The Lord's prayer is not for the church!

[Iosias]

I am a firm believer that the Lord's prayer is not for the church as it was given under Law. Your thoughts?

[indeep]

eh? I'm not following you. I agree with all of the fundamentals that you listed there, but I doubt that anyone would seriously call the Lord's Prayer a fundamental of the church. Rather, I believe that it is a way of "covering all bases" in a prayer where no other prayer exists/can be said or whatever. I think that the term 'Lord's Prayer' is a little bit misleading, as it was given to the disciples by Jesus, as a means for them to pray to God.

Here's my take:


"Our Father in heaven" - okay, God is in heaven.

"Hallowed be thy name" - God's name is worthy to be praised

"Your Kingdom come" - a curious line in my book, since it is our responsibility to spread the Word, and bring people into His kingdom.

"Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" - This relates to my interpretation of the previous line, as I see it, but it also is a supplication that God's almighty plan be fully realised on earth.

"Give us our daily bread" - fulfill our needs. It's as much a request as it is an admittance that we rely on God for our life.

"Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" - this is something that I really struggle with - well, the second half of it anyway. How can we expect God to show us mercy when we still hold a hurt in our heart against others.

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" - Okay, temptations are all around us, and I think that the bible makes it clear that we will be tempted, but not beyond what we can bear. But I think that in God's Word, and in His strength alone, we are able to stand against temptation.

That's just my opinion anyway.

[Iosias]

eh? I'm not following you. I agree with all of the fundamentals that you listed there, but I doubt that anyone would seriously call the Lord's Prayer a fundamental of the church. Rather, I believe that it is a way of "covering all bases" in a prayer where no other prayer exists/can be said or whatever. I think that the term 'Lord's Prayer' is a little bit misleading, as it was given to the disciples by Jesus, as a means for them to pray to God.

Here's my take:...That's just my opinion anyway.
Lets take a look at the text of the Lord's Prayer:

"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come [the messianic kingdom (of heaven) which relates to the Davidic Covenant and o which the church has no relavence.], Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.[from "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." which is not how the dispensation of Grace works!! God forgives us if we repent...ours is not a 'works salvation']
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom [the kingdom of heaven], and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

As you can hopefully see...the text has no relavence to the church!!

[Svt4Him]

So the disciples of Jesus, which we all are, come to Jesus and ask Him how to pray. Jesus says when you pray, pray like this, but only for the next year or so because after that it's no longer relevant. Then God inspired the apostles to write how to pray, only so we could see how they were praying for a short time. Makes sense to me.

But I am interested in why Thy kingdom come is the messianic kingdom, but thine is the kingdom is the kingdom of heaven.

[Iosias]

So the disciples of Jesus, which we all are, come to Jesus and ask Him how to pray. Jesus says when you pray, pray like this, but only for the next year or so because after that it's no longer relevant. Then God inspired the apostles to write how to pray, only so we could see how they were praying for a short time. Makes sense to me.

But I am interested in why Thy kingdom come is the messianic kingdom, but thine is the kingdom is the kingdom of heaven.
The prayer will be relavent again during the seven year Great Tribulation!! Regarding the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the messianic kingdom...there is not a difference...they are one and the same!! :)

[daveleau]

Then why did Jesus quote it?

I am a firm beleiver that the only correct way to pray is with your heart. There is no set of correct words, but that you can only praise God in prayer if you mean it in your heart. Other peoples' words, while sometimes helpful, are not as meaningful as your own words.

How do you arrive exegetically at the fact that the kingdom spoken of in the prayer is the Millenial Kingdom?

Does God hold hurt in our hearts or is that a choice that we make? Should we not forgive regardless of how we feel? Forgive does not equal forget, right?

[inHisgrip]

I believe that the Lords prayer is an outline of things that should be said in prayer, however not neccassarily with those exact words.

It takes you through the different steps that should be included.
In Him

[The Midge]

The prayer is relevant now. And always has been. Don't add a load of sub-clasues to it.

Christ has already brought about the kingdom, the kingdom continues to be brought about and at the end the kingdom will be complete.
Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.

BTW the "power and glory" bit is a later addition and not from the gospels. An extra bit of praise as it were.

[twistedsketch]

Let's see. He taught the disciples to pray it, and then later commanded:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." - Matthew 28:19-20.

[Iosias]

Then why did Jesus quote it?
He did not quote it rather he expounded it! This was because the kingdom was not yet rejected by that 'corrupt generation' of Jews. In Matthew 4:17 Jesus declared "Repent ye: the kingdom of heaven is near" and then He went on in Matthew 5 to expound the constitution of the kingdom of heaven and then He reveals to the Disciples the prayer that they should use at that time and teach others to do the same.


Let's see. He taught the disciples to pray it, and then later commanded:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." - Matthew 28:19-20.

The term 'age' here refers to the dispensation of law which was set aside. Shew me where the diciples carried out this so called 'Great Commission'? The commission of Mark 16 was fulfilled in Mark 16:20, the commission of Luke 24 was fulfilled in Acts 1-28 the so called 'great commission' is yet to be fulfilled however it does not apply to the church either! It was given before the church even existed!! Indeed baptism is not even for the church age we have been commissioned with the commission of reconcilliation not proclaiming the kingdom of heaven!!

[Svt4Him]

In Matthew 4:17 Jesus declared "Repent ye: the kingdom of heaven is near" There's a bit of a difference in your version and in the Bible version.
Matthew 4:17(NKJV)
17From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Matthew 4:17(KJV)
17From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

[Celticflower]

I always viewed "the Lord's Prayer" as a model of how to pray and as a way to pray when you can't find the words. Those times of great stress when words fail, the words of this prayer come to mind and can open the floodgates allowing you to really pray. "The Lord's Prayer" should be a starting point, not a be all and end all of our prayer life. That is why we had our children memorize it when they were little and then taught them to expand upon it, making the prayer their own and relevant to whatever they are going thru.

Celtie

[Ziwei]

Christians should take note of the LORD's prayer as a great way to pray. Yet, the entire church congregation should not make it some kind of anthem. Once I remember being taught that prayer has five parts: Praise, Adoration, Remembrance, Thanksgiving, Supplication. Of the churches I have been to, only one recited the LORD's prayer. I do not take any opposition to this prayer; I just think that it should not stand distinguished as magical words.

[Iosias]

There's a bit of a difference in your version and in the Bible version.
Matthew 4:17(NKJV)
17From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Matthew 4:17(KJV)
17From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.


Well actually I quoted from memory...unsuprisingly it failed me..however the terms near and at hand are the same... Consider my wrist slapped!!;)

[Svt4Him]

No, I have a coffee cup at hand, and the coffee pot is near. They are not the same thing.

[PaladinGirl]

I totally don't see how you think the Lords' Prayer is not for church.

[Iosias]

No, I have a coffee cup at hand, and the coffee pot is near. They are not the same thing.
The KJV translates as "at hand" and the NIV translates "near". After 1+ years of using the NIV solely I think some slack can be given. Now I use the KJV only but one's memory takes more time to adjust!! Furthermore something must be at hand to be near and near to be at hand...

[Iosias]

I totally don't see how you think the Lords' Prayer is not for church.
The dispensation of grace did not begin until Acts 2:1 or as some believe later and so anything that is given/expounded prior to the church being established has no relavence to it. The LORD's Prayer was given unto Israel just after the constitution of the kingdom of heaven was given in the Sermon on the Mount (which is also pure Law). And the prayer is looking forward to the establishment of the messianic kingdom of heaven on the earth so fulfilling the unconditional covenants e.g. Abrahamic, Davidic, Palestinian, (New). And so the prayer is inherently Jewish and so has no place in the church service...see what I mean?

[Iosias]

For TSIBHOD ...

Number 2 is an assumption. For argument's sake, let's say that the church "went public" in Acts 2, in a similar way to a company going public. Before, it wasn't available to everybody, but it was there. I don't know if this is the way that I believe it exactly, but it is the first thing I thought of, and you can't disprove it.
The true church is "one body" formed by the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:12-13) by "one baptism". This was one of the mysteries that the Holy Ghost revealed to us through Paul. And no serious Bible believer can doubt this! The church is unique, it did not exist prior to Pentecost...it is distinct:
1. It has a distinct character: rooted in its unique relationship to the living Christ as the body of which He is the head... (i) It is distinct here because of who are included within that body i.e. jew and gentile as fellow heirs and (ii) it is distinct here because of the new relationships of being in Christ and of Christ's indwelling the members of the body. Both of these are unique and were not known or experienced by God's people in Old Testament times or even during the earthly lifetime of Jesus. "In that day [after Pentecost] you shall know that I am in my father, and you in me, and I in you" John 14:20.
2. The baptizing work of the Holy ghost proves that the church did not begin until Pentecost. The LORD had spoken of this work of the Holy Ghost before His asension (Acts 1:5) as being yet future and unlike anything they had yet experienced. It is shewn in Acts 11:15-16 that the baptiszing work of the Holy Ghost occurred on the day of Pentecost in fulfillment of the promise of the Lord in Acts 1:5. Paul later explains the doctrinal significance of that baptism as placing people into the Body of Christ. In other words, on the day of pentecost men were first placed into the Body of Christ. Since the church is the Body of Christ (Col 1:18) it could not have begun until Pentecost!! (edited from Ryrie's Dispensationalism)


Number 3 is a very big assumption. The Bible says nothing to indicate that Jesus' teachings were "old covenant."
Which "Old covenant'? Adamic, Edenic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, Palestinian, Mosaic...? If you mean the latter then you are wrong...read the text on the Sermon on the Mount!! He was restating the Law where the Pharasies had it wrong!!


