Rightly Dividing and Dispensational Theology

[Guest Guest]

[quote="rancher824"]Is it just me or are you contridicting yourself there. Rightly dividing remember. We are in the chuch age. Old testament, new testament church age, tribulation, millenium. Thi is one of the seven letters to the CHURCHES. Not tribulation saints, churches. You cannot argue that point in that it is addressed to the church. Verse 3 says will come, not have came. Unless you are a Mid tribulation Rapture (I do not know that much of Ruckman) This must not be during the Tribulation. If it is, you have an overlapping of the church age and tribulation. Will some be saved one way, while others another way during that time???[/quote]

The book was written in 96 AD to a group of churches in Asia Minor, as the first part of the book explains. That's the literal application of the book, the people to whom it was originally written. However, all Scripture has three applications: Literal (historical), Spiritual, and Doctrinal. So the Historical application is a group of churches in the 1st century, the Spiritual application is the seven Church Ages through history, and the Doctrinal application is to the Tribulation saints. You [i]can[/i] have your cake and eat it too. :cool

[Guest Guest]

[quote="MC1171611"]
The book was written in 96 AD to a group of churches in Asia Minor, as the first part of the book explains. That's the literal application of the book, the people to whom it was originally written. However, all Scripture has three applications: Literal (historical), Spiritual, and Doctrinal. So the Historical application is a group of churches in the 1st century, the Spiritual application is the seven Church Ages through history, and the Doctrinal application is to the Tribulation saints. You [i]can[/i] have your cake and eat it too. :cool[/quote]

Amen! You explained it better than I could! :wink

I didn't get any of this from the Doc... not a bit! I don't even know if the Doc has used 1 Thess. 5 as a cross-reference with Revelation 3. He probably has, since he's been studying his Bible a lot longer than I have, but I wouldn't know because I haven't listened to enough of his sermons to find out. :Bleh

[Guest Guest]

Continued from Page one ([url]http://www.onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/viewtopic.php?p=303990#p303990[/url])

Many people claim that Christ is taught in the Old Testament. Clearly there are references and types/pictures, but the Messiah was to be a king and ruler that would save them from their oppressors. "Salvation" in the Bible does not always mean spiritual salvation or that from sin; David uses it many, may times to refer to physical help in distress (Ps. 14:7; 18:2, 35, 46; 20:5; 21:1, 5; 37:39). Like I said in my previous post, we can make a multitude of spiritual applications from things in the Old Testament, but the OT people understood their flesh and their souls to be synonymous (read these passages: Gen. 12:13; 19:20; 27:4, 19, 25, 31; 1 Sam. 26:21; 2 Sam. 13:39; Job 6:7; 9:21; 10:1; 14:22; Ps. 7:5; 17:13; 22:20; 25:13; et. al.). Many, if not all of these passages can be applied spiritually, but the literal intention is their flesh, not their soul.

[size=150][b]Things that are different are not the same[/b][/size]

Like Kathie mentioned earlier, Paul seems to have messed up when quoting a favorite Bible verse. Or did he?

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, [b]The just shall live by faith.[/b]
(Galatians 3:11)

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, [b]The just shall live by faith.[/b]
(Romans 1:17)

But what verse is he quoting?

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by [size=150][b]his[/b][/size] faith.
(Habakkuk 2:4) (emphasis added)

Paul OMMITED a word! Can he do that, leave something out so that the verse now teaches the exact OPPOSITE of what it originally did? Sure thing; he was under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Job 32:8)!!

Many people run to Romans 4 to "refute this heresy," but that has to be taken in context as well. For instance, the entire book of Galatians is written to a church in Galatia to convince them that Salvation not only cannot be lost, but is not of works! Why would someone who got saved from a "can't-lose-your-salvation" Law system have to be CONVINCED that he couldn't lose it now under grace? Doesn't make much sense to me, to be honest. Let's see what Paul was saying; ignore what you've been taught all your life and see what the BIBLE says. Read Romans 4 along with me, since the chapter is really long and I don't like to post all that; I'll put up the important parts that pertain to this discussion.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Many people claim this says that Abraham was not justified by his works, but all it says is that even if he was, then he still doesn't have any reason to glory before God. We'll cover this more in a little while.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

I mentioned Justification vs. Sanctification earlier, and this is where the distinction becomes vitally important. Just like State vs. Standing in Salvation, heresy and misunderstanding arises when these distinctions aren't observed. Justification is God declaring a person right, or without sin, while Sanctification is God imparting His righteousness to a person. Today, under the Gospel of the Grace of God, we get justified and sanctified at salvation, simultaneously. However, let's see, through the light of Romans 4 (Samer's favorite chapter, by the way :lol: ) how this transpired for Abraham.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

I think you'll agree with me that this passage is saying that Abraham was [i]sanctified[/i] by believing God. Let's take a look at his [i]justification[/i].

