. Sem. , Talbot Seminary and others. Several TV shows are on track with it...because it is very visual. They are famous for predicting (or almost predicting) the return of The Lord.

----- ------ ----- ----- ------- ----- --- ------ ---- ----

Now, Luke by your picture next to your name it looks like you are a young guy, sooo before you start making statements about Calvinism and Reformed (or Covenant Theology) it would be best if you actually -

A) Read what the Geneva Reformer said in his commentaries and his great work titled "The Institutes of the Christian Religion". Read John Knox of Scotland. Read John Bunyan of England and C.H. Spurgeon of England, and Jonathan Edwards of New England, read the excellent commentary on the Whole Bible (every verse!) by John Gill of England! In our own time period read/listen to men like Rev. Ian Paisley of Northern Ireland, and Dr. R.C. Sproul, now in Florida.

B) Realize that Reformed/Calvinist/Covenant Theology focuses on God! God doesn't change, and he isn't stupid. He doesn't have to read the newspaper each morning to know what is going on! The Lord God Almighty IS still on the throne and in charge! Not all of us are amillienial. Most of us are more focused on preaching and teaching the parts of the Bible that HAS taken place, rather than speculating on something that The Lord Jesus himself said; ..."No man knows the day nor the hour."

C) Learn about William Carey. He was a calvinistic Baptist and was a cobbler by trade. He was the first one to decide that Matthew 28 meant GO! He got on a ship and left England to start "Missions", next read about men like Adonirum Judson and Hudson Taylor. They went out to Proclaim Christ! Because God's Word is like a sword...His will be done!

click on to these links and you can read two documents that have stood the test of time for centuries now and will be around (should the Lord tarry) long after the picture books of certain "prediction groups" have faded away.

http://65.71.233.194/arbca/ read the 1689 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith. (click on the green booklet)

http://www.freepres.org/ read the Westminster Confession of Faith 1644.

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/gill/ John Gill Commentary

read The 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church. {google it.} Reformed Theology.

That is because they are busy trying to "harmonize" scripture instead of divide it.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Note that this verse associates a lack of right division with shame. But beyond that, it explicitly commands us to divide Scripture -- not to harmonize or spiritualize it. That is where reformed theology fails and also where I think a lot of "almost dispensationalists" miss the mark.

God has different dispensations in his dealings with men -- far many more than just between the OT and the NT. Adam's first commandments were to tend his garden and he was not to wear any clothes. He was also commanded to eat from the tree of life. Once banished from the garden, it would have been outright sin for Adam to continue obeying those commands. Obviously, even Adam had to divide God's word in his time.

Bro. Douglass Stauffer has written a book called One Book Rightly Divided that teaches dispensationalism (which is really just right division) of the King James Bible. I recommend it.

As to your questions about Paul's Gospel and Jesus' Gospel -- yes, they are different. It's clear from what happened at Stephen's stoning that there was a major change in how God was dealing with men at that time. Paul's ministry was a mystery to the Old Testament saints and I believe even a mystery to Christ's disciples. (Ephesians 3)

Thankyou both


PB1789: I was reformed in theology for the first 18 years of my life. Could never understand the amillennial gospel that was preached because the Bible seemed to say things different to what they were saying. I only got saved after reading a chick tract that said God died for all. Maybe I was just at a dud reformed church. While I said I have never undertaken a serious study of the Bible, I did examine calvinism and other "reformed" theology after I got saved, and rejected it on the grounds that it did not mesh with scripture. I do appreciate the total focus on God that many calvinists had (Spurgeon, Edwards etc).

Diligent: Thankyou, my main fear of rightly dividing is this verse:

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not MY words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Okay, I haven't rejected Jesus Christ. I know that. But by saying that Matthew - Mid Acts is Kingdom Gospel and not for the Church, aren't we essentially "rejecting" His words for today?

Of course, I realise this verse could be about the jewish rejection of Jesus Christ, but how do I see that?

(I have ordered a bunch of Bro Ruckman's books on the subject - they are a requirement of TBDI - as well as some books by Scofield, Larkin and I think the book you mentioned is on the text book list as well).

All questions about dispensationalism aside -- was Adam rejecting God's words when he stopped caring for the garden of Eden? Of course not. It would have in fact been sin for Adam to apply God's words before the Fall to his then-current state.