Anyway, all of the Bible is applicable today.
So when was the last time you sinned and so sacrificed a lamb? Or stonned a homosexual? etc...!!


By the way, you have just said that nothing but the New Testament Epistles is scripture.

(2 Timothy 3:16 KJV) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Try reading just the bold part, and you'll see that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, which means that if we cannot get doctrine from certain parts of scripture, they aren't really scripture.

Scripture begins in Genesis 1:1 and ends in Revelations 22:21 all I have said is that not all of these Books are applicable to the church. Indeed 2 Timothy 3:16 states that but what is interesting is what it does not say! i.e. It does not say that All scripture is profitable for doctrine at all times! Indeed 2 Timothy also states we should "rightly divide the word of truth"!! (see my signature).

[jamescrousore]

If it was inspired from faith, by the bible, it is for the church.

[Iosias]

If it was inspired from faith, by the bible, it is for the church.
I am not sure what your line of argument is?!?

[jamescrousore]

Faith is divine in nature, therefore if it was written in faith (which it was) it belongs in and is relavant to the church.

[jamescrousore]

I thought I replied so if this shows up twice, sorry.

True faith in itself is divine in nature, therefore if it was inspired by faith (which it was) it is relevant to, and belongs in the church.

[Iosias]

Faith is divine in nature, therefore if it was written in faith (which it was) it belongs in and is relavant to the church.
Why?

[jamescrousore]

And your point is what? Are you saying faith is not divine? All you seem to be doing is launching scripture that has no point to the discusion and not putting your own words into this thread.

[Simon_Templar]

hmmm.. well it would seem this is pretty obviously a question from a dispensational view point, so my answers probably not going to be very satisfying.

The Lord's prayer was meant as instruction to the church, and thus is for the church. The church is the body of Christ, Jew or gentile makes no difference, any one who says different is denying the work of Christ on the cross. The bible specificly states that He died to break down the wall of seperation between Jew and Gentile and make of them One New Man. Those Jews who are born again are in the same body of Christ (same church) that we are. Furthermore the bible says that there is one body, one spirit, and one gospel. It also says that anyone who teaches another gospel should be shunned. There is one gospel, not one for jews and one for gentiles, just one. That gospel is that the Kingdom of God has come, and we are a part of it, and it is a part of us.

Having said that, I should caution against going to the opposite extreme of replacement theology. God's promises to the hebrew nation are still true to the physical hebrew nation, they will receive what he has promised, they will be grafted back in, they will be saved, as in a day.

[Svt4Him]

They will be grafted back in? We are the ones grafted in as far as I know.

[Asaph]

For whatever it's worth, here are some scriptures showing that the Spirit of God did in fact "indwell" His people before the day of Pentecost:

Ex 31:1-5
31:1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 2 "See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. 3 And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, 4 to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze, 5 in cutting jewels for setting, in carving wood, and to work in all manner of workmanship.
NKJV

Num 27:18-19
18 And the LORD said to Moses: "Take Joshua the son of Nun with you, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him; 19 set him before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation, and inaugurate him in their sight.
NKJV

Neh 9:30
30 Yet for many years You had patience with them,
And testified against them by Your Spirit in Your prophets.
Yet they would not listen;
Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.
NKJV

Ezek 2:1-3
2:1 And He said to me, "Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak to you." 2 Then the Spirit entered me when He spoke to me, and set me on my feet; and I heard Him who spoke to me.
NKJV

I don't see any instances in the OT of it being the same scope as at Pentecost, but it surely did happen before then too.

Grace and Peace,
Asaph

[Iosias]

For whatever it's worth, here are some scriptures showing that the Spirit of God did in fact "indwell" His people before the day of Pentecost...
He did indwell a few individuals however He also would leave them hence the famous Psalm of David (53 I think). The promise of the dispensation of Spirit is that the Holy Ghost indwells ALL believers ALWAYS!! This happened post-Pentecost and is UNIQUE to the present dispensation!!

[Iosias]

And your point is what? Are you saying faith is not divine? All you seem to be doing is launching scripture that has no point to the discusion and not putting your own words into this thread.
So far what I have used has been the LORD's prayer which most certainly is useful in this discussion!!

My point is plain and simple...the LORD's prayer was given by Jesus to Israel and concerns them not the church. therefore the LORD's prayer is out of place in churches. You were the one who started rambling on about faith etc which has nothing to do with this discussion...if it does them perhaps you had better explain fully rather than lobbing one-liners into the debate which really mean nothing.!

[Iosias]

The Lord's prayer was meant as instruction to the church, and thus is for the church.
How when it refers to the kingdom of heaven in which the church has no part??!!

There is one gospel, not one for jews and one for gentiles, just one. That gospel is that the Kingdom of God has come, and we are a part of it, and it is a part of us.
So you see no difference between the gospel of the Kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God?

[Stormy]

The dispensation of grace did not begin until Acts 2:1 or as some believe later and so anything that is given/expounded prior to the church being established has no relavence to it. The LORD's Prayer was given unto Israel just after the constitution of the kingdom of heaven was given in the Sermon on the Mount (which is also pure Law). And the prayer is looking forward to the establishment of the messianic kingdom of heaven on the earth so fulfilling the unconditional covenants e.g. Abrahamic, Davidic, Palestinian, (New). And so the prayer is inherently Jewish and so has no place in the church service...see what I mean?

So anything taught before Acts 2:1 in your opinion is not relevant to Christianity? Kind of takes a bite out of it don't you think? Everything that Jesus did and taught would be of no importance.

I love the Lord's prayer. :)

[TSIBHOD]

The church is unique, it did not exist prior to Pentecost...it is distinct:
The Church is all the followers of God gathered into one. The followers of God were not one until Jesus' death brought us into one. But the precursors existed before that, and both are to act in the same way, namely, to obey God.

Which "Old covenant'? Adamic, Edenic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, Palestinian, Mosaic...? If you mean the latter then you are wrong...read the text on the Sermon on the Mount!! He was restating the Law where the Pharasies had it wrong!!
The Law is still a good thing today. We just need to look at some parts of it differently, and take them symbolically rather than literally. But the commands (Don't murder, don't steal, etc.) are valid.

You make a lot of assumptions. The Bible has to tell you that all scripture is profitable for doctrine at all times for you to believe that? What if it just says that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, period? That kind of makes all scripture profitable for doctrine, all the time, anywhere, anyway, in any language, to any person.

You probably don't believe that the Church is the fulfillment of Israel, do you? Now, what are we going to do with verses like Romans 2:28-29? "He is a Jew who is one inwardly."

[TheScottsMen]

ALL scripture is for us and can be used for doctrine, but not all scripture is written to us.

[Iosias]

So anything taught before Acts 2:1 in your opinion is not relevant to Christianity? Kind of takes a bite out of it don't you think? Everything that Jesus did and taught would be of no importance.

I love the Lord's prayer. :)
What Jesus did is very important to the church however what he taught was primarily for Israel. Why do you love the Lord's prayer?

[Iosias]

The Church is all the followers of God gathered into one.
But this comes about by the one baptizm of the Holy Ghost as revealled to Paul! Before Pentecost this did not happen hence the church must have begun at Pentecost.

What if it just says that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, period? That kind of makes all scripture profitable for doctrine, all the time, anywhere, anyway, in any language, to any person.
That is a far greater assumption! The Bible itself tells us to rightly divide the word of truth so acknowledging that not all of it is useful for doctrine at all times!

[Iosias]

ALL scripture is for us and can be used for doctrine, but not all scripture is written to us.
Agreed 100%

[Father Rick]

Well let me wade in here...

Lets take a look at the text of the Lord's Prayer:

"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come [the messianic kingdom (of heaven) which relates to the Davidic Covenant and o which the church has no relavence.], Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

...

The Lord's prayer was meant as instruction to the church, and thus is for the church

How when it refers to the kingdom of heaven in which the church has no part??!!Let's look a couple of scriptures

Luke 16:16

The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.This would imply that the Kingdom of God had nothing to do with the Old Testament, rather it was not introduced until the time of John the Baptist.

Luke 17:20-37

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Here Jesus said that the Kingdom of God was not something that could be observed as a physical kingdom, but resides inside the person.

Romans 14:15

But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. This, written to the Church, instructs the Church in the Kingdom of God--- that it is not in actions, but rather that the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Again, this is talking of how the CHURCH experiences the Kingdom of God.

Jesus explained that the Kingdom of God was not just 'near' or 'at hand' but that it had come.Matthew 12

28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. AgainActs14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, 22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. Here the disciples taught those who were new Christians that they would enter the Kingdom of God. If this is has no relevance for the Church, then why is specifically recorded as being taught by the apostles to the early church?

One last reference Matthew 16

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Here, once again, Jesus himself linked the Church and the Kingdom of Heaven.




Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.[from "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." which is not how the dispensation of Grace works!! God forgives us if we repent...ours is not a 'works salvation']This is only half a truth...

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, 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 works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Unfortunately, Dispensationalists try to ignore this passage as it is in direct conflict with large portions of dispensationalist theology.




