Classical Pauline Dispensationalism

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

Question: "What should we learn from the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16?"

Question: "What should we learn from the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16?"

Answer: Luke 16:19-31contains the account of a very rich man who lived a life of extreme luxury. Laid outside the gate of this rich man’s house, however, was an extremely poor man named Lazarus who simply hoped “to eat what fell from the rich man’s table” (v. 21). The rich man was completely indifferent to the plight of Lazarus, showing him no love, sympathy, or compassion whatsoever. Eventually, they both died. Lazarus went to heaven, and the rich man went to hell. Appealing to “Father Abraham” in heaven, the rich man requested that Lazarus be sent to cool his tongue with a drop of water to lessen his “agony in this fire.” The rich man also asked Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn his brothers to repent so that they would never join him in hell. Both requests were denied. Abraham told the rich man that if his brothers did not believe in Scripture, neither would they believe a messenger, even if he came straight from heaven.

There is some question as to whether this story is a true, real-life account or a parable, since two of its characters are named (making it unique among parables). Parable or not, however, there is a much we can learn from this passage:

First of all, Jesus teaches here that heaven and hell are both real, literal places. Sadly, many preachers shy away from uncomfortable topics such as hell. Some even teach “universalism” – the belief that everyone goes to heaven. Yet Christ spoke about hell a great deal, as did Paul, Peter, John, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews. The Bible is clear that every person who has ever lived will spend eternity in either heaven or hell. Like the rich man in the story, multitudes today are complacent in their conviction that all is well with their soul, and many will hear our Savior tell them otherwise when they die (Matthew 7:23).

This story also illustrates that once we cross the eternal horizon, that’s it. There are no more chances. The transition to our eternal state takes place the moment we die (2 Corinthians 5:8;Luke 23:43;Philippians 1:23). When believers die, they are immediately in the conscious fellowship and joys of heaven. When unbelievers die, they are just as immediately in the conscious pain, suffering, and torment of hell. Notice the rich man didn’t ask for his brothers to pray for his release from some purgatorial middle ground, thereby expediting his journey to heaven. He knew he was in hell, and he knew why. That’s why his requests were merely to be comforted and to have a warning sent to his brothers. He knew there was no escape. He was eternally separated from God, and Abraham made it clear to him that there was no hope of ever mitigating his pain, suffering, or sorrow. Those in hell will perfectly recollect missed opportunities and their rejection of the gospel.

Like many these days who buy into the “prosperity gospel,” the rich man wrongly saw his material riches as evidence of God’s love and blessing. Likewise, he believed the poor and destitute, like Lazarus, were cursed by God. Yet, as the apostle James exhorted, “You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter” (James 5:5). Not only do riches not get one into heaven, but they have the power to separate a person from God in a way that few other things can. Riches are deceitful (Mark 4:19). It is certainly not impossible for the very rich to enter heaven (many heroes of the Bible were wealthy), but Scripture is clear that it is very hard (Matthew 19:23-24;Mark 10:23-25;Luke 18:24-25).

True followers of Christ will not be indifferent to the plight of the poor like the rich man in this story was. God loves the poor and is offended when His children neglect them (Proverbs 17:5;22:9,22-23;29:7;31:8-9). In fact, those who show mercy to the poor are in effect ministering to Christ personally (Matthew 25:35-40). Christians are known by the fruit they bear. The Holy Spirit’s residence in our hearts will most certainly impact how we live and what we do.

Abraham’s words in verses 29 and 31 referring to “Moses and the Prophets” (Scripture) confirms that understanding the revealed Word of God has the power to turn unbelief into faith (Hebrew 4:12;James 1:18;1 Peter 1:23). Furthermore, knowing Scripture helps us to understand that God’s children, like Lazarus, can suffer while on this earth—suffering is one of the many tragic consequences of living in a sinful and fallen world.

The Bible says our earthly lives are a “mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes” (James 4:14). Our earthly sojourn is exceedingly brief. Perhaps the greatest lesson to learn from this story, then, is that when death comes knocking on our door there is only one thing that matters:our relationship with Jesus Christ. “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?” (Matthew 16:26;Mark 8:36). Eternal life is only found in Christ. “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:11-12). The truth is, if we wish to live apart from God during our time on earth, He will grant us our wish for eternity as well. As one pastor aptly said, “If you board the train of unbelief, you will have to take it all the way to its destination.”

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/rich-man-and-Lazarus.html#ixzz3NGI2Zc4V

The Great Comission

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus used the singular "ho onoma" -- "the name" which is a Hebrew was of referring to God's name without saying it. This can be found in Leviticus 19:12

'Do not swear falsely by 
(a) my name and so profane
(b) the name of your God. 
(c) I am the LORD (YHWH).