I absolutely do not reject Christ's teachings from the Gospels. But I must recognized that much of it is not actually for me.

That we must make divisions in even the New Testament is apparent here:

John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Clearly, if we recklessly apply teachings from before Christ's glorification, we're making pretty big mistakes!

Brother Luke,

Don't apologize for not knowing some of these things. I didn't know anything about Dispensations until about 6 years after I got saved.

And to tell you the truth - I couldn't make "heads" or "tales" of much of the Bible until I learned how to "rightly divide" the word of truth about 10 years after I received the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior.

I just want to warn you not to follow men! Always look to and rely on the "scriptures of truth" to be your guide and your "Final Authority" in all matters of faith and practice and you won't stray far from God's precepts and principles.

If you want to see how Dispensational truth is taught check out the posts on this Forum by: {Stvvv1611> AV1611 Bible Forums > General Chit-Chat > Under the thread - Dr. Ruckman - In regards to "faith"}.

Brother Steve Rich (Stvvv1611) has posted 7 posts (equal to about 30 type-written pages) on "faith" in the Old Testament in contrast to "faith" in the New Testament and his method of teaching is a model, or a perfect example of Dispensational teaching i.e. "rightly dividing the word of truth".

I pray that God will guide you into all truth and that you will avoid the many "false teachers' and "false doctrines" that are so prevalent in modern day Christianity.

Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

And please remember:
Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

When it comes to the word of God:

Always assume that: “The word of the LORD is right” – Always and without exception!
And always seek to do His works according to the Scriptures: “all his works are done in truth” Always and without exception!

Thank you, Brother George!
I was also going to mention brother Steve's posts for Luke to read when you had beat me to it!
You are absolutely right. There is so much false teaching in the church today. Few do rightly divide scripture!
Tim

Re:Dispensationalism
 

Ok Luke hope this helps..
You have been given some real good info so far and Ill add my 2 bits worth :)
Briefly as you probably know Dispensationalism is a method of Biblicall Interpretation. There are various 'Schemes' as there are adherents. The basic premise is based upon 2 Tim. 2:15 and 1 Cor.10:32. That God deals with man differently in the various 'Periods Of Times' i.e. Dispensations. Furthermore there are 3 divisons of mankind Jew Gentle and Church of God and thus all scriptures are allotted a Dispensational setting as well as one or more of the divisons of mankind. The usual scheme followed is that found in the Scofield Bible consisting of 7 Ages..

Innocency - Conscience - Human Goverment - Promise - Law - Grace - Kingdom

Each dispensation is marked by a Covenant that defines the terms of the period.

Edenic Gen 1-2 - Adamic Gen 3 - Nohaic Gen.9 - Abramic Gen 12-15 - Mosaic Exo.19-20 - Davidic 2 Sam.7 New Covenant Matt.28; Heb.8

Personally I use the Covenants as markers rather than an arbitery period of time.
This link should help to fix the relationship between them all..

http://www.fellowshipbibleannarbor.o...ationChart.pdf

Regarding The Gospel Of The Kingdom and Gospel Of The Grace Of God, space forbids a full treatment here but basically, the contrasts are this, and they are contrasts rather than differing Gospels due to their dispensational setting. In short the Gospel Of The Kingdom is Jewish in its focus.. see Matt.10:5; 15:24; John 4:22
This explains why christians fight over stuff that basically belongs in a Kingdom setting and misapply a whole bunch of scripture e.g. Matt 5-7; Matt. 24 etc into a 'Church Age Setting'.....

The Gospel Of The Grace of God is 'Post Calvary' and is applicable today as Gods method of Salvation for all. This was revealed to the Apostle Paul along with the 'Mystery Of The Church' whilst he was in Arabia Gal.1:1-24 c.f. Eph.3:1-13

Hope this helps, as your starting at TBDI you will get a good grounding in this, besides Dr.Stauffers Book The Bible Believers Guide to Dispensationalism Dr.David Walker is also really good. He is a Grad of PBI and so you will get some good stuff. Also I would recommend Doc.Ruckmans How To Teach Dispensational Truth.. that will give you a real good all round look and also more...