He did not quote it rather he expounded it! This was because the kingdom was not yet rejected by that 'corrupt generation' of Jews. In Matthew 4:17 Jesus declared "Repent ye: the kingdom of heaven is near" and then He went on in Matthew 5 to expound the constitution of the kingdom of heaven and then He reveals to the Disciples the prayer that they should use at that time and teach others to do the same.


The term 'age' here refers to the dispensation of law which was set aside. Shew me where the diciples carried out this so called 'Great Commission'? The commission of Mark 16 was fulfilled in Mark 16:20, the commission of Luke 24 was fulfilled in Acts 1-28 the so called 'great commission' is yet to be fulfilled however it does not apply to the church either! It was given before the church even existed!! Indeed baptism is not even for the church age we have been commissioned with the commission of reconcilliation not proclaiming the kingdom of heaven!! You ask to be shown where the disciples carried out the 'Great Commission'.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.


Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)


Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Here are 3 specific instances of them doing just that. This confirms that these teachings of Christ were not for just a 'dispensation' that ended at the Day of Pentecost, but rather were part of the life of the Church as recorded in Scripture.



The difficulty here is that this whole discussion starts with a flawed logic that then goes in circles to try to prove itself. Dispensationalism, which artificially tries to subdivide scriptures into multiple dispensations, winds up only creating more problems than it solves. This is why the Dispensationalists can't even agree with themselves as to how many dispensations there are-- arguing from a few to more than a dozen depending on which teacher you are listening to at the moment. This is a 'new' doctrine that started in the late 19th century ( a little over 100 years ago). Even Ryrie, who you quoted earlier, admits this in his book Charles Ryrie states:

The first straw man is to say that dispensationalists assert that the system was taught in postapostolic times. Informed dispensationalists do not claim that. They recognize that, as a system, dispensationalism was largely formulated by Darby, but that the outlines of a dispensationalist approach to the Scriptures are found much earlier



Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 62.This view of interpreting scripture has NOT been held by the Church historically, and even today is held almost solely in America and England.

[wobbly]

Father Rick,

I'm an extreme-ultra-dispensationalist (ie Acts 28), so I agree with you that what Jesus said was part of the life of the church - during Acts that is but not after, that's because the dispensational break didn't occur until the end of Acts.

I've got a few questions for you:

Do you have any scripture that proves that there wasn't a dispensational break at the end of Acts?
given that Jesus was talking to unbelieving pharisees in Luke 17:20... I thought that what he was referring to himself as being among them. The ESV says:
20 Being asked by the Pharisees uwhen the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God vis not coming with signs to be observed, 21 nor wwill they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” [/url][url="http://www.christianforum.com/newreply.php#_ftnref1"] (http://www.christianforum.com/newreply.php#_ftn1)The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Good News Publishers.




What do you think? how do you explain the kingdom as being within unbelievers if you don't agree?
can you explain what James 2 disproves?
What did Paul mean by dispensation in Eph 1:10, 3:2 and 9.?
cheers
Martin

[Father Rick]

Father Rick,

I'm an extreme-ultra-dispensationalist (ie Acts 28), so I agree with you that what Jesus said was part of the life of the church - during Acts that is but not after, that's because the dispensational break didn't occur until the end of Acts.

I've got a few questions for you:

Do you have any scripture that proves that there wasn't a dispensational break at the end of Acts?
First, I would ask that you show any scripture that says there was a break at the end of Acts. I contend that there is no scripture that says there is a break... and if there is no scripture to say it, then you can't.

However, please notice that at the end of Acts, Paul is still alive. We know that he was still writing letters to some of the churches he had planted-- some of the Epistles were written before Acts 28 is recorded, some after. Additionally, other books of the Bible, including some of the gospels, were not written until after Acts 28. How do you propose to differentiate between those written before Acts 28 and those written after? Some apply to the church now and some don't? If so, who decides which are which-- especially since no one can agree to the exact dates most of the books of the N.T. were written (usually scolars agree within a year or 2).
given that Jesus was talking to unbelieving pharisees in Luke 17:20... I thought that what he was referring to himself as being among them. The ESV says:
20 Being asked by the Pharisees uwhen the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God vis not coming with signs to be observed, 21 nor wwill they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Good News Publishers.
What do you think? how do you explain the kingdom as being within unbelievers if you don't agree?

can you explain what James 2 disproves?
AV1611 was stating that because we are under a 'dispensation of grace' that one's works (or actions) are not important. Specifically, he stated Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.[from "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." which is not how the dispensation of Grace works!! God forgives us if we repent...ours is not a 'works salvation']

James 2 is very clear that this is not the case. Rather, James makes it extremely clear that this view is vanity."But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?...24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. "Rather the grace of God gives us the ability to live the Christian life.
What did Paul mean by dispensation in Eph 1:10, 3:2 and 9.?
cheers
Martin The word translated dispensation in Eph 1:10, 3:2,9 is the greek word 'oikonomia', better translated as 'stewardship' (in the context of dispensing or distributing)-- in fact this is how it is translated in Luke 16:2-4
2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. 4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
We must look at what Paul was trying to say, in his own words, rather than trying to force a theological interpretation based on a secondary definition of a translation of a word.

This obviously clarifies the meaning of what Paul is saying.

In Eph 3, the 'dispensation of grace' is no longer a period of time, but rather the 'giving of the grace of God'. Paul had been entrusted with preaching the gospel to the gentiles.

[TheScottsMen]

My humble opinion:)

The Lords prayer is beautiful and a great model. But the Lord warned his disciples that they were not to pray this prayer or any other prayer repetitiously (matt 6:5-7). Prayer is not an exercise, but is our way of communication with God, our phone line to heaven, so it must always be spoken of through the heart. I believe the Lords prayer to be a model for those who would be called to go THROUGH TO ENDURE the tribulation. Now i'm a dispensationlist, which also means i'm a pre-tribber and my view is that the Body of Christ is delivered from the wrath to come, and for that reason alone, does not apply directly to this dispensation (1 thes 5:9). If your not a pre-tribber I can see good reason why you would disagree. But thats alright,were still part of the same family:)

Charles Stam gave, IMHO, a good overview of the of the Lords Prayer dispensationally speaking:

C.H. Stam


Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. The reference here to "our Father" is to the God and Father of Israel—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In prophecy, heaven was His throne and earth His footstool. His name was so holy that the Jews feared they might inadvertently speak it in vain, so they changed it from Yahweh to Adonai—Master, Ruler (Deut. 5:11; Isa. 66:1; Matt. 15:31; Luke 1:68).

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. The hope of every Israelite was the establishment of the Davidic Kingdom. God's will for the earth is to overthrow the kingdoms of this world and establish the millennial kingdom of His dear Son (II Sam. 7:8-17; Luke 1:68-72; Rev. 11:15; 20:6).

Give us this day our daily bread. In the future tribulation, God will set a table in the wilderness for His people, as He did in time past. The saints in that day will find it necessary to pray for their daily provision of food, since they will be unable to buy or sell without the Mark of the Beast. Consequently, God will supernaturally nourish the chosen nation (Rev. 12:14 cf. Rev. 13:13-18).

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Today we are to forgive others, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven us, but under the kingdom gospel, forgiveness was based upon a like-spirit (Matt. 18:21-35 cf. Eph. 4:32). And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil [Gr. noun: evil one]. For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. The sense here is, "Lord lead us not into the Great Tribulation, but deliver us from Satan, who brings death and destruction in his wake" (Rev. 6:7-11; 12:12; 13:1-10).


TSM

[TSIBHOD]

The Bible itself tells us to rightly divide the word of truth so acknowledging that not all of it is useful for doctrine at all times!
You make an assumption in your interpretation of this verse too. You think that it means that we should divide the word from itself, into different parts. I think it means to divide the Word from the words of men. We should be careful to "cut a straight path" (the literal meaning), separating the scriptures from our interpretations of the scriptures.

[Father Rick]

Charles Stam gave, IMHO, a good overview of the of the Lords Prayer dispensationally speaking:

C.H. Stam


Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. The reference here to "our Father" is to the God and Father of Israel—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In prophecy, heaven was His throne and earth His footstool. His name was so holy that the Jews feared they might inadvertently speak it in vain, so they changed it from Yahweh to Adonai—Master, Ruler (Deut. 5:11; Isa. 66:1; Matt. 15:31; Luke 1:68).

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. The hope of every Israelite was the establishment of the Davidic Kingdom. God's will for the earth is to overthrow the kingdoms of this world and establish the millennial kingdom of His dear Son (II Sam. 7:8-17; Luke 1:68-72; Rev. 11:15; 20:6).

Give us this day our daily bread. In the future tribulation, God will set a table in the wilderness for His people, as He did in time past. The saints in that day will find it necessary to pray for their daily provision of food, since they will be unable to buy or sell without the Mark of the Beast. Consequently, God will supernaturally nourish the chosen nation (Rev. 12:14 cf. Rev. 13:13-18).

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Today we are to forgive others, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven us, but under the kingdom gospel, forgiveness was based upon a like-spirit (Matt. 18:21-35 cf. Eph. 4:32). And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil [Gr. noun: evil one]. For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. The sense here is, "Lord lead us not into the Great Tribulation, but deliver us from Satan, who brings death and destruction in his wake" (Rev. 6:7-11; 12:12; 13:1-10).
Can't you see how forced this interpretation of the passage is, rather than letting it just speak for itself? This is one of the great difficulties of Dispensationalist theology-- it starts with a pre-supposition, then tries to force every passage of scripture into a man-made formula instead of just letting the scriptures explain themselves.