Jesus was not teaching His disciples the formula for Christian rite of water immersion.

The thread of Jesus' thought is:

a) make disciples

b) baptizo them

c) teaching them to obey

The theme is making disciples through teaching so they can go and make disciples. (b) baptuizo is not translated, rather it is transliterated. This is a tradition of English Bible translations so as to obscure it meaning by translators who favored paedo-baptism and baptismal regeneration. However baptizo, depending on the context, does not always mean the Christian rite of water immersion. Matthew 28:19 is one such text.
What else can baptiso be translated into English? James Montgomery Boice makes a good point:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. -- When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. -- When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. -- Bible Study Magazine, May 1989

With this this in mind Jesus is teaching:

a) make disciples..

b) identifying them with "the name" - the Father. the Son and the Holy Spirit

c) teaching them to obey ...

Jesus is instructing His apostles that New Testament disciples, when they are made through faith in the gospel that the apostle will teach, that they will be identified with the God of the Old Testament - YHWH, which we transliterate as Jehovah - the Father (Isaiah 42:1), the Son (Isaiah 48:16 & 17) and the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:1). These disciples will be taught " to obey everything I have commanded." ---among which is:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations....

So teaching and preparing for evangelism is Jesus commission to the Church.

Timing of the Rapture: Only Two Positions

There is really only two positions on the timing of the Rapture:

i. Before Daniel 9:27. Christians who hold this position are looking for the Lord Jesus Christ to catch them way at any moment. Since Israel became a nation in 1948, her prophecies will affect the Church, but has no bearing on the timing of the Rapture. Persecution and tribulation can will increase for Christians, but they will not go through Israel's seventieth seven, also known as the time of Jacob's trouble. This position makes a distinction between God's program for Israel and His program for the Church.

ii. During Daniel 9:27. Christians who hold this position disagree on how much time during Israel's seventieth seven they will go through before Jesus raptures the Church. They are looking for the revelation of the man of sin and expect to be martyrs before Jesus raptures the Church. To them the rapture is not imminent, but will be preceded by many signs after the Anti-Christ is revealed. This position does not make a distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church. They make frequent reference to the Olivet Discourse.

God's word promises:

...and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead - Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath. 1 Thessalonians 1:10 NIV
Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. Revelation 3:10

Our Gathering and Departure

1 We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in that 

..... we shall assemble unto him, 

2 that ye be not suddenly moved from your mind, and be not troubled; neither by spirit, neither by words, nor yet by letter, which should seem to come from us, as though the day of Christ were at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means, 

......for the Lord cometh not, >>>>except<<<<< 

..........there come a departing >>>>first,<<<<

>>>and<<<< that that sinful man be opened, the son of perdition; 

4 which is an adversary, and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he shall sit as God in the temple of God, and show himself as God. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4

Modern Spelling Tyndale/Coverdale Bible®

1. .there come a departing >>>>first,<<<<..... we shall assemble unto him,

2. >>>and<<<< that that sinful man be opened, the son of perdition

3. ....the Lord cometh

The Rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 by Thomas Ice 

https://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/TheRapturein2Thessalonians2_3.html

The Meaning of Apostasia

The Greek noun apostasia is only used twice in the New Testament. In addition to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, it occurs in Acts 21:21 where, speaking of Paul, it is said, " that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake (apostasia)Moses." The word is a Greek compound of apo " from" and istemi " stand." Thus, it has the core meaning of " away from" or " departure." The Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon defines apostasia first as " defection, revolt;" then secondly as " departure, disappearance." [1] Gordon Lewis explains how the verb from which the noun apostasia is derived supports the basic meaning of departure in the following:

The verb may mean to remove spatially. There is little reason then to deny that the noun can mean such a spatial removal or departure. Since the noun is used only one other time in the New Testament of apostasy from Moses (Acts 21:21), we can hardly conclude that its Biblical meaning is necessarily determined. The verb is used fifteen times in the New Testament. Of these fifteen, only three have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8;13; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb 3:12). The word is used for departing from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19), from ungodly men(1 Tim. 6:5), from the temple (Luke 2:27), from the body (2 Cor. 12:8), and from persons (Acts 12:10; Luke 4:13).[2]

" It is with full assurance of proper exegetical study and with complete confidence in the original languages," concludes Daniel Davey, " that the word meaning of apostasia is defined as departure." [3]

So the word has the core meaning of departure and it depends upon the context to determine whether it is used to mean physical departure or an abstract departure such as departure from the faith.

Translation History

The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either " departure" or " departing." They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608).[4] This supports the notion that the word truly means " departure." In fact, Jerome' s Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of a.d. 400 renders apostasia with the " word discessio, meaning ' departure.' " [5] Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of " departure" ?