Regarding Reformed Theology you have to bear in mind you are dealing with a Philosophy more than anything. I know first hand how it goes trying to decypher the various Tenets... :eek:
Every Blessing Mate....:cool:

I hope you didn't mean what you said here, Luke. These kind of statements are what give Dispo's a bad name. The Bible never teaches 2 ways of salvation. Nor is that a teaching propagated in Dispensationalism. Salvation is always by grace through faith no matter the dispensation. What I hope you mean to say is that the content of their faith is not always the same. The content of their faith is according to the revelation from God of the day.

For instance, Abraham believed God (NOT the death, burial, & resurrection Christ) and he was saved through the channel of his faith (cf. Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4, Gal. 3, & James 2). But the content of his faith was based on the revelation of the covenant that God made with Abe and specifically that he would have an heir through his wife Sarah. That is the context leading up in Gen. 15:1-5. Then you come across Gen. 15:6 where you have the statement of Abe's faith and God imputing righteousness to Abe (cf. Rom. 4).

Please make sure you nail this down before you start speaking about 2 ways of salvation and Dispensationalism. Dr. Ryrie dedicated an entire chapter on this issue in his landmark text apply named Dispensationalism (previously known as Dispensationalism Today). It is unfortunate that Dispos have such a reputation of teaching multiple ways of salvation.

Well, it's always been faith, but it hasn't always been faith alone.

If Abraham believed God, but didn't go where God told him (faith + works), then would God have imputed righteousness to him?

During the tribulation, only those that DO NOT recieve the mark of the beast (through faith, believing that by refusing, they will be saved by Christ's blood), will be saved.

During the millennium, it will be works only (how can one have faith in something that is seen. Faith is replaced by sight during the millennium).

Besides, I don't see why everyone cares so much. We don't live in the dispensation of Law. We aren't in the tribulation, nor will we go through it, and we will already be saved in the Millennium, because of Christ's shed blood on calvary, and we did not reject it. What is the big deal if God used works in the past, and NOW is the dispensation of the grace of God (faith alone).

Why would Paul spend several whole chapters of Romans and Galatians explaining why we are now justified APART from the works of the Law, if the Law was never required to be justified? Why didn't he just say "You have always believed God, now believe Jesus because he is God". The Law was part of OT salvation, and now it is not.

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.

I would like to point out for the record not everybody who uses Dispensational Study methods are Calvinists. this is a misnomer.

2tim2:15 tells us to study and how. rightly dividing or dispensationalism is dividing how God deals with men in different ways at different times. Basically dispensationalism is a method of study.

Premillenialist use it to show that God set aside Israel and is using the body of Christ today to reach the lost, then will rapture the church and Israel comes back into the picture.

Preterist use dispensationism to have God replaced Israel with the church, show the church must bring in the kingdom so Christ can come and take his place. they also either have teh church raptured midway or no tribulation at all saying we are already in tribulation.

So the Rightly dividing is needed. the key is rightly dividing by any true Biblisist will use Despensational study methods, you must take care not to over divide the scriptures.

I can send you Lewis Sperry Chafers dispensationlism a great book on the subject. send a private message if you want a copy

chette, where did the calvinism issue come up? That was not even mentioned that I can recall. That said, most dispensationalists are moderate/modified/redefined calvinists. Salvation through faith in all dispensations (except innocence) is not just a calvinist teaching (if that is what you are referring to). Arminians, at least the academic kind, teach the same thing.

I would love a copy of Chafer's book. I am currently reading through his systematics right now. He is an oustanding writer. The more you read him, the more your own writing skills improve.

Brother Easy E,

Some "dispensationalists" believe that Water Baptism is an Old Testament Jewish practice that should not be practiced during the Church Age. Others believe that the Lord's Supper is also a Jewish ordinance that is abolished on the cross.

However, I see in Scripture that Water Baptism and the Lord's Supper as given by Christ to Israel, through the Twelve, before the cross have a different purpose and meaning than that which were given by Christ to the Church, through Paul, after the ascension. There are ordinances that are given to us, which are NOT "contrary" or "against us" (Col. 2:14)

WATER BAPTISM as given before the cross and preached by the Twelve to Israel before and after the cross:
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, 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.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

WATER BAPTISM as received and practiced by Paul and delivered to the church:
Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul DID baptize, but he was not sent to baptize, as John the Baptist and the Twelve were sent to baptize. Mr. 1:4; Mt 28:18-20. The gospel preached by John the Baptist and the Twelve did include baptism, Mr 1:4; Mr 16:16; Ac 2:38; but Paul's preaching does not include it 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 1:17. Paul, however, gave water baptism as one of the local church "ordinances" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The LORD'S SUPPER in Matthew 26 pictures the Millennium (FUTURE):
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

The LORD'S SUPPER in 1 Corinthians 11 pictures Christ's death (PAST):

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Notice again that Paul emphasizes that these are ordinances he received from the Lord Jesus Christ to be given to the Church:

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

I pray this helps!