I'll address the different parts of this one at a time:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. The reference here to "our Father" is to the God and Father of Israel—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In prophecy, heaven was His throne and earth His footstool. His name was so holy that the Jews feared they might inadvertently speak it in vain, so they changed it from Yahweh to Adonai—Master, Ruler (Deut. 5:11; Isa. 66:1; Matt. 15:31; Luke 1:68). If this reference to God as the Father were to apply only to the Jews, then Paul must have not known that when he wrote 1 Thessalonians 1:1 "Paul, and Silvanus and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."I could give other passages as well, but this one says it so well. The Church is in God the Father and the grace given is from God the Father. On numerous occasions Paul uses this same terminology-- therefore it is obviously for church, whether or not it was used by Israel as well.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. The hope of every Israelite was the establishment of the Davidic Kingdom. God's will for the earth is to overthrow the kingdoms of this world and establish the millennial kingdom of His dear Son (II Sam. 7:8-17; Luke 1:68-72; Rev. 11:15; 20:6).
Jesus told the Jews that His kingdom was not a physical kingdom.John 18: 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:Paul also says that the Kingdom of God is not a physical kingdom.
Romans 14:15
But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Give us this day our daily bread. In the future tribulation, God will set a table in the wilderness for His people, as He did in time past. The saints in that day will find it necessary to pray for their daily provision of food, since they will be unable to buy or sell without the Mark of the Beast. Consequently, God will supernaturally nourish the chosen nation (Rev. 12:14 cf. Rev. 13:13-18). The disciples did not ask Jesus how people should pray in the future. They asked him how THEY should pray. They were aware that He would soon be taken from them (He had told them this repeatedly) and were asking for instructions for themselves. Jesus gave these instructions to them knowing that He would be crucified in a matter of hours and that the Holy Spirit would be poured out on Pentecost in less than 2 months. Jesus did not say "pray this way until the Holy Spirit is poured out, then don't pray this way again until the Tribulation". He knew this would be the model used by the Apostles in the Church, which is exactly how the Apostles understood His instructions, as this is what Church history confirms they did.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Today we are to forgive others, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven us, but under the kingdom gospel, forgiveness was based upon a like-spirit (Matt. 18:21-35 cf. Eph. 4:32). I already posted from James 2. Faith without corresponding actions/works is dead faith.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil [Gr. noun: evil one]. For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. The sense here is, "Lord lead us not into the Great Tribulation, but deliver us from Satan, who brings death and destruction in his wake" (Rev. 6:7-11; 12:12; 13:1-10).
This passage does NOT say lead us not int the Tribulation, nor does it imply in any way, shape, or form that it is referring to the Tribulation or any kind of tribulation for that matter, but rather temptation-- Which is something EVERY believer must deal with on a regular basis. Paul wrote "There is no temptation come against you, save such as is common to man, and in the midst of such temptation God is faithful and just that with the temptation He will provide a means of escape." This is almost a paraphrase of this last line of the Lord's prayer. Obviously Paul thought this concept applied to the Church, not for some future point in time. I could just replace words here and there in Scripture to make it conform to my theology as well, but that would be improper of me to do, just as it is improper for Stam to do so here.

[TheScottsMen]

Jesus told the Jews that His kingdom was not a physical kingdom.Paul also says that the Kingdom of God is not a physical kingdom.Jesus never said his Kingdom was not physical, this is also reading to much into the scripture. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not OF this world"

Of - Gr. ek, out from, My kingdom is not from this world, My kingdom is FROM heaven. Jesus kingdom will be physical and earthly (Dan 2:44; 7:13-27; Zech 14; Rev 5:10; 11:15)


As for Paul and Romans 14:15, I'm not sure how your getting by this passage that the Kingdom won't be literal as the scripture has nothing to do with it being literal or not, but that the Kingdom of God does not consist of simply meat, drink and outward religion, but consist of 3 things, 3 things that will be found in a literal reign of Christ.

1. Righteousness (Romans 3:21-31;4:1-25;8:4)
2. Peace (Rom 2:10; 5:1; 8:6; 10:15)
3. Joy (Rom 5:11; Gal 5:22)

As for letting the scriptures breath, you can be assured that a dispensationalist does. We let OT mean what they say, let them keep with the literal meaning they were expressed in, and that is that the people of Israel were looking for a literal kingdom, and the Kingdom would be have been established if it was not rejected.

You and I are coming from two opposite corners and I doubt we will find a compromise on this one subject as we have two different views on hermeneutics. But thats alright.


The disciples did not ask Jesus how people should pray in the future. They asked him how THEY should pray. They were aware that He would soon be taken from them (He had told them this repeatedly) and were asking for instructions for themselves. Jesus gave these instructions to them knowing that He would be crucified in a matter of hours and that the Holy Spirit would be poured out on Pentecost in less than 2 months. Jesus did not say "pray this way until the Holy Spirit is poured out, then don't pray this way again until the Tribulation". He knew this would be the model used by the Apostles in the Church, which is exactly how the Apostles understood His instructions, as this is what Church history confirms they did.
I already posted from James 2. Faith without corresponding actions/works is dead faith. Correct, how the Gospel (kingdom) which was being preached by the 12, how the model prayer should be prayed under the current dispensation.

We could argue theology and doctrine all day, but as I stated above, it will come down to each of our hermenutics, no matter how much we try to persuade each other;)

[Iosias]

This would imply that the Kingdom of God had nothing to do with the Old Testament, rather it was not introduced until the time of John the Baptist.

Here Jesus said that the Kingdom of God was not something that could be observed as a physical kingdom, but resides inside the person.
Before I begin let me make it plain that the Kingdom of Heaven is different from the Kingdom of God and so some of what you say is made null and void because you ahve assumed they are one and the same.

The kingdom of Heaven:
1 Has Messiah for its King;
2. It is from heaven; and under the heavens upon the earth;
3. It is limited in its scope;
4. It is political in its sphere;
5. It is Jewish and exclusive in its character;
6. It is national in its aspect;
7. It is the special subject of Old Testament prophesy;
8. And it is dispensational in its duration.

The kingdom of God:
1. Has God for its ruler;
2. It is in heaven, over the earth;
3. It is unlimited in its scope;
4. It is moral and spiritual in its sphere;
5. It is inclusive in its character, hence;
6. It is universal in its aspect;
7. It is (in its wider aspect) the subject of New Testament revelation;
8. And will be eternal in its duration.

As for the Luke 16:16 quote Jesus is staing that John marks the end of an era...the old dispensation of the Law was in force until he began proclaiming the coming of the Messiah well this is whay my commentary states...interesting i will look into it and get back to you!!

[Father Rick]

Before I begin let me make it plain that the Kingdom of Heaven is different from the Kingdom of God and so some of what you say is made null and void because you ahve assumed they are one and the same.
Matthew uses the term 'Kingdom of Heaven' exclusively while the other gospels use 'Kingdom of God'. If you look at the passages side by side, you will see that these two phrases are used interchangeably.

Examples:

1. Mat. 5:3, Luke 6:20

2. Mat. 13:31, Mark 4:31, Luke 13:18

3. Mat. 13:33, Luke 13:30

If you look at these verses side by side, you will see that it is the exact same parables of Jesus being repeated by different apostles. ONLY Matthew uses the phrase Kingdom of Heaven. The other gospels tell exactly the same stories/parables but uses the phrase Kingdom of God.

[Iosias]

Matthew uses the term 'Kingdom of Heaven' exclusively while the other gospels use 'Kingdom of God'. If you look at the passages side by side, you will see that these two phrases are used interchangeably...If you look at these verses side by side, you will see that it is the exact same parables of Jesus being repeated by different apostles. ONLY Matthew uses the phrase Kingdom of Heaven. The other gospels tell exactly the same stories/parables but uses the phrase Kingdom of God.
A common mis-understanding...there is an explicit difference between the KoG and the KoH and the context must determine which one is being talked about. Yes there are at time parallels between the two and so when Mark uses KoG and Matthew uses KoH we knew that the messianic kingdom is being referred to &c.

[TheScottsMen]

A common mis-understanding...there is an explicit difference between the KoG and the KoH and the context must determine which one is being talked about. Yes there are at time parallels between the two and so when Mark uses KoG and Matthew uses KoH we knew that the messianic kingdom is being referred to &c.I disagree here and have to go with Father Rick, though, I know Scofield and Dakes (both of whom I read about their views on the differences between KoH and KoG in thier bibles) teach this. There are times when they are used interchangeably.

[Father Rick]

OH, so what you are saying then is that the writers of the Gospels didn't know what they were talking about.

So we have to change the wording of the Scriptures, since the writers were confused?

Do you realize what you are saying is "I know it says one thing, but it really means something different?"

Do you not understand how dangerous that hermeneutic method is? You are saying that for almost 2000 years the Church didn't know what the writers of the Gospels were talking about, and then suddenly 150 years ago someone finally had a revelation from God and figured it out?



Using your same logic of dividing up scripture/time into dispensations, let me ask you a couple of questions--just to show the fallacy in the logic.

If there is one dispensation in effect during the life of Christ, and another starts in Acts 2 as you say-- What of the people who lived/died in between the 2?

Specifically, what 'dispensation' was in effect between the death of Christ and His resurrection? We know that people died during that time (like the thief on the cross). We also know that many who were dead were resurrected at Christ's death. What 'dispensation' was one under for those 3 days?