Theodore Beza, the Swiss reformer was the first to transliterate apostasia and create a new word, rather than translate it as others had done. The translators of the King James Version were the first to introduce the new rendering of apostasia as " falling away." Most English translators have followed the KJV and Beza in departing from translating apostasia as " departure." No good reason was ever given.

The Use of the Article

It is important to note that Paul uses a definite article with the noun apostasia. What does this mean? Davey notes the following:

Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article reference is being made to something in particular. In II Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.[6]

____________________________________________
Endnotes
[1] Henry George Liddell and Henry Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Revised with a Supplement [1968] by Sir Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie (Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press, 1940), p. 218.

[2] Gordon R. Lewis, " Biblical Evidence for Pretribulationism," Bibliotheca Sacra (vol. 125, no. 499; July 1968), p. 218.

[3] Daniel K. Davey, " The ' Apostesia' of II Thessalonians 2:3," Th.M. thesis, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, May 1982, p. 27.

[4] H. Wayne House, " Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3: Apostasy or Rapture?" in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, eds., When the Trumpet Sounds: Today' s Foremost Authorities Speak Out on End-Time Controversies (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995), p. 270.

[5] House, " Apostesia" , p. 270.

[6] Davey, " Apostesia" , p. 47.

Modern Judaizers

Salvation by Grsce through Faith: Spiritual baptism before Water Baptism

Kingdom

Distinction between Israel and the Church

Tozer

God's Triunity

Timing: Re-building the Temple or the Rapture?

In a future, and it may be soon, we will be raptured to heaven (1st Thessalonians 4:13-5:11).  But one thing that I wonder about is what Daniel 9:27 says:

He (the coming ruler - vs 26) will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.'  In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

Look at what I highlighted. This tells me two things:

1. From the time the man of sin signs the covenant....Israel will have a Levitical priest system ready and prepared to offer animal sacrifices. 
2. This means, before this covenant is signed, the Third Temple construction is completed and ready. 

According to 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, Jesus would gather us together and depart first and then the "time of the Lord begins and the man of sin is revealed.

So this would mean that the Temple would be built before the rapture.....since this event happens before the tribulation.But how could the Temple possibly be built? The Muslim control Temple Mount  and the Dome of the Rock sits on the site of the Second Temple.

Really? Look at this picture:

Where the Dome of the Rock sits is on the site of the Fortress Antonia. The holy site they covered was an early Christian site to mark where Jesus stood before Pilate. A Church stood on this site...not the Herodian Temple. The actual site of the Herodian Temple is to the south. But the Jews have forgotten where their Temple was.  

 Notice that the Wailing Wall or Western Wall is at the base of the Fortress Antonia...the only structure the Romans did not destroy in 70 A.D. Just as Jesus prophesied....the Temple was completely obliterated.

"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." Matthew 24:2

• Josephus confirms that Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled to the letter:

Titus, the Roman general, ordered the very foundations of it to be dug up; after which the ground on which it stood was ploughed up by Turnus Rufus. It is true, Titus was very desirous of preserving it, and the city too, and sent Josephus and other Jews again and again to persuade them to a surrender, but one greater than Titus had determined it otherwise. The Jews themselves first set fire to the porticoes of the temple, and then the Romans. One of the soldiers, neither waiting for any command, nor trembling at such an attempt, but urged by a certain divine impulse, says Josephus, mounted the shoulder of his companion, thrust a burning brand in at the golden window, and thereby set fire to the building of the temple itself. Titus ran immediately to the temple, and commanded the soldiers to extinguish the flame; but neither exhortations nor threatenings could restrain their violence; they either could not, or would not hear, those behind encouraging those before to set fire to the temple.  Benson Commentary

 So to the South is where the Second Temple was located:

See Note below

• There is interest in the Southern area as the place to build the Third Temple. However Muslim opposition to any Temple construction anywhere in this area will lead to riots.So this leads to the next question...when will Muslim opposition end so that the Temple can be built and ready to be used for the seventieth seven? I believe the War of Ezekiel 38 and 39 is the answer that will have God intervening both by natural, political and supernatural means. 

• Great Earthquake 
• In my zeal and fiery wrath I declare that at that time there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. The fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, every creature that moves along the ground, and all the people on the face of the earth will tremble at my presence. The mountains will be overturned, the cliffs will crumble and every wall will fall to the ground.  

• Confusion 

I will summon a sword against Gog on all my mountains, declares the Sovereign LORD . Every man's sword will be against his brother. I will execute judgment upon him with plague and bloodshed.

