Rightly Dividing and Dispensational Theology

[Guest Guest]

The main point was that Peter was preaching a message for national repentance because they crucified their Messiah; the baptism he called for was NOT for salvation, but as a sign that they were following Christ and had accepted Him as Messiah (hence, being baptized in Jesus' name).

Acts is a transitional period: things are changing rapidly during this time, and Peter is again presenting the Gospel of the Kingdom to the nation of Israel ("men and brethren"). However, I'm not necessarily saying that they weren't "saved," just that their salvation wasn't of the 1 Cor. 15/Eph. 2:8-9/Rom. 10:9-10/Titus 2:5 type.

[Jerry]

The Samaritans were not considered Jews by the Jews - and the NT even shows this in various places. Jesus went to Samaria - the apostles and other disciples went to Tyre and Sidon, those are Gentile cities.

In Matthew 15, where Jesus used the term dogs, look it up in a Strong's Concordance - Jesus did not call her a wild dog, which was the term normally used (and is used elsewhere in the NT to refer to false teachers, etc.), but a puppy. It wasn't a slander, but a word of compassion to her.

[matie-k]

Certainly not; without His death and resurrection the OT saints would still have been stuck in Paradise. The shedding of the blood of bulls and goats remitted their sins, but they weren't forgiven until Christ's sacrifice.

For the Trib saints, they simply have a different requirement; they will receive Christ's righteousness through the atonement of His blood, but they are required to keep the Law and avoid the Mark. So while they do have to "do" (or not do) something or somethings, it is still ultimately the grace of God that gives them Christ's righteousness.

Wow, alot happens when I'm away from the computer for a while. Ok, so in the Old Testament, you say they had to keep the law, and in the tribulation they're supposed to keep a law, what law are you speaking of that they have to keep? Is there somewhere a law written for tribulation saints? Has there ever been a person who kept the whole law spotlessly? Wasn't the whole purpose of the law to show us that we can't keep the law and therefore must turn to Christ's atonement for us? So the ages are sort of like a sandwich - law/grace/law - and we're in the middle - seems we sure got the good end of that deal.

[John81]

The Samaritans were not considered Jews by the Jews - and the NT even shows this in various places. Jesus went to Samaria - the apostles and other disciples went to Tyre and Sidon, those are Gentile cities.

In Matthew 15, where Jesus used the term dogs, look it up in a Strong's Concordance - Jesus did not call her a wild dog, which was the term normally used (and is used elsewhere in the NT to refer to false teachers, etc.), but a puppy. It wasn't a slander, but a word of compassion to her.

Compassion? I've heard and read dozens of sermons and books by fundamentalist and general conservative pastors alike and all of them proclaimed Christ was using the term dog in the demeaning manner most here would take it if someone called us a dog.

I can't speak for all of them, but I do know that some of them do use Strongs.

I've been saved since 1981 and can't even begin to count the number of sermons and books I've heard/read since then that reference this Scripture and not a one of them ever said the term dog was anything but demeaning. Do you really believe they are all wrong?

[Guest Guest]

The main point was that Peter was preaching a message for national repentance because they crucified their Messiah; the baptism he called for was NOT for salvation, but as a sign that they were following Christ and had accepted Him as Messiah (hence, being baptized in Jesus' name).

Which is pretty much what I said you would say right.

However, I'm not necessarily saying that they weren't "saved," just that their salvation wasn't of the 1 Cor. 15/Eph. 2:8-9/Rom. 10:9-10/Titus 2:5 type.

Well you did just say:

"Hint: there's no salvation in that chapter whatsoever."

At any rate, it is no more correct to say that "they had a different salvation" than to say they had no salvation at all, and indeed, "different salvation" is not salvation.

"Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

[Guest Guest]

Compassion? I've heard and read dozens of sermons and books by fundamentalist and general conservative pastors alike and all of them proclaimed Christ was using the term dog in the demeaning manner most here would take it if someone called us a dog.

I have to agree with that, I doubt with what the Jews thought of dogs they would use "puppy" as a term of compassion. And the verse:

Mark 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

doesn't really sound that endearing...

[Guest Guest]

The Samaritans were not considered Jews by the Jews - and the NT even shows this in various places. Jesus went to Samaria - the apostles and other disciples went to Tyre and Sidon, those are Gentile cities.

In Matthew 15, where Jesus used the term dogs, look it up in a Strong's Concordance - Jesus did not call her a wild dog, which was the term normally used (and is used elsewhere in the NT to refer to false teachers, etc.), but a puppy. It wasn't a slander, but a word of compassion to her.

Sorry to jump in on such a fun debate, but since when is Strong's Concordance an authority in defining the Bible???

lol... Jesus only meant "puppy"... that's the first time I've heard that one. :Green

[Guest Guest]

Well you did just say:

"Hint: there's no salvation in that chapter whatsoever."

At any rate, it is no more correct to say that "they had a different salvation" than to say they had no salvation at all, and indeed, "different salvation" is not salvation.

"Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

I amended that with stating that Peter's message was what was in question. However, in response to your Galatians post, you DO realize that it was written AFTER Christ ascended and revealed the Gospel of the Grace of God to Paul, right? ALWAYS remember to check the tense of words, and the time in which it was preached. That is the most common and prevalent error among those who misunderstand the Bible; they go spouting off scriptures like this to somehow "correct" what happened years or centuries earlier!

Paul is simply saying that if anyone teaches salvation according to any gospel other than the one he preached (Acts 16, Rom. 10, Eph. 2, Titus 2, etc.) then they should be accursed. However, Christ taught a different gospel BEFORE this one was revealed to Paul, so Paul's admonition was of no effect. I teach exactly what Paul taught: salvation by Grace through Faith (the gift of God) alone.

[Guest Guest]

you DO realize that it was written AFTER Christ ascended and revealed the Gospel of the Grace of God to Paul, right? ALWAYS remember to check the tense of words, and the time in which it was preached. That is the most common and prevalent error among those who misunderstand the Bible; they go spouting off scriptures like this to somehow "correct" what happened years or centuries earlier!

Paul is simply saying that if anyone teaches salvation according to any gospel other than the one he preached (Acts 16, Rom. 10, Eph. 2, Titus 2, etc.) then they should be accursed. However, Christ taught a different gospel BEFORE this one was revealed to Paul, so Paul's admonition was of no effect.

"John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

"John 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."

You are going to be judged by the words that God has spoken, scripture, all of it, like it or not. :Green

[Guest Guest]

"John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

"John 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."

You are going to be judged by the words that God has spoken, scripture, all of it, like it or not. :Green

Duh. But certain things didn't apply at certain times. For instance, Capital Punishment wasn't instated until after the flood. You seriously can't see past the tip of your nose...if that far!

[Pastorj]

This thread is going absolutely nowhere and it has turned into name calling. Consider this thread locked