What 'dispensation' was one under for the 40 days after Christ rose from the dead until He ascended?

What 'dispensation' was one under for the 10 days between the ascenscion and Pentecost?

What 'dispensation' was one under from Pentecost 'til the death of the last of the Apostles, about 70 years later?

Each of these were major events/changes in the birth/life of the Church. And there were people who were born/died in each stage. The problem with Dispensationalism is that in trying to put in all these artificial divisions, it doesn't look at the practicality of what it is saying.

When the scriptures don't agree with the theology, then the meaning of the scriptures is changed to fit the theology. The above is a perfect example of that "I know Mark and Luke both say Kingdom of God, but they don't really mean the Kingdom of God but the Kingdom of Heaven which is something different". Or maybe it was Matthew who was confused and really meant Kingdom of God instead of Kingdom of Heaven here-- since he is outnumbered 2 to 1 in some cases.

If, however, we quit trying to force the scriptures to mean something and just look at them at face value then it becomes obvious they are 3 different people each telling the same story using words that are synonyms of each other.

[Iosias]

OH, so what you are saying then is that the writers of the Gospels didn't know what they were talking about.
No not at all.

So we have to change the wording of the Scriptures, since the writers were confused?
No not at all!

If there is one dispensation in effect during the life of Christ, and another starts in Acts 2 as you say-- What of the people who lived/died in between the 2?
Surely that is upto God to decide?

Specifically, what 'dispensation' was in effect between the death of Christ and His resurrection? What 'dispensation' was one under for those 3 days?
Law

What 'dispensation' was one under for the 40 days after Christ rose from the dead until He ascended?
Law

What 'dispensation' was one under for the 10 days between the ascenscion and Pentecost?
Law

What 'dispensation' was one under from Pentecost 'til the death of the last of the Apostles, about 70 years later?
Grace/Spirit


When the scriptures don't agree with the theology, then the meaning of the scriptures is changed to fit the theology. The above is a perfect example of that "I know Mark and Luke both say Kingdom of God, but they don't really mean the Kingdom of God but the Kingdom of Heaven which is something different". Or maybe it was Matthew who was confused and really meant Kingdom of God instead of Kingdom of Heaven here-- since he is outnumbered 2 to 1 in some cases.

If, however, we quit trying to force the scriptures to mean something and just look at them at face value then it becomes obvious they are 3 different people each telling the same story using words that are synonyms of each other.

It is not the wording that is important but the underlying meaning that is important for example when Matthew uses the term kingdom of Heaven he means the Messianic kingdom but when he uses the term KoG he means the other. However sometimes the other writers use the term KoG to mean the messianic kingdom and others to mean what Matthew uses KoG to mean. I repeat...ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DETERMINE THE MEANINGS!!

[TheScottsMen]

Do you not understand how dangerous that hermeneutic method is? You are saying that for almost 2000 years the Church didn't know what the writers of the Gospels were talking about, and then suddenly 150 years ago someone finally had a revelation from God and figured it out?
Sure. Look at Luther;)


Specifically, what 'dispensation' was in effect between the death of Christ and His resurrection? We know that people died during that time (like the thief on the cross). We also know that many who were dead were resurrected at Christ's death. What 'dispensation' was one under for those 3 days?
As for myself, I do not believe the dispensation of grace started in Acts 2 but the Kingdom Program, Gospel, was still in, and the Gospel of Grace, The mystery hid in God was not revealed until Paul. So, the dispensation that was in effect was still the same one that Jesus was preaching, the Kingdom.

What 'dispensation' was one under for the 40 days after Christ rose from the dead until He ascended?
Kingdom. As the disciples asked, 'When shall you restore the Kingdom?'


What 'dispensation' was one under for the 10 days between the ascenscion and Pentecost? Kingdom


What 'dispensation' was one under from Pentecost 'til the death of the last
of the Apostles, about 70 years later?
The Gospel of Grace was revealed to Paul by Jesus Christ, the nation of Israel was not completely rejected until Acts 28.


Each of these were major events/changes in the birth/life of the Church. And there were people who were born/died in each stage. The problem with Dispensationalism is that in trying to put in all these artificial divisions, it doesn't look at the practicality of what it is saying. Sure we do, and we take scripture at face value. We talk the bible literal where ever possible, and where we can't, we get the literal truth conveyed in it.


When the scriptures don't agree with the theology, then the meaning of the scriptures is changed to fit the theology. The above is a perfect example of that "I know Mark and Luke both say Kingdom of God, but they don't really mean the Kingdom of God but the Kingdom of Heaven which is something different". Or maybe it was Matthew who was confused and really meant Kingdom of God instead of Kingdom of Heaven here-- since he is outnumbered 2 to 1 in some cases.Saying that some forms of dispensationalism are alone in doing this would be a pretty bad statement.


If, however, we quit trying to force the scriptures to mean something and just look at them at face value then it becomes obvious they are 3 different people each telling the same story using words that are synonyms of each other.I have no disagreement with this statement! Who would have thought?;)

By the way, putting all Dispensationalist under one banner is incorrect as there are Acts 2, Mid-Acts, and Acts 28 dispens. Acts 2 Dispens differ a lot from mid and Acts 28 dispens.

[Iosias]

If I may post this link here: http://www.biblecentre.org/topics02ff/topics_jnd_apostasy_of_successive_dispensations.htm The end is probably the more interesting although read the whole text if you have the time:D

[wobbly]

thanks for replying Father Rick,


as far as the dating of the gospels, I'd prefer to use the internal evidnce of what they said to date them, and to me they all seem to be about Jesus and his ministry, which he said was to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' Mat 15:24
As far as Pauls epistles are concerned, I understand that the ones that were written after the end of Acts are Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Phileomon and Titus.
As for my scriptural "proof" of the change of dispensations is based on the differences between the scripture written during acts and that written after. It seems pretty clear to me but I'm working on an explanation which is easier said than done.
RE James 2. OK I see what you are getting at here. I know of people who do say that works in the life of a christian are irrelevant and use that to justify pretty unchristian behaviour. Paul goes to great lengths in Romans to show that our justification is by faith and not works. In Ephesians 2:8 .. he encapsulates the relationship between salvation faith and works
For by grace you have been saved athrough faith. And this is bnot your own doing; cit is the gift of God, 9 dnot a result of works, eso that no one may boast. 10 For fwe are his workmanship, gcreated in Christ Jesus hfor good works, iwhich God prepared beforehand, jthat we should walk in them
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Good News Publishers.
I think that this is consistent with what James says. In my mind true faith in Jesus will lead to good works because you appreciate what he has done for us (that's from our perspective, I tend a bit towards Calvinism and also think that God will work those God works in our life if we are elected but I don't want to argue that as well).


I agree with you that dispensation can mean stewardship, the ESV which I use a bit also translates it as plan, which I think is unhelpful.

I don't expect to be able to convince that dispensationalism is the only correct way to view God's way of dealing with man over the ages and it doesn't realy worry if we continue to differ on this. To me there are many more important things in the scripture, such as the that we are justified by grace through faith and that not of ourselves.
thanks again
Martin

[TSIBHOD]

Prove from scripture that circumcision is a type of baptism, and if so, in what way?
(Colossians 2:11-12 ESV) In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Here's how you apply Old Testament types: circumcision was a foreshadow of how we are supposed to have our hearts circumcised, cutting away carnal pleasures and worldly distractions that keep us from the fullness of our relationship with Christ. So, yes, we should be circumcised today. All of us should, man and woman. But our circumcision should be in the heart. Circumcision in the flesh doesn't matter either way. It was done in the natural realm before so that we would have an example of what it to happen in the spiritual realm.

NEXT SUBJECT

When Jesus told His disciples to tell no one, it was because it was not time to preach the gospel to all nations yet, since Jesus had not yet died. This had nothing to do with Jesus "teaching under the Law," but instead, it had to do with Jesus' death. Jesus' death was what turned the natural Israel (the Jews) into the spiritual Israel (the Church).

Matthew 8:4
And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Don't forget to offer the gift commanded in the Law after visiting the high priest. Jesus commanded it!
I don't take the commands of Jesus to certain individuals and apply them to myself in the letter. I take the spirit of what Jesus said there, and use it for myself. Jesus said for this man to present himself as healed as a testimony, and we today should also show testimony of what Jesus has done in our lives.

Now, just because I don't have to take Jesus' command to that man literally for myself (although, I can gain knowledge of the general desires of Jesus, and apply those to myself) -- this doesn't mean that I can ignore the teaching of Jesus (like the Sermon on the Mount) and say, "That was for the Jews." You interpret the Sermon on the Mount to make it something that wouldn't be for Christians. In other words, your interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount makes it to be something not applicable to the Church. But if you interpret it rightly, it is good and beneficial for the Church, and then you don't have these problems of, "See? Jesus wouldn't really want us to do that!" Yes, He would, if you would just interpret it the right way.

Tell me, how's that tabernacle coming? Are you obeying all the Sabbath laws? You quoted from the 10 commandments, if you wanna apply them to the church, you must then apply all the exposition of them in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Or do you teach that "certain scriptures don't apply to you"?
As I have previously noted, not all scriptures apply literally. They do all have relevance though. I can learn principles from them, and I should take them seriously. The book of Hebrews gives examples of how what took place before in the natural realm represented spiritual realities for us now.

You need to learn to distinguish between commands of Jesus to certain individuals (from which we can learn principles), and teachings of Jesus that apply to us all. Here's an example of how this works.