• Supernatural Weather Phenomenon

I will pour down torrents of rain, hailstones and burning sulfur on him and on his troops and on the many nations with him.  And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD .' Ezekiel 38:19-23

• Possibility: Supernatural - Other possibility: Nuclear exchange between US and Russia

• I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in safety in the coastlands, and they will know that I am the LORD . Ezekiel 39:7

• This will be followed by seven years to bury the bone and burn the weapons:

• " 'Then those who live in the towns of Israel will go out and use the weapons for fuel and burn them up-the small and large shields, the bows and arrows, the war clubs and spears. For seven years they will use them for fuel.  Ezekiel 39:9

• Muslim opposition and World opposition to what Israel will do in regards to re-building the Third Temple will be eliminated. The great earthquake will reduce Muslim shrines, like the Dome to the Rock, to rubble. This seven year period will give Israel time to build the Temple as they will know that the Lord has delivered them from destruction. It will be a return to God under the Law...not in faith that Jesus is their Messiah. This is what the Tribulation will bring them to:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' Matthew 23:37-39 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you--even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. Acts 3:19-21

• So let me put all of this together on a time line to get a visual representation:

•  
• This is a possible scenario for the future. I would prefer one that had no trials before the rapture. But I have to proclaim prophecy as I understand them...not as I would like them to be. If we are the terminal generation that will be raptured...we could likely also be witnesses to the coming war, and depending on who survives...could witness the rebuilding of the Third Temple.

• Note:
• These excavations begun by Benjamin Mazar in 1968 were the largest earth-moving archaeological projects in Israel.  Work continued until 1978 but has since resumed in the 1990s under the direction of Ronny Reich.  These excavations are the most important for understanding the Temple Mount because of the impossibility of excavating on the mount itself. http://www.bibleplaces.com/southerntm.htm

• The Third TempleWhen will it be built? by Dr. David R. Reagan
• http://www.raptureforums.com/IsraelMiddleEast/thethirdtemple.cfm
• 
  
• A few prophecies still need to be fulfilled before the tribulation by Don Koenig
• http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/prophecies%20still%20to%20be%20fulfilled%20before%20the%20final%20seven%20year%20covenant%20with%20Israel.htm

• Will Israel Build a Temple in Jerusalem?
• https://bible.org/article/will-israel-build-temple-jerusalem

As To That "New Eye Opener Tract"

by Hoeksema H.C.

In connection with our discussion of Bible translations, several of our readers called my attention to a little tract published by a certain Missionary J.J. Ray, Junction City, Oregon. This tract is a defense of the King James Version over against all other translations and versions solely on the basis of the claim that the King James Bible is founded on the Greek Textus Receptus (Received Text), which, in turn, is claimed to be the only authentic Greek text of the New Testament. It contains a list of "200 KEY REFERENCES" which "show how all modern Bibles differ from the King James Version, and the Greek Textus Receptus from which it was translated." And in connection with these 200 references it furnishes statistics showing how various other versions differ from the King James Version by omitting, bracketing, or italicizing as nonauthentic many of these 200 expressions which are found in the King James Version and in the Greek Textus Receptus. We will not enter into all of the claims made in this tract in detail. Rather do we call your attention to the fundamental argument of the author under the heading, "Here's The Acid Test." This "acid test" is stated as follows: "Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the Greek Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to be founded upon corrupted manuscripts."

On the basis of this so-called "acid test" many severe warnings are sounded to adhere to the King James Version and condemnatory statements are made concerning all departures from the Greek Textus Receptus, (which, by the way, concerns only the New Testament!).

To the unwary reader this tract might seem to be a strong defense of the King James Version; and seemingly some of my readers have sent me this tract for that very reason.

However, at the risk of being in the uncomfortable position of opposing someone who defends the King James Version, I must disagree with the position taken in this tract; and I must warn that a defense of the King James Version cannot be made on this radical basis. Those who attempt it are likely to receive a jolt some day, should they encounter someone who is opposed to the KJV and who is able to expose the very obvious error of the radical position taken in this pamphlet.

You see, a radical over-simplification of the issue is not a strong position, but a weak one. Should any opponent of the KJV be able to show that this one, apparently simple, argument based on the Textus Receptus is false, the entire position of this tract is destroyed. And the friend of the KJV is then left with the proverbial "mouth full of teeth." This tract leaves the impression that anyone with a smattering of knowledge that there is such a thing as a Greek Textus Receptus and even without any knowledge of New Testament Greek and of the entire science known as "textual criticism" is able to apply the acid test and to defend the KJV as the only authentic text. This is a case of "A little learning is a dangerous thing."

http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/new-eye-opener-tract

THE REAL EYE OPENER: J. J. Ray's Plagiarism Of Benjamin G. Wilkinson

THE REAL EYE OPENER:

J. J. Ray's Plagiarism Of Benjamin G. Wilkinson

by Gary R. Hudson

[Originally printed in Baptist Biblical Heritage, Spring, 1991]

From J. J. Ray, Eye Opener Publishers, God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 18: “Those who were corrupting Bible manuscripts said that they were correcting them. Corrupted copies were so prevalent that agreement between them was hopeless.”

From Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Seventh-day Adventist, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 15: “...corrupted manuscripts were so prevalent that agreement between the copies was hopeless; and that those who were corrupting the Scriptures, claimed that they were really correcting them.”

....................

Several months ago, I ordered a copy of the book, God Wrote Only One Bible (copyright 1955, 1970; renewed 1983, Eye Opener Publishers, P. O. Box 7944, Eugene, Oregon 97401) by Jasper James Ray. Ray’s book represents one of the earliest advocacies of King James Onlyism, and has been a favorite of the movement for many years. Having lost the copy I once owned back in my “Ruckmanite” days, I couldn’t see my current collection of KJO literature being without one.

Ray’s book attempts to trace what he terms “two streams of Bibles” back through a highly subjective (and often inaccurate) history of New Testament manuscripts, one line being “corrupt” and the other “the Bible God wrote.” The one “God wrote” is, according to Ray, the “Textus Receptus” Greek of the KJV. (Incidentally, textual scholars recognize four distinct text types dating from antiquity, not simply “two streams” of manuscripts). Perhaps the book is best known for its list of “omissions from the modern Bibles,” where Ray makes any omission from the TR/KJV equivalent to an omission from the original autographs. Any clear-thinking person can readily detect the level of circular reasoning in such a tactic. One heretical twist of Ray is to make the “Textus Receptus” essential to “saving faith” and “regeneration” (pp. 9-10, 15, 122), asserting that modern versions “cannot save” (p. 3), thus adding the TR/KJV as an essential element of the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Printed over a somewhat “tacky” format, the book runs 122 pages of seven short chapters.

So, the day came recently when my copy of God Wrote Only One Bible arrived. Opening and thumbing-through to the charts on pages 71 and 109, my eyes immediately fell on a problem. On page 71, Ray has a chart of the “corrupt” line of Bibles which includes Jerome’s Latin Vulgate of 382 A. D. and the Douay version of 1582. Then on page 109, Ray includes the Wycliff translation of 1382 in his “pure stream” that allegedly descends from the “Original Textus Receptus.” Ray has not done his homework. A smattering of knowledge on the history of the English Bible would reveal to anyone that Wycliff’s Bible was translated directly from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate, as was the Douay. Such carelessness on basic information is inexcusable.

As I continued reading Ray’s material, something kept seeming familiar. I was reading pages 15-28 and glancing occasionally down at the footnotes. Then, I thought perhaps it was the style of font in the footnotes that seemed familiar. And then it suddenly hit me--ah ha!--why, it’s old Benjamin G. Wilkinson all over again! Those of you who have been receiving Baptist Biblical Heritage can remember the expose’ we did of David O. Fuller’s concealment of Wilkinson’s identity as a Seventh-Day Adventist, whom Fuller used for half the material in Which Bible?. Having researched Wilkinson’s background and book, I was able to recognize his material in God Wrote Only One Bible, plagiarized, evidently, by J. J. Ray.

Plagiarism, by definition, is to take one’s writings or ideas from another and to pass them off as one’s own (Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition). No one, including Mr. Ray, should take the charge of plagiarism lightly. Regarding the recent discovery of the plagiarisms of Martin Luther King Jr., Time recently stated, “Plagiarism proclaims no majestic flaw of character but a trait, pathetic, that makes you turn aside in embarrassment. It belongs to the same run down neighborhood as obscene phone calls or shoplifting” (Lance Morrow, Time’s “Essay,” 12/3/90. p. 126).

With a certified letter dated November 19, 1990, we mailed Eye Opener Publishers (Ray’s publishers) documented proof of Mr. Ray’s plagiarisms of Seventh-day Adventist author, Benjamin G. Wilkinson. These enclosures consisted of photocopies of pages 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 33, 37, 152, and 252-253 from Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (copyright 1930) by Wilkinson arranged in parallel comparisons to copies of pages 18, 19, 20, 29, 93, and 98 of God Wrote Only One Bible by Ray. The signed receipt was returned on November 28, 1990 (proving that they accepted our materials), but no reply has since come forth. It was made clear in our letter that we intended to make public these charges of Ray’s plagiarisms of Wilkinson. [We have since learned that J. J. Ray is deceased, but this still does not explain the silence of his publisher/distributor on these matters.]