So dispensationalism cannot be understood be simply reading, studying, meditating and prayer. One must be "educated". No wonder it doesn't make sense to me. And here I thought that the Holy Spirit could lead me into all truth. What a shame!

Luke asked in post #19:
No, not at all. I just find it curious that the wording of the verse seems to indicate that there was some kind of listing of specific rules (commandments, statutes, laws). Certainly they could have been oral, but it was just a hmmm thought. I was actually focusing on the fact that there were a set of laws for Abraham to obey. I do not think that they were Mosiac, though maybe a precursor to them.

Bro. Tim, you don't need formal training to be a dispensationalist. There is hope for you yet. ;):D

Brandon, by the time I figure it out, everything will have already happened!

This is not a true statement. THat is not a teaching maintained by any dispensationalist (which may be why you put it in quotation marks). That is a ultra/hyper-dispensational teaching. Those are not to be confused. We need to be clear. Brother Tim keeps hearing about all these variations in the system of Dispensationalism primarily b/c the variations are not dispensational at all.

That is Biblestudent's point. These people call themselves "dispensationalists" when, in fact, they are not. They have taken proper division past its logical conclusion and have created an entirely different animal.

Thanks, Easy E. That's why I enclosed it with quotation marks ("dispensationalists"). I tried to avoid just calling anybody "hyper" (although I believe they are), for sometimes anybody can just accuse anybody as a "hyper" if one seems to be more "dispensational" than he is.

Has anyone run into Progressive Dispensationalism or hold to PDism themselves?

By the way, Progressive Dispensationalism is like ultra-dispensationalism - it is not Dispensationalism!

Sorta' like the NKJV is not a KJB!

Score one for the ol' man! Nothin' but net!

:D:D:D:D

What I am saying is that Salvation is different in different dispensations.

In the end it's the same. Everyone who is ever saved will be saved by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ.

OT Saints went to paradise, until Christ died for them.
We look to the cross, and His shed blood for our sacrifice.
Even Abraham was in Paradise waiting for Christ.
During the tribulation, people are washed AFTER they are saved.

ALL THROUGH THE BLOOD.

But, please correct me if I am wrong, where does an Old Testament saint have faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to be saved? That's all we need today right? Faith in the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4). No works, nothing. His righteousness imputed to me.

This gospel wasn't even known by the Apostles until Paul told them. He said it was a mystery. It had not been revealed wholly in times past. He said it was "my gospel", given to him by revelation of Jesus Christ.

If this gospel is the same one that OT saints believe to get to Heaven, why does Paul say it was a mystery until Jesus revealed it to him?

Now, we know that when OT saints died, they didn't go to heaven. Why? Because they weren't washed in the blood. They were still under the Law. They went to paradise. How did they get to Paradise?

If you say "Believing in God", and we are trying to harmonize all scriptures, then what about James 2:14? Even the devil believes etcetc

So my question is not "How is an OT saint saved" because the answer is "by the blood". But they only had the opportunity to be saved if they went to paradise. So how did an OT saint get to paradise?

Bro Luke,

It seems like we are about the same age and we are both going to Bible school to study the Book. It also seems like we have some similar experiences and questions and convictions, also. Amen, that's a good thing!

One thing that has frequently popped up when questions like this have bounced around in my brain is, Ecclesiastes 12:13,14.

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Here faith and works are clearly "in the equation". Fear (arguably not a NT thing, but that is another question, Paul never tells us to "fear God") and Keep his commandments. This is faith and works. These were both necessary for an old testament Jew to get into Paradise.

What works(commandments)? Well when you sinned, you did the proscibed rememdy that is talked about in Leviticus, Deut, etc- killing lambs, bulls, turtledoves, etc. You still had sin in you, but you (this is only my understanding, very well could be wrong) got the sin washed and you had none on you. If you endured to the end this way, you could go to Paradise but not heaven. They were there until Jesus came and preached to them and they accepted him as their awaited Messiah and then went with him to heaven.