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father [b]justified by works,[/b] when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by [b]works a man is justified, and not by faith only.[/b]

First, let me reiterate that this is doctrinally applicable to a different group of people in a different time period, so I'm not at all teaching works for Salvation. However, verse 21 is speaking of Abraham's [i]justification,[/i] while verse 23 is talking about his [i]sanctification.[/i] The strange thing is that these occurrences are several chapters, and likely over 30 years apart! [i]

[Guest Guest]

[quote="rancher824"][Unless you are a Mid tribulation Rapture (I do not know that much of Ruckman)...[/quote]

Please don't just assume that I get my stuff from Dr. Ruckman. In fact, while I know he teaches this to be true, I have read little and heard less from him about this subject. If you want to see what he teaches about this, the book "The Sure Word Of Prophecy," otherwise called The Kingdom of God versus The Kingdom of Heaven, is excellent, showing the distinctions between the two and the mistruth that arises from an inadequate understanding of the differences or or from ignoring them. We believe, like the Bible says, in a Pre-Trib rapture of the saints (1 Thess. 5), and a mid-Trib rapture of the Tribulation saints (Rev. 14:15). Of course the first rapture was at the crucifixion of Christ (firstfruits, harvest, gleanings), but that's another matter.

Besides, Dr. Ruckman's main focus is not on "obscure" or "strange" doctrines, but the authority of the Word of God. For a little taste of what this man is all about, watch a message of his, [url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=NFx6B3Lwwoo]like this one here[/url]. (Just a man, nothing special, of course)

[tired]

Doesn't Ruckman believe in a duel inspiration? That the writers of the KJV were inspired by God.

[rancher824]

[quote="MC1171611"][quote="rancher824"][Unless you are a Mid tribulation Rapture (I do not know that much of Ruckman)...[/quote]

Please don't just assume that I get my stuff from Dr. Ruckman. In fact, while I know he teaches this to be true, I have read little and heard less from him about this subject. If you want to see what he teaches about this, the book "The Sure Word Of Prophecy," otherwise called The Kingdom of God versus The Kingdom of Heaven, is excellent, showing the distinctions between the two and the mistruth that arises from an inadequate understanding of the differences or or from ignoring them. We believe, like the Bible says, in a Pre-Trib rapture of the saints (1 Thess. 5), and a mid-Trib rapture of the Tribulation saints (Rev. 14:15). Of course the first rapture was at the crucifixion of Christ (firstfruits, harvest, gleanings), but that's another matter.

Besides, Dr. Ruckman's main focus is not on "obscure" or "strange" doctrines, but the authority of the Word of God. For a little taste of what this man is all about, watch a message of his, [url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=NFx6B3Lwwoo]like this one here[/url]. (Just a man, nothing special, of course)[/quote]

You did not answer my point. You say that this is definetly speaking of tribulation saints, but it speaks of christ coming as a thief in the future tense. How can you reconsile this. By the way, this was started by you defending Ruckman. It has been stated that some are not going to read what brother Cloud has wrote on the subject, just what we posters have to say. And yet you say to go read Ruckman, LOL. My point is I have the Bible to go to. I also know from what I have studied about Ruckman (mutiple marriages, inspiration of the KJV translators) to know I have no faith in what the man has written. I would just as soon go to a cambolite book to learn doctrine.

Also, you did not answer about all the old testament saints that lived for God part of their lived, but sinned at the end??? Lot for instance (if you can find him living for God)?

[Madeline]

[quote="MC1171611"]Like Kathie mentioned earlier, Paul seems to have messed up when quoting a favorite Bible verse. Or did he?

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, [b]The just shall live by faith.[/b]
(Galatians 3:11)

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, [b]The just shall live by faith.[/b]
(Romans 1:17)

But what verse is he quoting?

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by [size=150][b]his[/b][/size] faith.
(Habakkuk 2:4) (emphasis added)

Paul OMMITED a word! Can he do that, leave something out so that the verse now teaches the exact OPPOSITE of what it originally did? Sure thing; he was under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Job 32:8)!!

[/quote]

Perfect example of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Jesus' words were not verbatim when He quoted Is.6:9,10 in Matt.13:15 either, but the context is the same. And how many words did Jesus OMIT? In Hab.2:4 "....the just shall live by his faith," so the just shall live by his faith in what? the just shall live by his faith in God, which is essentially the same context in Gal.3:11.

Love,
Madeline

[John81]

[quote="KJB_Princess"][quote="Seth Doty"]

I seriously doubt that the average true Christian today has read less than 1600 verses... But not to nit pick to much... :Green

[/quote]

hehe, well the majority of true Christians I know haven't read through the full Bible even once... I've seen preachers ask that question in church before. It's a sad truth of the day we live in.. the Bible is so easy to get that many Christians take it for granted.[/quote]

That's a sad fact. Over the years I can't even count the number of times I've heard folks who have been Christians for years, even decades, exclaim "I didn't know that was in the Bible" or "I've never read that book (of the Bible)", or "I just don't have time to read the Bible", or "I can't understand the Bible so I just listen to preaching", etc.

What most of us here would consider basic Bible knowledge, a great many professing Christians are ignorant of. :sad

[tired]

:amen:

[Jerry]

One thing I notice Vince and the KJB Princess doing is making the Bible contradict itself. Taken in context, God's Word is pure, and does NOT contradict itself. When we come to 99 passages that clearly teach something (such as ETERNAL life, that cannot be lost), then go to one hard to understand passage and make it teach the opposite (such as a true believer can lose their salvation) is twisting the Bible. To take this passage:

Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Then turn it on its head and make it teach the exact opposite in the NT is twisting GOd's Word!

What Habbakuk says is the same thing Paul says in the New Testament: the true believer will live by his faith (obviously in Christ and in God's Word). The context of each of the three quotations in the NT is interesting.

This one deals mostly with how to BE JUST in God's sight:

Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

This one teaches about how the just SHALL LIVE:

Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

This one teaches us how to live BY FAITH - the very next chapter is the Faith chapter:

Hebrews 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

[Madeline]

:amen: Jerry
I was wondering how the word "his" in Habb. makes that verse mean "the exact opposite" of when it is quoted without the word "his". I just don't see the difference in meaning between "the just shall live by faith" and "the just shall live by his faith". The just aren't going to live by someone else's faith. The NT has many OT quotes that are not exactly the same. For example, Matt. 8:17 reads, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 'Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses'". That is quoted from Is. 53:4 which reads, "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.....". My point is that Matthew wrote, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the quote from Isaiah was "fulfilled". So the fact that the quote is not exact doesn't change the fact that it was Isaiah's prophecy that was fulfilled. There is no contradiction whatsoever between the verses, the meaning is the same. We are talking about a translation from two different languages Hebrew & Greek. The sense and the meaning are the same - we must live by faith and by faith alone. Although the word 'his' is omitted in the NT it does not change the meaning in any shape or form. Scripture must be taken as a WHOLE and not on verses picked out here and there. All Scripture was through the inspiration of the Spirit. Let's not WRONGLY divide the word of truth.

Love,
Madeline

[Bro.Johnny Mac]

The old testament was used by the apostles to preach Jesus.Before the n.t. had been completed,they used the o.t. to preach Jesus.Jesus stated several times that the scriptures(ot) were about him.
On the day of pentecost when 3,000 people were saved Peter preached the o.t.

"Search the scriptures;(ot)for in them ye think ye have eternal life:and they are which TESTIFY OF ME" Jn.5:39

"For had ye believed MOSES, ye would have believed ME:for HE wrote of ME.But if ye believe not HIS WRITINGS,how shall ye believe my words?"Jn.5:46,47

And he said unto them,These are the words which I spake unto you,while I was yet with you,that all things must be fulfilled,which were WRITTEN IN THE LAW OF MOSES,AND IN THE PROPHETS,AND IN THE PSALMS CONCERNING ME."Then opened he their understanding,that the might understand the scriptures(ot),And said unto them,Thus it is WRITTEN(ot),and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,and the rise from the dead the third day:And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations,beginning at Jerusalem." Luke 24:44-47

Juses said the ot was about him and that the ot was about the gospel.

[Jerry]

I forgot about this verse:

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Abraham heard and believed the Gospel! We can see this pictured in his life in Genesis 24 - and based on his statement in that chapter (God will provide Himself a lamb) and the events that unfolded, Abraham had faith in the Messiah that was to come. Paul also reinforced the fact that God told Abraham that the Messiah would descend from him.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

[HappyChristian]

[quote="Madeline"]:amen: Jerry
I was wondering how the word "his" in Habb. makes that verse mean "the exact opposite" of when it is quoted without the word "his". I just don't see the difference in meaning between "the just shall live by faith" and "the just shall live by his faith". The just aren't going to live by someone else's faith.
Love,
Madeline[/quote]

:amen: to both you and Jerry! The grammatical terminology for leaving out the word "his" is "understood pronoun." It's there in the context of the phrasing.

[Guest Guest]

[quote="tired"]Doesn't Ruckman believe in a duel inspiration? That the writers of the KJV were inspired by God.[/quote]

I believe firmly that God inspired the translators of the KJB. Why? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." Is the KJB Scripture? When was It given? Then it was given by inspiration in 1611, and Job 32:8 shows us what inspiration is. Different subject, different thread if you'd like. (let me know if you do; I don't have time to forum-surf)

[quote="rancher824"]You did not answer my point. You say that this is definetly speaking of tribulation saints, but it speaks of christ coming as a thief in the future tense. How can you reconsile this. By the way, this was started by you defending Ruckman. It has been stated that some are not going to read what brother Cloud has wrote on the subject, just what we posters have to say. And yet you say to go read Ruckman, LOL. My point is I have the Bible to go to. I also know from what I have studied about Ruckman (mutiple marriages, inspiration of the KJV translators) to know I have no faith in what the man has written. I would just as soon go to a cambolite book to learn doctrine.[/quote]

It was written TO the churches of Asia Minor in the First Century AD, so this event would be future. Just like when Daniel prophesied the Messiah's being cut off: saying that since it's written in future tense means that it is still yet to come is foolish.

And yes, I defend Doc. I rarely if ever quote him, but I will defend him. Shucks, if someone lied about Dr. Cloud, I'd defend him! It's about honesty and integrity, not personal preference. And since you said you didn't know what he teaches on this issue, I thought I'd reference the work that would likely best reveal to you his belief on this matter. I don't read articles by Cloud, and I don't post articles by Ruckman. And I don't tell you to go read some other book to back up my claims, either. I'll prove it from Scripture without their help; I was just giving you a pointer.

[quote="Madeline"]Perfect example of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Jesus' words were not verbatim when He quoted Is.6:9,10 in Matt.13:15 either, but the context is the same. And how many words did Jesus OMIT? In Hab.2:4 "....the just shall live by his faith," so the just shall live by his faith in what? the just shall live by his faith in God, which is essentially the same context in Gal.3:11.[/quote]

Perfect example of someone completely missing the point altogether. Check out some Scripture on this before repeating that "the just shall live by his faith in God..."

Even the [b]righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ[/b] unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
(Romans 3:22)

Faith of Jesus, not a man's faith in God. We are saved by HIS faith, not our faith IN him.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, [b]but by the faith of Jesus Christ,[/b] even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by [b]the faith of Christ,[/b] and not by the works of the law...
(Galatians 2:16)

Again, the faith OF Christ. Also look at Galatians 3:22; same context, same phrase. Now let's look at the other end of this:

For ye are all the children of God by [b]faith in Christ Jesus.[/b]
(Galatians 3:26)

Oops, there's the faith IN Jesus..."things that are different are not the same"!

Wherefore I also, after I heard of your [b]faith in the Lord Jesus,[/b] and love unto all the saints,
(Ephesians 1:15)

Again!!

Since we heard of your [b]faith in Christ Jesus,[/b] and of the love which ye have to all the saints,
(Colossians 1:4)

Yikes! See how that little omitted word changes everything? In the Old Testament, a man was to life by HIS faith, but Paul [i]changes[/i] the verse to teach the new doctrine of Salvation through Christ. Again, if you don't believe that this Gospel is new, try comparing 1 Corinthians 15:1-6, Romans 4 and Ephesians 2 to Acts 2, Matthew 5, James 2, Hebrews 6, Revelation 14, et. al.

There's a lot more, and I'm preparing some materials to supplement my posts in this thread, which I hope can continue in an intelligent manner instead of our getting ganged up on by everyone else parroting the same stuff over and over again.