As previously mentioned, Ray’s plagiarisms of Wilkinson surfaced initially as I was reading the footnotes in his book. Many of these footnotes, giving the appearance of being the result of the author’s (Ray’s) research, were obviously copied from the pages of Wilkinson’s work. The eight footnotes on page 19 by Mr. Ray are perhaps the best example of this, where seven out of eight were taken directly from Wilkinson. Footnotes numbering 1-7 of God Wrote Only One Bible are copied directly from seven footnotes in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, pp. 20, 21, and 22.

This same phenomenon occurs with other footnotes in Ray’s book. Footnotes #1 and #3 on page 18, read, “Encyclopedia, Tatian.” This was taken from Wilkinson, page 16, footnote #19, which reads, “Encyclopedias, ‘Tatian’.” Like Wilkinson, Ray does not give the page number nor reveal the “Encyclopedia” used. Apparently, Mr. Ray simply took the Adventist’s word rather than checking the reference for himself. Footnote #2 of Ray on page 18 reads, “Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chap. 28,” obviously taken from footnote #18 of Wilkinson on page 15, which reads, Eusebius, Eccles. History, Book V., Chap 28.” On this last point, Ray not only took the footnote from Wilkinson but transposed two of Wilkinson’s statements on page 15 of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (which Ray put on page 18 of his book), slightly altering some of the wording regarding Wilkinson’s use of the reference. Other instances include footnotes #1 and #2 on page 20 of Ray that were taken from footnotes #5 and #32, pages 21 and 33 of Wilkinson; and footnotes #2 and #3 on page 98 of Ray were taken from footnotes #43 and #44, page 37 of Wilkinson. Again, Mr. Ray didn’t do his homework--not his own, at least!

In his “Introduction,” Ray clearly wanted his readers to think that his book was entirely a result of his own research. He wrote:

“For years the writer was held in this net [“Textual Criticism”] of diabolical trickery. Then, one wonderful day, God opened his eyes to behold a ray of light which led out of the dark dilemma. Months and years of research followed, and this book is the result. Conclusions are not based upon the author’s judgment, but upon the investigation of more trustworthy sources which are referred to in the foot-notes where applicable” (Ray, ibid., “Introduction”; emphasis ours).

This statement along with the evidence of clear plagiarisms presented in this article compound Ray’s deception as very deliberate. He clearly tried to give his readers the impression that he had done his own research and that his book was the result. But this is NOT the truth. Mr. Ray’s “ray of light,” as he calls it, was actually Benjamin G. Wilkinson, without whose work Ray’s book would have never existed.

Should the reader still have doubts of Ray’s plagiarism of Wilkinson, the following comparison should settle the question:

Ray, page 29: “Westcott writes from France to his fiancée in 1847: ‘After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill....Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life (i. e. a Virgin and dead Christ)....Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.’”

Wilkinson, page 152: “WESTCOTT writes from France to his fiancée, 1847: ‘After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill.... Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life (i. e. a Virgin and a dead Christ)....Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.’”

Let the reader note several points on the above. First, Ray quotes his information and words from Westcott in the identical way of Wilkinson, even to the point of using four periods (“....”) to indicate partial quotation in the same places Wilkinson did. Secondly, the words in parenthesis, “i. e. a Virgin and a dead Christ” are Wilkinson’s, not Ray’s! Thirdly, in the footnotes at the bottom of Ray’s above page, he miscopied “Life of Westcott, Vol. I, p. 51” from Wilkinson. This last point is evident by looking at Wilkinson’s footnotes where the first part, “Life of Westcott, Vol. I” is correct, but instead of “p. 51” Wilkinson has “p. 400”: Ray mistakenly took “p. 51” from Wilkinson’s lower footnote reference to “Life of Hort, Vol. II” given as “p. 51”! THAT is sure proof that Ray copied Wilkinson’s footnotes and material rather than investigated Wilkinson’s references firsthand.

Further evidence of Ray’s plagiarisms are as follows:

Ray, p. 98: “...translated not later than 157 A.D. and was known as the Italic Version. The renowned scholar Beza, states that the Italic Church dates from 120 A.D.”

Wilkinson, p. 35: “The Latin Bible, the italic, was translated from the Greek not later than 157 A.D. We are indebted to Beza, the renowned associate of Calvin, for the statement that the Italic Church dates from 120 A.D.”

Ray, p. 98: “Allix, an outstanding scholar testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity.”

Wilkinson, p. 36: “That Rome in early days corrupted the manuscripts while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity, Allix, the renowned scholar, testifies.”

Ray, p. 98: “Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, spent 28 years in tracing the Received Text back to its apostolic origin. His searching led him to investigate Bible texts of the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendents of the Italic Church.”

Wilkinson, p. 40: “Dr. Nolan, who had already acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship...spent twenty-eight years to trace back the Received Text to its apostolic origin...Christians of northern Italy whose lineal descendants the Waldenses were...”

In addition to the above is the Wilkinson idea concerning how “HISTORICALLY ONLY TWO STREAMS OF BIBLES HAVE COME DOWN TO US,” expressed by Ray on page 15. This was clearly borrowed from Wilkinson’s almost identical section title in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, page 12, concerning what the Adventist stated as "FUNDAMENTALLY, THERE ARE ONLY TWO STREAMS OF BIBLES.”

No, Mr. Ray did not take many years of his own time and research to produce his book. It took him no longer to do “research” than it took him to read an older, out-of-print, 1930 work written by a Seventh-day Adventist! This was his “ray of light” that hit him one day. Mr. Ray’s story about how “God opened his eyes” was actually his “Damascus Road experience” with a book by an Adventist!

Doug Kutilek has already documented many of Wilkinson’s inaccuracies in a previously published article (see “Wilkinsons Incredible Errors” by Doug Kutilek on this website). But, Mr. Ray has picked up some of Wilkinson’s errors and invented a few of his own. For examples note the following:

“At first the only scriptures in existance[sic] were those given by inspiration of God (2 Peter 1:21). These messages were put into writing, and when placed into book form they became Bible number one, the true Word of God” (Ray, p. 15). Ray teaches that the original inspired manuscripts were compiled into “book form,” which of course they never were. Ray repeats this error on page 97.

“Other manuscripts like them [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] were not considered canonical and were discarded by the scholars who gave us the King James Bible” (Ray, p. 20). Manuscripts are not “canonical,” only books.

“It has been acknowledged, even by some enemies, that nineteen-twentieths of these manuscripts [all known mss.] are in accord with the Received Text (The Textus Receptus)” (Ray, p. 27). The TR is not based on the majority of manuscripts (see my article, “Why Dean Burgon Would Not Join The Dean Burgon Society” on this website). And, we’ll give our readers one guess where Mr. Ray got his misinformation on the “admission” of the “enemies” about “nineteen-twentieths” of the manuscripts agreeing with the TR--you guessed it-- Wilkinson (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, page 13)!

“Dean Burgon, a learned textual critic and collator of Manuscripts, Presbendary Miller, Dr. Scrivener and others, uphold the Textus Receptus because of the immense number of manuscripts which are in agreement with it” (Ray, pp. 27-28). In fact, the exact opposite is true. All three of these men were very outspokenly against defending the “Textus Receptus” because of the very reason that it does NOT reflect the majority of manuscripts (again, see our Burgon articles).

“In the case of the Bible, it is the translation only that is the subject of revision” (Ray, p. 30). This is grossly wrong and contrary to historical fact. Every edition of the Greek Textus Receptus from Erasmus to Beza to Elzevir went through multiple revisions as the Greek text continues to do so down to this very day.

“Such a confusing situation is not new, for this well describes the teaching of Origen, the world’s most outspoken theologian of the first century a. d.” (Ray, p. 73). Ray has previously stated accurately that Origen lived from 185-254 A. D. (p. 18). Either Ray forgot what he knew earlier in his book or he mistakes “first century a. d.” for the time period he previously ascribed to Origen.

“In a few years the Syrian believers could be numbered by the thousands. Their Bible, the Peshitta, even today, generally follows the Received Text” (Ray, p. 97). The Peshitta most certainly does not reflect the TR in numerous readings (see Doug Kutilek’s article, “The Truth About the Waldensian Bible and the Old Latin Version" on this website). And, as expected, Ray took this misinformation directly from Wilkinson’s book (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 25).

“For a moment let us suppose that a copyist did insert Acts 8:37 into the text. Has he injected any phase of Bible doctrine that is in any whit contrary to any of God’s revelation? Not one iota” (Ray, p. 105). Let the reader observe carefully what Ray is saying. Of course he defends Acts 8:37 in the TR, which is not supported by the best manuscript evidence. But, in his defense of the disputed verse, he clearly justifies it even in terms of an insertion into the Greek text on the basis of it being consistent with Bible doctrine! This would open the door to other suggested insertions into the text, and would render the purity of the original useless! It is no wonder that some men of Ray’s KJO school who make the KJV a guide to textual criticism wind up justifying the KJV as “infallible” over the Greek itself, all in the name of being consistent with “Bible doctrine” and “advanced light.”

A comparison of pages 34 and 53 in Ray’s book reveals a most misleading idea about Luther’s German translation. On page 34, Ray listed Luther’s German New Testament as not omitting I John 5:7. On page 53, Ray listed I John 5:7 as not being absent from Luther’s translation which he numbered on page 34. This is a blatant error. Luther’s does indeed omit this verse because he based his translation on Erasmus’ second edition Greek text containing the omission.

Another discovery, to my surprise, in Ray’s book was the origin of the King James “preservation” argument that applies Psalm 12:6-7 to the TR/KJV. Historically, expositors (including Spurgeon) took this passage in its immediate context to be applicable to God’s preservation of the “poor” and “needy” in v. 5, not the “words” of v. 6 (see the article by Doug Kutilek, “Why Psalm 12:6-7 Is Not A Promise Of The Infallible Preservation of Scripture,” which demonstrates this from the Hebrew grammatical construction of the passage). Even among the few commentators who took v. 7 as referring to the “words” of v. 6, we do not find one of them who has given the present-day KJO interpretation of making the “words” refer to the Textus Receptus or the KJV in particular. It was not until 1930 that any writer anywhere on the planet made Psalm 12:6-7 refer to a particular text or version of the Bible. That “writer” to first do so was Seventh-day Adventist, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, who also had his Scripture-twisting plagiarized by Jasper James Ray so that it would be pawned-off on a generation of fundamental Baptists. Observe:

J. J. Ray, page 93: “God has magnified His Word above all His name, (Psalm 138:2). The created worlds magnify the exalted name of Christ. But God has magnified His Word above all these. A man is no better than his word. If God’s Word could be broken, His name would be worthless. The Words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt ‘KEEP THEM,’ O Lord, thou shalt ‘PRESERVE THEM’ from this generation for ever, (Psalm 12:6-7)” (emphasis his).

Wilkinson, pages 252-253: “The Psalmist wrote: ‘Thou hast magnified thy Word above all thy name.’ The created worlds magnify the exalted name of the Eternal. But God has magnified His Word above all these...A man is no better then his word; if one fails to command confidence, so does the other...’The words of the Lord are pure words,’ says the Psalmist, ‘as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve every one of them (margin) from this generation forever.’ Psalm 12:6-7.”

Both books (Ray’s and Wilkinson’s) are written in defense of the “Textus Receptus” used for “Our Authorized Bible” and both agree that this text is THE “pure stream” of God’s “preserved words” from the autographs. Both books apply Ps. 12:6-7 in this context, and the book published at a later date, Ray’s (1955), copied the exact idea from the earlier one, Wilkinson’s (1930)! J. J. Ray was in fact a plagiarist and his book is a near complete fraud.

CONCLUSION

Various false claims made by the King James Only movement have come from the pages of Ray’s book, including the misapplication of Psalm 12:6-7. Most of these errors have now been traced to their concealed source, the work of Seventh-day Adventist and SDA College President Benjamin G. Wilkinson, who was later used by Fuller for half the contents of his book, Which Bible? (see our article, “The Great Which Bible? Fraud,” and Doug Kutilek’s article, “The Unlearned Men” on this website for more information). Hence, I wish to coin a new term, Wilkinsonianism. It matters not WHO teaches it or has taught it, whether it is Ray, Fuller, Waite, Ruckman, Bynum, Riplinger, David Cloud, Jewell Smith, Sam Gipp, Jack Chick, Jack Hyles, Bob Gray, Bruce Lackey, or Mickey Carter, when Ps. 12:6-7 is applied exclusively to the "Textus Receptus” and KJV it is purely Wilkinsonian. When anyone of this group makes the claim that the “Old Latin Bible” was the “Received Text of the Waldenses” it is Wilkinsonian. When anyone of this group claims the Syriac Peshitta as “matching” or "nearly the same” as the “Textus Receptus” it is Wilkinsonian. When any one in this group tries to give the false impression that the “Textus Receptus” used for the KJV is based upon the “majority of manuscripts” (“nineteen-twentieths”) it is Wilkinsonian.

So we now have documented two polluted pipelines of Wilkinson’s errors into the fundamental Baptist movement of the 20th-21st centuries. The first is God Wrote Only One Bible by J. J. Ray, who plagiarized Wilkinson’s words and ideas as his own and covered his use of the Adventist writer by not crediting Wilkinson as his main source. Wilkinson’s second polluted pipeline of inaccuracy and Scripture twisting is Which Bible? by David Otis Fuller, who credited Wilkinson but concealed his identity by removing Wilkinson’s footnotes to Ellen G. White, the official “prophetess” of the Adventist movement. Any King James Only advocates now aware of such “contamination” will only continue to drink from Ray and Fuller’s Wilkinsonian conduits out of their own willful ignorance and self-deception.