The Jews were to obey the Law of Moses; that is agreed. If the Jews found some writing of Moses that was a letter from him to a certain individual, telling that individual to go to a certain city for Passover, that would not mean that all the Jews should take that command of Moses and obey it themselves. That command would not have been a teaching of Moses. If they discerned the reason that Moses told our hypothetical person to go to the said city, then perhaps they could learn something of a right spirit, and try to have that spirit themselves. But they would not need to obey that command. They did, however, need to obey Moses' Law.

In the same way, if I find a certain command of Jesus to his disciples, I need to figure out (by God's Spirit) if that command was specifically to them (and I can still learn principles from it in that case, so it is still doctrinally useful), or if it is a general command and teaching of Jesus. When Jesus tells His disciples to go find a young donkey for Him to ride on, that doesn't mean that I have to go find a donkey. But that also does not mean that I can take all the words of Jesus, and say, "See? That must mean that none of them apply to me. If one command was for a specific situation, then none of the commands must be for general situations." Non sequitur.

The Sermon on the Mount is a collection of the general teachings of Jesus. It is a summary of what Jesus taught. It is very applicable for today. I think even you would agree that statements made in the gospels or the OT of a doctrinal nature apply today. For example, if it says in the OT that nothing is too hard for God (Jeremiah 32:17), then that is still true of God today. So the question seems to be whether the commands of Jesus are under Law or not. The end of Matthew 7 makes it clear that Jesus was teaching something new. His was not a teaching of just following the Law, but of following Christ.

[Iosias]

The Sermon on the Mount is a collection of the general teachings of Jesus. It is a summary of what Jesus taught. It is very applicable for today. I think even you would agree that statements made in the gospels or the OT of a doctrinal nature apply today. For example, if it says in the OT that nothing is too hard for God (Jeremiah 32:17), then that is still true of God today. So the question seems to be whether the commands of Jesus are under Law or not. The end of Matthew 7 makes it clear that Jesus was teaching something new. His was not a teaching of just following the Law, but of following Christ.
Here I quote Scofield..."having announced the kingdom of heaven as "at hand", the king, in Mt. v.-vii., declares the principlesof the kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount has a twofold application: (1) Literally to the kingdom. In this sense it gives the divine constitution for the righteous government of th eearth. Whenever the kingdom of heaven is established on earth it will be according to that constitution, which may be regarded as an explanation of the word "righteousness" as used by the prophets in describing the kingdom...In this sense the Sermon on the Mount is pure law, and transfers the offense from the overt act to the motive...(2) But their is a beautiful moral application to the Christian...these principles fundamentally reappear in the teaching of the Epistles." pp999-1000 of the Scofield Reference Bible

[Freelander]

I am a firm believer that the Lord's prayer is not for the church as it was given under Law. Your thoughts?I agree with you completely. :)

[TSIBHOD]

Here I quote Scofield..."having announced the kingdom of heaven as "at hand", the king, in Mt. v.-vii., declares the principlesof the kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount has a twofold application: (1) Literally to the kingdom. In this sense it gives the divine constitution for the righteous government of th eearth. Whenever the kingdom of heaven is established on earth it will be according to that constitution, which may be regarded as an explanation of the word "righteousness" as used by the prophets in describing the kingdom...In this sense the Sermon on the Mount is pure law, and transfers the offense from the overt act to the motive...(2) But their is a beautiful moral application to the Christian...these principles fundamentally reappear in the teaching of the Epistles." pp999-1000 of the Scofield Reference Bible
That maybe doesn't sound so bad, until one realizes that your practical application of that is to cast out the Lord's Prayer as invalid for a Christian. That Christians throughout history have benefited from the Lord's Prayer indicates the opposite.

[Iosias]

I agree with you completely. :)Cool!!:)

[Iosias]

That maybe doesn't sound so bad, until one realizes that your practical application of that is to cast out the Lord's Prayer as invalid for a Christian. That Christians throughout history have benefited from the Lord's Prayer indicates the opposite.
This is what you need to decide: Does the Scofield note make sense to you? If so accept it as true if not reject it as false.

Regarding the Lord's Prayer: Why is it still valid?...Its content is Jewish, it refers to the kingdom of heaven which you have no place in so why would a Christian still use it?

[TSIBHOD]

The Scofield quotation seems okay (I'm only looking at it very briefly), except for this: "In this sense the Sermon on the Mount is pure law, and transfers the offense from the overt act to the motive." I disagree. It is about the laws that God wants us to keep (Beatitudes, obey God, don't get angry, don't commit adultery, be faithful in marriage, tell the truth, and so on), but not just the letter of law, but the spirit of wanting to do those things. So I am not merely supposed to abstain from adultery, but I am not supposed to even want to commit adultery, etc.

What evidence is there that the Sermon on the Mount is under the Law? It stresses obedience, but that's okay, since we are supposed to obey! God forgives if we make mistakes and are repentant (i.e., we don't cherish our sins more than Him), but the Law of Liberty is for those who are doers of the word.

Regarding the Lord's Prayer: Why is it still valid?...Its content is Jewish, it refers to the kingdom of heaven which you have no place in so why would a Christian still use it?
Do you have any evidence that Christians have no part in the kingdom of heaven?

[Simon_Templar]

AV1611,

in response to my previous post you made the comment that the church has no place in the kingdom of heaven and you asked if I was saying there is no difference between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace....

Yes.. that is exactly what I'm saying. They are one and the same Gospel. As to your comment about the church having no place in the kingdom of heaven, There are only two kingdoms in which man may exist, the kingdom of heaven , (also known as the kingdom of God) or the kingdom of this world. There is nothing in scripture that suggests the distinction that you have made between the kingdom of heaven and the church.. infact, the church in a very real sense is the kingdom of heaven. You spoke of the messianic kingdom, which results from the davidic covenant, Jesus is the fulfilment of teh davidic covenant and the messianic kingdom, it is Jesus that we have been grafted into. To seperate the gentile church from the kingdom of heaven, or the messianic davidic kingdom is a completely false distinction introduced by human tradition, and bad tradition at that. It is not present in scripture at all.

The very idea of history being divided into rigid dispensations is an artificial form imposed on scripture because of one verse taken out of context and stretched far beyond its intended statement.

I don't mean this to be inflamatory, and if this question was originaly meant for dispensationalists only, I appologise for my intrusion, but if it was an open question, then I feel this is an important issue. All of the gospels, all of the new testament is meant for the church. Within the church there is no seperation between jew and gentile. Some scriptures are not meant for jews only and some for gentiles only (in the new testament) the entire new testament is meant for the church. There is one church not two. The promises that God made to the hebrews will be fulfilled when they are brought into the same church that we are in, when they see the same gospel we saw.

[Iosias]

AV1611,

in response to my previous post you made the comment that the church has no place in the kingdom of heaven and you asked if I was saying there is no difference between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace....

Yes.. that is exactly what I'm saying. They are one and the same Gospel. As to your comment about the church having no place in the kingdom of heaven, There are only two kingdoms in which man may exist, the kingdom of heaven , (also known as the kingdom of God) or the kingdom of this world. There is nothing in scripture that suggests the distinction that you have made between the kingdom of heaven and the church.. infact, the church in a very real sense is the kingdom of heaven. You spoke of the messianic kingdom, which results from the davidic covenant, Jesus is the fulfilment of the davidic covenant and the messianic kingdom, it is Jesus that we have been grafted into.
Ephesians 3
1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Here Paul sets out that the gospel of grace was given to him! It was not known prior to Paul or prior to when he wrote this down! So how can the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23) be the same as the gospel of grace (Ephesians 3)? The gospel of the kingdom was for Israel hence:
Matthew 10
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

However the gospel of grace is for all!!

You correctly state that "You spoke of the messianic kingdom, which results from the davidic covenant, Jesus is the fulfilment of the davidic covenant and the messianic kingdom, it is Jesus that we have been grafted into." and indeed you are correct we have been grafted into Jesus but we are the church the spiritual seed...Israel is the earthly seed and they are to whom the earthly covenants were made. We have no part in the covenants which are earthly and specific to Israel.

[TSIBHOD]

Ephesians 3
1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Here Paul sets out that the gospel of grace was given to him! It was not known prior to Paul or prior to when he wrote this down! So how can the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23) be the same as the gospel of grace (Ephesians 3)?
It does not say that the gospel of grace was not known before Paul. Where did you get that statement?

The gospel of the kingdom was for Israel hence:
Matthew 10
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
The Gospel that was preached to the world was of the death and resurrection of Christ, and it wasn't the time to do that when Jesus was still alive. But just becuse they weren't ready to preach it to everyone yet doesn't mean it wasn't true then.

The gospel was to be preached first to Israel, since the Jews were the natural children of God. Then it was preached to the Gentiles. (cf. Romans 11.)

I am going to present a quotation from a book by Kelly Varner, entitled The Sermon on the Mount:

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN?

