Doug: I side with the earliest fathers and the apostles, and, the Lord Himself, who stated plainly to the apostles that He would return "immediately after the tribulation of those days", with no hint of a secret coming before that in His PRIVATE briefing to them in the Olivet Discourse.
Jerry: You are not to depend on them, the earliest fathers, because their understanding was flawed. One of the early errors of the gospel they supported was baptismal regeneration that has damned millions of souls to hell. I have read and studied their writings. There is much I can agree with that is accurate to the Bible. However at other times I found they were not handling God's word correctly.
Jesus in the Olivet discourse, then speaking to His apostles, was talking about the future of Israel, not of the Church. All the apostles questions centered on Israel....not the Church.
"Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" Acts 1:6
It would not be until A.D. 36 that the resurrected and glorified Jesus would reveal to Paul seven mysteries to give to His Church. One mystery was the only prophecy Jesus gave to Paul for the future of the Church:
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 1 Corinthians 15:50-52
There is no Old Testament prophecy about this event....only prophecy about the resurrection of the dead (see Daniel 12:1-3). Jesus did not teach this mystery to His apostles. The only hint He gave was John 14:1-4. But they only understood His words " I will come back..." as His second coming. They had no clue, no idea, that Jesus was coming to catch them away before His second coming. Only Paul would know this because Jesus' revealed it to him. Even the apostle Peter said:
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15 & 16
Peter said the Pauline Epistles are "are hard to understand" even for him who was with the Lord.
This is why I am a classical Pauline dispensationalist. It is the hermanutics that come closest to the original understand of the New Testament since the first century.
[quote]During the later half of the 20th century, two writers who have both gone to be with the Lord, advanced explanations for dispensationalism’s decline in influence and popularity. 1) Pauline dispensationalist Miles Stanford identified and focused on the theological importance of keeping Israel separate from the Church—
contra the erroneous application of Israel’s New Covenant to New Creation believers. 2) Christian author Roy Huebner explained the historical ties and theological influence of Covenantist Isaac Watts upon C. I. Scofield and Scofield’s substitution of his own premillennial age-ism for genuine dispensational truth.
The late Roy Huebner was a retired engineer and long-time member/leader in the nearly extinct Tunbridge Wells branch of the PBs (Plymouth Brethrens). He did extensive research using early PB publications (see his Present Truth Publishers) and in addition wrote extensively regarding the doctrinal roots of the seriously aberrant
Raven/Taylor/Symington/Hales wing of the Exclusive PBs.
Believers living on the North American side of the Atlantic Ocean have long assumed, albeit wrongly, that the 20th century so-called “Traditional” dispensationalism of the Scofield, Gray, Chafer, Ironside, Pettingill, Walvoord, Pentecost, and Ryrie, more-or-less reflected the understanding of the earlier dispensationalists of
Great Britain. Not so. The influence of Covenantist Isaac Watts upon C. I. Scofield created a theological contamination which had far reaching consequences. Historically speaking, the more Pauline variety of dispensationalism found expression in North America with William R. Newell and subsequently the works of Miles Stanford and Roy Huebner, although the later two ministries were uniquely different. http://withchrist.org/CommentsPD.pdf
"Those who do not center in the truths which the ascended Lord communicated directly to this Apostle will not know who and where they are in Christ, nor what their part is in the purpose of God. Neither will they know their heavenly privileges and responsibilities. Those who are ignorant of, and not centered in, the Pauline Gospel as set forth exclusively in Paul's epistles, are constantly astray in their interpretation of the Gospel, to say nothing of Church truth.
"...for a dispensationalist it is best not to refer to the difference between the Old Testament (books) and New Testament (books), as such. Much of the NT (Synoptic Gospels) is OT (related to Israel and her covenants): all is OT to Matthew 27, Mark 15, and Luke 23. Church (Body) truth, the new, is totally different from Judaistic truth, the old; and it was not fully revealed until after the Cross, via Paul." MJS"The thirteen epistles of Paul (Romans to Philemon) form a distinct body of truth; and this realm of truth is about us, the Church, the Body of Christ, as no other Scriptures are. And Paul is the Father’s special messenger to us. As has been truly said, 'All of the Bible is for us, but it is not all about us.'” WRN
Should your Dispensationalism fall below or depart from these standards, it may be time to take a long and hard look at the difference. If your theological ancestors or contemporaries have spent their livelihoods arguing and debating among themselves, even attempting to draw others into the incessant fray, and not focused upon developing a deeper and more meaningful relationship with the Risen and Ascended Lord Jesus Christ, maybe it's time you considered Classic Pauline Dispensationalism. Pauline dispensationalist Miles Stanford had this to say:
NO COMPROMISE! -- A Dispensationalism that includes ground for the charismatic, is a danger to the Church. There may be the claim of "complete separation" of Israel and the Church, while at the same time including charismatic ground, i.e., secondary application of the Sermon on the Mount, the "spiritual" blessings of Israel's New Covenant, plus aspects of the "present/future" millennial kingdom.
A Dispensationalism that provides ground for Covenantism, is a danger to the Church. There may be the claim of "complete separation" of Israel and the Church, while at the same time including Covenant ground, i.e., secondary application of the Sermon on the Mount, the "spiritual blessings" of Israel's New Covenant, plus aspects of the "present/ future" millennial kingdom. Such compromised, inclusive Dispensationalism is the spawning ground for charismatic craziness, Lordship salvation, Covenant legalism, Reconstructionism, etc. [bold emphasis mine]
A Dispensationalism that does not include ground for the charismatics, or Covenantism, is a blessing to the Church. The home ground of the Body, her growth ground is in the glorified, heavenly Lord Jesus Christ, who is her Head and her Life. Her doctrinal ground is centered in the Pauline Church Epistles. Carefully note Ephesians 3:9-11. I would a thousand times rather be accused of making the Synoptic Gospels secondary to the Pauline Church Epistles, than to make Paul secondary to anything [other than the Lord Jesus Christ]! http://withchrist.org/pauldisp.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment