Rightly Dividing and Dispensational Theology

[John81]

[color=#FF0000][MOD NOTE: This is a split from the traditions thread.][/color]


[quote="KJB_Princess"]
Ok, well I'm not gonna go into the whole "Ruckman" discussion right now because it's not necessary (that horse has been beaten lots of times on other threads... and almost everyone here already has an opinion on that subject anyway), but I see a big problem here. People automatically assume that all "Ruckmanites" have some kind of ungodly attitude against people who disagree.

To tell you the truth, we as Christians can get an attitude toward someone who disagrees with us on anything.. it's not just the "Ruckmanite" crowd. In any circle of true Christians, you'll see people who have more of a gentle spirit and those who are slightly more "antagonistic." It happens in many IFB churches all the time.. you get some people who are firmly against women wearing pants and they'll make any pants-wearing woman feel like a total feministic heathen. Then you'll get some lady who has high personal standards of modesty, but has also learned to be gentle and kind to the younger Christian lady who doesn't know better.

I know that the "standards" issue and the "Ruckman" issue are totally different, so don't get all upset at me for comparing apples to oranges. :) I was just giving an example about attitude.

Vince was not having a bad attitude when he made that statement that Kevin quoted. He was just saying that many people have a wrong idea about "Ruckmanites". They think that just because we like some of what he teaches, and appreciate his stand on the Bible, that we agree with him on EVERYTHING. We don't. I'm sure I could actually find a lot that I disagree with him on, but I could do that with probably any preacher.

Why don't you guys step back for a second and look at the big picture here? If you take all the people in the world that call themselves "Christians", most of them hate anyone who really believes the Bible, right? That doesn't mean that all of them are unsaved, I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there who really are saved, but don't really care about the Bible or living a godly life, they just wanted "fire insurance." They may have had a relationship with God at one time, but it's very distant and they've become the typical laodicean Christian. Now, if you take the remnant of people who would be classified "IFB" (btw, IFBs are hated by most other "Christians" if you haven't noticed ), you'll only get some who truly believe the King James Bible (most of them are TR-only...not strong KJVO). These KJVO people are constantly ridiculed by non-KJVO people. We're looked at as being a cult... just because the rest of the "Christian" world wants to have a lazy Christian life... with their MVs that candy-coat sin so they don't ever feel guilty. (I think most of you on here would agree with me up to this point... amen?)

Here's where most of you would disagree with me. I believe that the crowd referred to as "Ruckmanites", are the strongest of the bunch. The reason "Ruckmanites" are hated so much is because the root of everything we believe is Dispensationalism. Every Baptist believes in dispensationalism to some degree (everyone knows that the OT is different from the NT, and God gave different commands to people at different times). We believe 2 Timothy 2:15 to be an extremely important command in the Bible. We're told to STUDY and to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word of truth (the Bible).

People who really don't want to understand Dispensationalism are never going to understand the way that Ruckman (or any so-called "Ruckmanite") teaches. I didn't learn Dispensationalism from Ruckman though. I learned it from a few different books by different authors who laid out Scripture verse after Scripture verse that proved it without a doubt. (I highly recommend "One Book Rightly Divided" by Doug Stauffer and "Bible Believer's Guide to Dispensationalism" by David Walker) Believe me, once you study that subject... you'll see the Bible as an even more amazing and deep Book than ever before, and it'll blow your mind. Just getting to know the Bible is like getting to see a glimpse of the mind of God... and it'll just get you so excited!

(I really meant to make this a short post! :Bleh )[/quote]

In as far as I think I understand what you are saying here, I do believe I agree with the sentiments of your post.

Our personal conduct, lives, what "traditions" we accept (and how we accept them) in our churches should all stem from solid Bible study, rightly dividing the Word of Truth and properly applying what the Holy Ghost teaches us.

I'll do a search on those two books you recommended and consider reading them.

[Jerry]

Stauffer is a hyper-dispensationalist that teaches salvation is different in the OT and in the Trib Millenium than the church age, that whole books of the NT are not meant for the church, but for the Tribulation period - and that those books (James, Hebrews, etc.) teach works (which they do not). This man, like Ruckman, WRONGLY DIVIDES the Word of truth.

[John81]

[quote="Jerry"]Stauffer is a hyper-dispensationalist that teaches salvation is different in the OT and in the Trib Millenium than the church age, that whole books of the NT are not meant for the church, but for the Tribulation period - and that those books (James, Hebrews, etc.) teach works (which they do not). This man, like Ruckman, WRONGLY DIVIDES the Word of truth.[/quote]

Thank you Jerry. I was just reading something about that book after doing a search and what really caught my eye was a review that stated the book tells us "which gospels are for us and which are not". No explanation, but that statement had me wondering what the reviewer meant.

Do you know anything about this book:
"Bible Believer's Guide to Dispensationalism" by David Walker

[Guest Guest]

(Reply to Jerry's and others' posts; not an antagonistic continuation of an already off-topic thread :cooldude: Split it and start a new one if you'd like; I'll reply as I find time.)

Well, I guess the fact that there are several Gospels in the Bible might be a reason to employ Right Division, Jerry. When Jesus taught the Gospel of the [b]Kingdom[/b] (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, 24:14; Mark 1:14-15), and Paul taught the Gospel of Christ or of the Grace of God, what he calls "my Gospel" (Rom. 2:16, 2 Tim. 2:8). Paul further states that he received this Gospel of no man, and that Christ Himself taught him (Gal. 1:11-12). Also, he says that anyone found teaching any other Gospel should be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9).

Furthermore, you'll find that the Gospel (of the Kingdom) that Christ taught was not only different from what Paul taught, it was also vastly different from the Law of the Old Testament. Then you'll find the Everlasting Gospel in Revelation 14:6, where the Death, Burial and Resurrection of 2 Corinthians 15 are nowhere to be found.

If you can reconcile this without Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, then I'd love to see it. Seeing a difference in the Covenants is simple logic, not some outlandish heresy as you'd like us to believe. Neither did it start with Doc; Schofield, Larkin and others wrote of it well over a hundred years ago, and there have always been Christians that believed the Bible for what It says.

Oh, and read the addresses on the Books; " James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting" doesn't mean "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus..." "Twelve Tribes" is vastly, incredibly different from "the saints which are at Ephesus." Things that are different are not the same.

[John81]

Vince, how is all this reconciled with Second Timothy 3:16?

(By all means, if need be, someone feel free to transfer this to a new thread)

[Guest Guest]

[quote]Vince, how is all this reconciled with Second Timothy 3:16?

(By all means, if need be, someone feel free to transfer this to a new thread)[/quote]

Even though this has been discussed again and again, with usually the same end result, I'll try to give you an answer that will help you see what I'm getting at. The Bible is one Book, God's holy, perfect Word, given by inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16, Job 32:8). However, God has written His Book with divisions in It to clarify certain things, to hide some, and to clarify others.

The simplest division, one that is impossible to ignore, is the division between the Old and New Testaments. 39 books and 29, divided by a small blank page, but very obvious. Most people will acknowledge this, even those that vehemently claim to not be Dispensationalists, but it's inevitable to believe the Bible even in the slightest and not believe in Dispensations. Note, this doesn't mean that they're correct; there are many people that claim to be Bible Believing Dispensationalists, yet are completely off the wall (most tend to Hyper-Dispensationalism which ends in Hyper-Calvinism).

More divisions surface when the differing Covenants God made with man are studied. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David are the main recipients of Covenants from God. The terms are similar, yet different in each one. God always gave a command and the promise of a reward, and many times the punishment that would result from disobedience. Adam was a triune being from Creation, and his reward was living in the Garden forever, and the punishment was immediate spiritual death, followed eventually by physical death. Nothing there spoke of salvation or Heaven, just the Garden and eternal earthly life. Noah was given yet another command, and there was nothing spiritual attached to the command or rewards. Just build a boat, and He would save Noah's family's lives. Abraham was promised physical blessings and an eternal seed line. Moses was given a Law for the people of Israel, and the result of obedience was always physical blessings, and the result of disobedience physical curses.

Since the death of Adam's Spirit in Genesis 3, man wasn't able to understand the trinity of the human being. A human is born with a body, a lost soul, and a dead spirit. Most people think only about the body and negate the importance or even existence of the other two. The requirements and repercussions of the Old Testament Covenants were physical! Even when a writer, under the inspiration of the Spirit, glimpsed the spiritual realm and wrote of it, he was very likely completely ignorant of what he was writing, or gave it a physical application to explain it away. David, for instance, wrote of his body and soul synonymously, and his "salvation" was always physically applied, though we can glean an awesome spiritual application from it.

(more later, gotta' go.)

[John81]

Thank you Vince. I'll wait for your further comments.

[Jerry]

There are not four or five different Gospels - there is only one Gospel of salvation. The different words referring to the Gospel (ie. of the Kingdom, everlasting, my Gospel, etc.) are referring to different aspects of the Gospel of salvation. God only has and only will have (according to His Word) one method of salvation - that is by grace through faith in the Messiah/Saviour Jesus Christ, with no works.

All of the New Testament was written for the NT church, including all four Gospels (which the church will use to present Christ to the lost world - each Gospel presents Christ from a different perspective), Hebrews (written to Messianic Jews which were part of the church, and those lost Jews in their midst), James (a letter to the early church, which was mostly Jewish), and Revelation (which tells the church what is to come - both during the church age and after: during the tribulation and millenium, then in eternity). There are no contradictions in the Bible - whether OT or NT. All of the NT books teach the exact same salvation in Christ. If you believe there are different gospels and different salvations, then you are wrongly dividing the Bible.

[Jerry]

[quote="MC1171611"]The requirements and repercussions of the Old Testament Covenants were physical! Even when a writer, under the inspiration of the Spirit, glimpsed the spiritual realm and wrote of it, he was very likely completely ignorant of what he was writing, or gave it a physical application to explain it away. David, for instance, wrote of his body and soul synonymously, and his "salvation" was always physically applied, though we can glean an awesome spiritual application from it.[/quote]

The OT dealt with more than just the physical. Many OT passages deal with the spiritual blessings in Christ, dealt with the promises of God, dealt with God looking at the heart, etc. Yes, the Abrahamic covenant focussed mostly on land and his physical descendants, but the OT also deals with his spiritual descendants, with the blessings to true believers.

[Guest Guest]

Jerry, I think we'd both agree that the 4 gospels are in a general sense, different accounts of the same Gospel. They all teach the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the Gospel necessary for our salvation. Amen? Ok... I don't think anyone on this site is going to disagree about that, even those of use who believe dispensationalism differently than you do. :)

The difference between us is that I believe that books like Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews are transitional books. They show the transition from the OT, to Jesus teaching Kingdom doctrine (which the Jews rejected and crucified him instead), to the Church Age, to Tribulation doctrine. Haven't you noticed that a lot of false doctrine about losing your salvation comes out of Matthew and Hebrews? It's easy to get mixed up if you misapply Scripture that wasn't directly written to us, yet can still be profitable for doctrine. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is basically a Constitution for the Millennial Reign (Christ's earthly kingdom), but we can still apply those principles to our lives. We just don't have to worry about losing our salvation if we mess up somehow, like people before Christ died had to worry about (or people in the Tribulation).

I don't care if you disagree with me on that last paragraph. Just please don't stop someone who is curious from trying to find answers about this subject. I used to agree with you on this, Jerry, but I'm glad I got curious and started to study this subject on my own. By telling someone to stay away from a book, you make it sound as if there's something you're scared of people discovering. I honestly wouldn't worry if someone wanted to read a book that teaches doctrine that I disagree with, just to see if they agree or disagree (and hey, maybe that person wants to have a shot at disproving what the author is teaching... ).

[Jerry]

It's called a disclaimer or warning - and the average Christian out there is not very discerning at all. If someone is determined to read a certain book great - actually, I never said Don't read it, did I? I warned what was wrong with the book, because I wanted them to know instead of thinking it represents sound Bible doctrine and they accept it just because certain people said it/taught it or promoted it.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry, I must've misread your post at first.

I don't mean any disrespect, but I hope you don't think people here look to you as an authority on what "sound Bible doctrine" is. Sure, some people may choose to, but ultimately most people here should be able to figure it out through their own study of the Bible, with the Holy Spirit's guidance. (and if they don't know, they should ask their pastor)

And again, you and I strongly disagree on doctrine in this issue. I still believe people should read the books and find out for themselves.

[pneu-engine]

[quote="KJB_Princess"] We just don't have to worry about losing our salvation if we mess up somehow, like people before Christ died had to worry about (or people in the Tribulation). [/quote]

Are you saying that before Christ's death and resurrection (O.T.) and after the Rapture (Tribulation saints) people could lose their salvation???????? Please tell me that I'm only misunderstanding you.

[chev1958]

I have the same question ...

[John81]

Has anyone read this book:

Bible Believers Guide to Dispensationalism by David Walker

I couldn't find that book on Amazon.com