1. There is NO difference between these two Scriptural terms.
2. The term "Kingdom of heaven" shows us WHERE IT IS FROM and the term "Kingdom of God" shows us WHO RUNS IT!
3. A comparison of the following Bible passages reveals that what is said about the Kingdom of God is also said about the Kingdom of heaven:
a. Matt. 4:17 with Mark 1:14-15
b. Matt. 5:3 with Lk. 6:20
c. Matt. 10:7-8 with Lk. 9:2
d. Matt. 13:31 with Mark 4:30-31
e. Matt. 19:14 with Mark 10:14
f. Matt. 19:23-24 with Lk. 18:24-25
(NOTE that many other verses could be cited, but these should suffice.)
4. Matthew's gospel was written with a view toward Jewish converts; thus, he uses the term "Kingdom of heaven" in most cases. The gospels of Mark, Luke, and John substitute the term "Kingdom of God." It was customary among the Jews to use the word "HEAVEN" when referring to "GOD." (note Matt. 5:34; 23:22)
5. An interesting study to pursue would be to note that we enter the Kingdom of HEAVEN by BIRTH and not by death. (John 3:1-8; Eph. 2:1-6)
Another quotation:
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TERM "KINGDOM" AND THE TERM "CHURCH"?

1. The Church is the INSTRUMENT of the Kingdom of God.
2. They are related terms, for Jesus spoke of the Kingdom and the Church together. (Matt. 16:18-19) The book of Acts relates the Kingdom and Church to one another. (Acts 8:1-12; 20:17-18) They are RELATED TERMS, but they are not SYNONOMOUS terms.
3. The term "Kingdom" is found about 160 times in the New Testament. The word "Church" is found about 115 times in the New Testament. Thus, we must maintain BALANCE with these two concepts. We cannot see the Kingdom come apart from the INSTRUMENTALITY of the Church, and the Church has no divine direction apart from the PURPOSE of the Kingdom.
4. The term "Kingdom" denotes God's PURPOSE (the extension of God's rule). The term "Church" denotes the present INSTRUMENT by which that PURPOSE shall be realized.
5. Thus, the Church is the INSTRUMENT, VEHICLE and MEANS of the Kingdom.

[Iosias]

It does not say that the gospel of grace was not known before Paul. Where did you get that statement?
When Paul states Ephesians 3:1-5 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;"

The Gospel that was preached to the world was of the death and resurrection of Christ, and it wasn't the time to do that when Jesus was still alive. But just becuse they weren't ready to preach it to everyone yet doesn't mean it wasn't true then.
The gospel they were preaching was that of a risen Messiah...see Peter's sermons in Acts 2 and 3.

As for the KoG and the KoH being the same...we will just have to agree to disagree.

[TSIBHOD]

When Paul states Ephesians 3:1-5 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;"
I am afraid that I fail to comprehend your reasoning. You seem to believe that because God did reveal the truth to Paul, He therefore revealed it to no one else. :confused:

The gospel they were preaching was that of a risen Messiah...see Peter's sermons in Acts 2 and 3.
Messiah=Christ. The former word comes from Hebrew, the latter from Greek. They both mean "[the] anointed [one]." The Jews believed that the Messiah would come to bring them salvation from Roman dominion. But Jesus' kingdom was (and is) not of this world. So the Jews had the wrong perception of what the Messiah's function was.

But since the Messiah and the Christ are one and the same, Peter was preaching the Messiah, certainly; but he was also preaching the risen Christ. That is the same Christ of whom it is said, "[God] hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3b KJV). It is the same Christ of whom Paul writes, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20a KJV).

Where is the difference? Jesus was the Christ both in the Gospels and the Epistles. The message was not ready to be preached to the Gentiles in the Gospels, since Jesus had not yet died. Before His death, sacrifice of animals had to be made. After His death, sacrifice of self had to be made, being buried with him (Romans 6:4), and suffering with Him (Romans 8:17). The sacrifice of animals foreshadowed what was to come. So Jesus did not do away with that sacrifice, but fulfilled it.

The issue here is not about matters of the Law though. Your objections seem to be more along the lines of what God's purpose for the Church is. By looking up some information on dispensationalist theology, and matching it with your objections to the Kingdom, I discern that you believe that God has different purposes for Israel and the Church, and further that God's purposes for Israel are earthly, while God's purposes for the Church are heavenly.

So the real question seems to be, is the Church the fulfillment of Israel? I would draw your attention to Romans 2:28-29, as well as these verses.

(Galatians 3:7-9 ESV) Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

As for the KoG and the KoH being the same...we will just have to agree to disagree.
In those verses I listed, the terms are used synonymously. What else is there to infer but that they are descriptions of the same thing, as elaborated in my post above.

[Iosias]

I am afraid that I fail to comprehend your reasoning. You seem to believe that because God did reveal the truth to Paul, He therefore revealed it to no one else. :confused:
He revealled to first to Paul and so the gospel of grace began with Paul. Peter did not knew about it and so his sermons were not about the grace of God. He did not even equate Jesus as Son of God!


Messiah=Christ. The former word comes from Hebrew, the latter from Greek. They both mean "[the] anointed [one]." The Jews believed that the Messiah would come to bring them salvation from Roman dominion. But Jesus' kingdom was (and is) not of this world. So the Jews had the wrong perception of what the Messiah's function was.

But since the Messiah and the Christ are one and the same, Peter was preaching the Messiah, certainly; but he was also preaching the risen Christ. That is the same Christ of whom it is said, "[God] hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3b KJV). It is the same Christ of whom Paul writes, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20a KJV).

Where is the difference? Jesus was the Christ both in the Gospels and the Epistles. The message was not ready to be preached to the Gentiles in the Gospels, since Jesus had not yet died. Before His death, sacrifice of animals had to be made. After His death, sacrifice of self had to be made, being buried with him (Romans 6:4), and suffering with Him (Romans 8:17). The sacrifice of animals foreshadowed what was to come. So Jesus did not do away with that sacrifice, but fulfilled it.

Herein lies your confusion. The gospel of grace is not that Jesus is the Messiah...that message is specific to Israel. The gospel of grace is reconciliation...that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins. This was not preached prior to Paul.


In those verses I listed, the terms are used synonymously. What else is there to infer but that they are descriptions of the same thing, as elaborated in my post above.

The problem is that you fail to understand that the kingdom of God encompasses the kingdom of heaven and that is why we have some writers talking about the KoG and he KoH in similar situations but as i have shewn previously...there are major differences.

[TSIBHOD]

The issue here is not about matters of the Law though. Your objections seem to be more along the lines of what God's purpose for the Church is. By looking up some information on dispensationalist theology, and matching it with your objections to the Kingdom, I discern that you believe that God has different purposes for Israel and the Church, and further that God's purposes for Israel are earthly, while God's purposes for the Church are heavenly.

So the real question seems to be, is the Church the fulfillment of Israel? I would draw your attention to Romans 2:28-29, as well as these verses.

(Galatians 3:7-9 ESV) Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
I would be interested to see your reply to this.

He revealled to first to Paul and so the gospel of grace began with Paul. Peter did not knew about it and so his sermons were not about the grace of God. He did not even equate Jesus as Son of God!
"Peter did not equate Jesus as the Son of God." Can I PLEASE get a Catholic to reply to this? What's one of your favorite passages, Catholics?

Herein lies your confusion. The gospel of grace is not that Jesus is the Messiah...that message is specific to Israel. The gospel of grace is reconciliation...that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins. This was not preached prior to Paul.
There is only one gospel. I have already told you that Christ and Messiah are the same word from different languages (Greek and Hebrew, respectively). Why then did Paul preach the "gospel of Christ (Messiah)"?

Let me show you where that exact phrase is used in the New Testament.

(Romans 15:19 ESV) by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God--so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ;

(1 Corinthians 9:12 ESV) If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.

(2 Corinthians 2:12 ESV) When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ, even though a door was opened for me in the Lord,

(2 Corinthians 9:13 ESV) By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others,

(2 Corinthians 10:14 ESV) For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach you. We were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ.

(Galatians 1:7 ESV) not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

(Philippians 1:27 ESV) Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

(1 Thessalonians 3:2 ESV) and we sent Timothy, our brother and God's coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith,
(Thanks, e-Sword!)

The problem is that you fail to understand that the kingdom of God encompasses the kingdom of heaven and that is why we have some writers talking about the KoG and he KoH in similar situations but as i have shewn previously...there are major differences.
Heaven is defined by scripture to be God's throne (Acts 7:49, among others). So we have "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of God's throne." The first tells the ruler, and the second tells where He is ruling from.

[Father Rick]

He revealled to first to Paul and so the gospel of grace began with Paul. Peter did not knew about it and so his sermons were not about the grace of God. He did not even equate Jesus as Son of God!Peter's most famous declaration "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God"

It was on this declaration that Jesus changed his name from Simon to Peter (Rock)...

This would definitely show that :
1. Peter knew Jesus as the Son of God.
2. Peter's understanding of Jesus was as the Christ.

Herein lies your confusion. The gospel of grace is not that Jesus is the Messiah...that message is specific to Israel. The gospel of grace is reconciliation...that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins. This was not preached prior to Paul.



14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me F4 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi#F4) freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Does it get more clear than this... Peter, who openly acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the son of the living God, preached to the Jews gathered in Jerusalem that salvation was through the death and resurrection of Jesus for the forgivenness of sins who had been prophesied by David as being the Davidic messiah.

This one passage shows several of the fallacies of dispensationalism. It shows that Peter, in his first recorded sermon, linked together in one thought in one time Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, the Lord, the Son of God, the one who died for the sins of mankind-- as well as those of Israel-- even stating that this promise was available not only to the Jew(you and your children) but also to the Gentile (all who are afar off).

[BInC]

Ok, all of my 16 year have been spent in a small town and I have never heard of dispenstionalism before. But form what I have read here, it seems like you are saying that only certain parts of the bible apply to certain people? I don't mean any of this as an argument, I'm just trying to understand. As a Christian, I consider myself a man of Christ, or a disciple of Christ. I believe that everything Jesus said was true, and everything the bible says is true. I don't see the point in denying some parts of the bible. Even if God wanted you to only look at certain parts, whouldn't He show you what parts apply to you?

Also, if the Kingdom of God and the Kindom of Heaven are two different things, what happens to you when you die? Where do you go? It seems to me that what you are describing as the Kingdom of God (physical, on this earth, for Jews only) was a misconseption the Jews had from misinterpreting scripture. They thought the Messiah would save them from their enemies on earth and give them their own kingdom there. But Jesus proved that wrong, and explained that he came to save them from the devil and and bring them to a kingdom in heaven ("I have reserved for you a place in heaven" i believe).

Also, Jesus told his disciples then that the Lord's prayer wa a good way to pray. It is a good model. Acknowledge that God is in heaven, praise him, ask that we on earth could do things like they are done in heaven (doing the right hting, not sinning), ask for fullfilment of the things we need, forgive us for what we've done wrong as we forgive others, help us not to give in to temptation, save us from the devil, because you have the power to do it. You don't need to pray the exact words, but it tells us the things we should include in a prayer. Are you saying that because the church wasn't around yet, we can't pray like that?

Again, alot of this is new to me so if I made a wrong interpretation of dispensationalist beliefs I am sorry and did not mean to offend you.

[Iosias]

Ok, all of my 16 year have been spent in a small town and I have never heard of dispenstionalism before. But form what I have read here, it seems like you are saying that only certain parts of the bible apply to certain people? I don't mean any of this as an argument, I'm just trying to understand. As a Christian, I consider myself a man of Christ, or a disciple of Christ. I believe that everything Jesus said was true, and everything the bible says is true. I don't see the point in denying some parts of the bible. Even if God wanted you to only look at certain parts, whouldn't He show you what parts apply to you?

Also, if the Kingdom of God and the Kindom of Heaven are two different things, what happens to you when you die? Where do you go? It seems to me that what you are describing as the Kingdom of God (physical, on this earth, for Jews only) was a misconseption the Jews had from misinterpreting scripture. They thought the Messiah would save them from their enemies on earth and give them their own kingdom there. But Jesus proved that wrong, and explained that he came to save them from the devil and and bring them to a kingdom in heaven ("I have reserved for you a place in heaven" i believe).

Also, Jesus told his disciples then that the Lord's prayer wa a good way to pray. It is a good model. Acknowledge that God is in heaven, praise him, ask that we on earth could do things like they are done in heaven (doing the right hting, not sinning), ask for fullfilment of the things we need, forgive us for what we've done wrong as we forgive others, help us not to give in to temptation, save us from the devil, because you have the power to do it. You don't need to pray the exact words, but it tells us the things we should include in a prayer. Are you saying that because the church wasn't around yet, we can't pray like that?

Again, alot of this is new to me so if I made a wrong interpretation of dispensationalist beliefs I am sorry and did not mean to offend you.
Ever since dispensationalism began to become a systemised theology (circa 1800s) we have been mis-quoted, mis-represented and basicly attacked because of our grammatical-historical approach to Biblical interpretation. The Bible itself says that is needs to be divided correctly. Therefore some parts apply to this present age whilst some doe not. This does in no way detract from the Bible. My grandfather sends a letter to myself and another to my father. Now we gain alot from our separate letters however we can also gain from reading each others but that does not mean that the promise of $5000 to my father from my grandfather applies to me nor the promise of $20 to me does not apply to my father even though the same person wrote each letter. This is because the letters were written to different people. In the same way most of the Gospel books are apply to the church whilst the Pauline epistles apply only to the church. Dispensationalism recognises that Gos deals with different people differently...He deals with israel in one way and the church in another. Everything Jesus said is true...but not everything He said was for us (the church)!

Regarding the Kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. this will sound rather complicated so you may need to do further reading...The kingdom of heaven is the messianic earth rule of Christ however Israel rejected it and so it is now in its mystery form. With the coming of the eternal state the KoG = KoH however before then the KoG only encompasses the KoH. The KoH is physical but the KoG is spiritual and it is into that you are baptised when you are born again...



http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html

[Perceivence]

I know so little about dispensationalism that this topic has increased what I know by maybe more than ten times.

But, from what I'm gathering, I've made a few observations that I'd like to have verified:

1. The theology is partially derived from an interpretation of "rightly divide" in 2 Timothy 2:15 as to literally divide into separate sections.

2. The theology is partially derived from an interpretation of the word "dispensation," as occuring in a few time in Paul's letters, as to mean "period of revelation/unravelling" (or something of that sort?).

And as such, based on the above two points, it is based on apparently erroneous interpretations of english translations of greek words that are otherwise clear? From with I've seen, Father Rick hit the nail on the head with the bit about dispensationalists using secondary meanings from english translations of greek words to base their theology....

Ever since dispensationalism began to become a systemised theology (circa 1800s) we have been mis-quoted, mis-represented and basicly attacked because of our grammatical-historical approach to Biblical interpretation. The Bible itself says that is needs to be divided correctly. I'll quote what the Amplified version says about this. But, before I do, I'd like to know...why you're ignoring the most critical parts of Father Rick's and Tsibhod's posts?

2 Timothy 2: 15 (AMP)

15Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth.

P.S. Father Rick - What's an Utrecht?

[Iosias]

Does it get more clear than this... Peter, who openly acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the son of the living God, preached to the Jews gathered in Jerusalem that salvation was through the death and resurrection of Jesus for the forgivenness of sins who had been prophesied by David as being the Davidic messiah.
:confused: Where does Peter do this? Peter is here saying that they had murdered the Messiah and that to escape the judgement for doing this they must accept Him as the Messiah, repent for murdering the Messiah and be baptised for the remission of their sins. There is not mention of the gospel of grace in Acts 2!

[BInC]

Ever since dispensationalism began to become a systemised theology (circa 1800s) we have been mis-quoted, mis-represented and basicly attacked because of our grammatical-historical approach to Biblical interpretation. The Bible itself says that is needs to be divided correctly. Therefore some parts apply to this present age whilst some doe not. This does in no way detract from the Bible. My grandfather sends a letter to myself and another to my father. Now we gain alot from our separate letters however we can also gain from reading each others but that does not mean that the promise of $5000 to my father from my grandfather applies to me nor the promise of $20 to me does not apply to my father even though the same person wrote each letter. This is because the letters were written to different people. In the same way most of the Gospel books are apply to the church whilst the Pauline epistles apply only to the church. Dispensationalism recognises that Gos deals with different people differently...He deals with israel in one way and the church in another. Everything Jesus said is true...but not everything He said was for us (the church)!

Regarding the Kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. this will sound rather complicated so you may need to do further reading...The kingdom of heaven is the messianic earth rule of Christ however Israel rejected it and so it is now in its mystery form. With the coming of the eternal state the KoG = KoH however before then the KoG only encompasses the KoH. The KoH is physical but the KoG is spiritual and it is into that you are baptised when you are born again...



http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html (http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html)
Ok, thank you AV1611. Now I think I understand better what dispensationalism is. I do not really agree, but I guess we will always disagree on some things. However, I like to think of myself as open-minded so I will give this some thought. I doubt it will ever seem right to me though. Thank you for helping me understand your position.

[daveleau]

In regards to the initial topic, the more I have thought about this over the week, the more I disagree. Reading the context of the passage (which coincidentally was part of our sermon on Sunday), it is plain that Jesus was talking to believers about how to pray and it was not specifically regarding the end times. Jesus talks of the end times, but very little and not at all here. I think the ideas I have seen here relegating it to an end times prayer could be us reading our ideas into Scripture and trying to support external ideas rather than taking from the text.

[Iosias]

In regards to the initial topic, the more I have thought about this over the week, the more I disagree. Reading the context of the passage (which coincidentally was part of our sermon on Sunday), it is plain that Jesus was talking to believers about how to pray and it was not specifically regarding the end times. Jesus talks of the end times, but very little and not at all here. I think the ideas I have seen here relegating it to an end times prayer could be us reading our ideas into Scripture and trying to support external ideas rather than taking from the text.
I have not said that the prayer concerns the end times but that it is about the kingdom of heaven which at the time Jesus gave this Prayer was "at hand". However Israel rejected the kingdom and so it was postponed and so the prayer has no relevance to the present age. End times does not factor into the equation!

[daveleau]

So, you are saying that Jesus told us to pray a prayer that is not relevant to us? Many of the parables talk of the Kingdom of Heaven. If this prayer does not apply, what are you thoughts on the parables given in the same context?

[ONE,WHO,REMAINS]

From the knowledge I have accumulated, my best answer is that it is merely a guideline to be followed in the prayer process. Through out all christian religions they each have there way of saying prayers. But the common thread is; admitting your sins, thanking/praising him, asking of him. And that to me is what needs to be incorporated in a prayer.

[daveleau]

From the knowledge I have accumulated, my best answer is that it is merely a guideline to be followed in the prayer process. Through out all christian religions they each have there way of saying prayers. But the common thread is; admitting your sins, thanking/praising him, asking of him. And that to me is what needs to be incorporated in a prayer.

Exactly. I do not feel led to pray this prayer myself, but to say that it is not for the church sounds very strange. The prayer pertains completely as a model of prayer and the words do apply to us to