Well, I am just waiting for someone to pick this apart. Should be fun. Hope this helps.

Just to clear up an earlier statement, the Berean Bible Society DOES believe the Lord's supper should be celebrated by the Church (Body of Christ). Also, the issue of water baptism is explained in their website articles, etc. They have been viewed as 'Ultra/Hyper-dispensationalist' in the past, but that's usually because there is no Biblical, rightly-divided refutation to their teachings.

Oh, sorry, my error. I was not able to really check their teaching about the Lord's Supper. I read somewhere that some ultra-dispensationalists don't believe that it should be observed today. I forgot that Stam was the founder of BBS. I had read Stam's book years ago and he does believe in the Lord's Supper, but not in water baptism.

However, concerning water baptism, there has been Biblical refutations written in answer to their unbelief in water baptism. The fact that Paul mentioned "ordinances" (plural), and that the Lord's Supper is one of them, than what's the other one?

Aloha brother Luke,

I've been reluctant to recommend brother Ruckman's works, because he is so often misunderstood, and I don't want to be Labeled a "Ruckmanite", but in this case I have to make an exception, and do so because I do not think that you could find a better book to explain "Dispensations" than Dr. Peter Ruckman's "How to Teach Dispensational Truth".

The Book is only 87 pages long, so it is not a deep "treatise" on Dispensational Truth, instead it is more of an "outline" for further study (with literally hundreds of sources sited). Here is the "Table Of Contents":

Preface
Backgrounds of "Dispensationalism"
What is "Dispensationalism"?
Locating the Time Periods
Noting Exceptions to the Rule
Examining the Covenants
A major Dispensation
The New Testament in His Blood
Salvation in the Great Tribulation
The Second Part of the New Testament
Dispensational Outlines

The following Quote comes from the "Preface":

"IN this work, you will see why "rightly dividing the word of truth" is the proper method of studying the Holy Scriptures. We call this type of study an attempt to grasp "dispensational Truth" - the truths that apply to DIFFERENT dispensations in the Bible. "Differences" divide people. Differences put division between people and things. Thus "differences" divide scriptural passages (and sometimes verses, and even sentences) into separate, segregated units. It is a negative operation. It is the operation given to us by the Holy Spirit, in the King James Authorized Version (any edition, from 1611 o 1980), and found in not other English Bible in the world, including the NEW KJV.

In this book brother Ruckman names at least a couple dozen men who taught about "dispensations" long before Darby, Scofield, and Clarence Larkin (probably the best of them all) came along.

Here is one more Quote from Chapter Two ("What Is a Dispensation?"):

The Greek word, for this english word, is "oikonomia", and it doesn't mean a "period of time" at all; it means "the laws by, which a household is operated, or the way the master of a house arranges his household." Our word "ecumenical" comes from this word. Still, this word has been used, ever since 1700, to mean "a period of time." This, of course, is due to the fact that as Master of the house (Hebrews 3:2; Ephesians 2:19), God sets up different ways of running His "family" at different times, according to His Own Wisdom. TIME BRACKETS show up where alterations in method and protocaol take place. Clarence Larkin's Dispensational Truth is the real grand-daddy of all the work done since 1929. It is a superb, scriptural work; but, in constructing the charts, the time element is very conspicuous; it has to be. The law was given at a certain time, in a certain place. Christ died on the cross at a certain time, in a certain place, etc. Larkin's charts are well done; they are excellently drawn, and everything in them, that is true, scripturally, can be found in ANY edition of a King James Bible. No knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is necessary to understand one "dispensational" teaching in the entire book of over four hundred pages. Before Larkin (Scofield, 1909, for example), a number of dispensations were listed and commented on with several hundred scriptural cross references (see p. 6).

I do not think that you could go wrong if you could obtain this book and read it. "Dispensationalism" is a very controversial and often mis-understood subject and brother Ruckman does a superb job separating all of the "competing" ideas concerning this doctrine; such as, defining "hyper-dispensationalism" or "ultra-dispensationalism", of which brother Ruckman is often accused of believing and/or promoting, but which he certainly does not.

I hope this may be of some help to you - and perhaps you will understand why I have been so late in replying to your question. :)

Hyper-dispensationalist: someone who divides more than the other guy. :cool:

Right on Brandon - You couldn't be more right if you had written an essay on the subject! :D