Dispensationaism Proven.

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
So you believe that Peter and John did not preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Yeshua HaMashiach?

I've given chapter, verse, for years, that at least prior to the dbr, they did not/could not.



1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV "gospel"

Death
Burial
Resurrection

Survey the book...

1.The 12 did not know of the impending dbr-it was hid from them, until later in the Lord's ministry-and yet, prior to them knowing, they were preaching "the gospel of the kingdom:"


"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." Mark 9:31-32 KJV

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Luke 18:31-34 KJV

"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." John 20:9 KJV


2. Peter tried to prevent the Lord Jesus Christ's death, and His death was a key component of 1 Cor. 15:1-4, by which we are reconciled:

"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee" Mt. 16:21-22 KJV

"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him." Mark 8:31-32 KJV

Peter’s response was to rebuke the Lord Jesus Christ. Today, in this dispensation, when someone rebukes the gospel of Christ, what do we call that someone? Lost.Peter certainly wasn’t “looking forward" to the dbr.


3. Even after the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection, the 12 initially did not believe it:

"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Mt. 28:17 KJV

"And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." Mark 16:11 KJV

"And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." Luke 24:9-11 KJV

What do we call someone who “believes not” the resurrection? You got it-lost! If Peter and the 10 were “looking forward to" the dbr, they certainly would not have denied the resurrection after it happened.


" And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?" Luke 24:41 KJV

Therefore, they were not preaching the dbr, "the gospel" of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, as a basis of justification, at least prior to its occurrence, but they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom. They certainly were not "looking forward" to it, and this "didn't fully understand it" jazz is made up-they knew NADA about it, as it was hid from them. They initially denied the resurrection.
 

Right Divider

Body part
12 Apostles or 12 Original Apostles? There are many more than 12 Apostles. Do you understand what a Biblical Apostle is?
Indeed I do. The Lord Jesus Christ chose 12 apostles for the 12 tribes of Israel and those 12 apostles were still addressing the 12 tribes of Israel throughout Acts 1-8

The Lord Jesus Christ was Himself an apostle per Hebrews 3:1
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
They were preaching that the Messiah came without knowing the full Gospel, same as John the Baptist. Are you implying that the 12 did not preach the death burial and resurrection after it occurred?

There is nothing said at Luke 9:6 that even hints the the "gospel" being preached there was not a full gospel. And as I have already demonstrated, at the time the Twelve were preaching that gospel they didn't even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die so they sure were not preaching that Christ died for our sins, the truth that is the heart and soul of the gospel of grace.

On the day of Pentecost Peter did preach the Lord Jesus' death, burial and resurrection but they preached that in order to prove the following:

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ"
(Acts 2:36).​

The Jews who heard that gospel message were born of God and were saved the moment when they believed it:

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 Jn.5:1).​

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).​

It wasn't until Paul that the following gospel truth was revealed:

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus"
(Ro.3:21-24).​
 

binyamin7

Active member
I've given chapter, verse, for years, that at least prior to the dbr, they did not/could not.

And I have likely debated you before with a previous screen name. Listen the 12 knew and believed about the death burial and Resurrection before Saul did. It was an extension of their ministry of the Gospel that the Holy Spirit used to get Saul saved- in Stephens message and possibly others he heard first hand. If you want to create a false distinction in order to prove that you are twisting Paul's Scriptures to your own demise- 2 Peter 3:15-16- you can. I would write Scripture proving Peter and John preached the full Gospel before and after Paul did, but if you can't find it and you think Bobby Enyart speaks ex cathedra, you are not much different than someone praying to Mary or following the Watchtower.


Here is my question, can you show me 2 places you doctrinally disagree with Bob Enyart to prove you are capable of independent thought and not a drone/ machine?
 

binyamin7

Active member
Indeed I do. The Lord Jesus Christ chose 12 apostles for the 12 tribes of Israel and those 12 apostles were still addressing the 12 tribes of Israel throughout Acts 1-8

The Lord Jesus Christ was Himself an apostle per Hebrews 3:1

That is what I thought you would say. What is the label given to Saul and Barnabus in Acts 13:1?
 

binyamin7

Active member
There is nothing said at Luke 9:6 that even hints the the "gospel" being preached there was not a full gospel. And as I have already demonstrated, at the time the Twelve were preaching that gospel they didn't even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die so they sure were not preaching that Christ died for our sins, the truth that is the heart and soul of the gospel of grace.

Please stop mentioning that before the Full Gospel they didn't preach the full Gospel as if that is a point that means something.

On the day of Pentecost Peter did preach the Lord Jesus' death, burial and resurrection but they preached that in order to prove the following:

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ"
(Acts 2:36).​

The Jews who heard that gospel message were born of God and were saved the moment when they believed it:

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 Jn.5:1).​


Yes he did in fact preach the full Gospel you are correct. Why do you suppose Peter said:
"And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.


If that is not clear enough, in 2 Peter 3:15-16 we see that Peter and Paul both wrote to the same group interchangeably. Because they both preached the Gospel.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
And I have likely debated you before with a previous screen name. Listen the 12 knew and believed about the death burial and Resurrection before Saul did. It was an extension of their ministry of the Gospel that the Holy Spirit used to get Saul saved- in Stephens message and possibly others he heard first hand. If you want to create a false distinction in order to prove that you are twisting Paul's Scriptures to your own demise- 2 Peter 3:15-16- you can. I would write Scripture proving Peter and John preached the full Gospel before and after Paul did, but if you can't find it and you think Bobby Enyart speaks ex cathedra, you are not much different than someone praying to Mary or following the Watchtower.


Here is my question, can you show me 2 places you doctrinally disagree with Bob Enyart to prove you are capable of independent thought and not a drone/ machine?

I've given chapter, verse, for years, that at least prior to the dbr, they did not/could not.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
.. to prove you are capable of independent thought and not a drone/ machine?

Quite impressive cliche. Please teach us. Please?

You need to prove to me that you are worthy of me allowing you to engage you.

So there.

You're not in my league. Sit.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Because they both preached the Gospel.

The word "gospel" means "good news" or "glad tidings."

The "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is not the same "good news" that Christ died for our sins. Both are "good news" but not the same "good news."

You still have not provided any evidence that the "gospel" which the Twelve preached at Luke 9:6 is the same gospel that declares that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor.15:3).

Tell us how it was possible that the gospel which the Twelve preached at Luke 9:6 declared that Christ died for our sins because at the time of Luke 9:6 the Twelve didn't even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die.
 

binyamin7

Active member
The word "gospel"means "good news" or "glad tidings."

The "good news that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is not the same "good news" that Christ died for our sins. Both are "good news" but not the same "good news."

You knew I was talking about the Apostolic Gospel.

As you stated earlier, Peter did in fact preach the full Gospel you are correct. Why do you suppose Peter said:

"And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

If that is not clear enough, in 2 Peter 3:15-16 we see that Peter and Paul both wrote to the same group interchangeably. Because they both preached the Gospel.
 

northwye

New member
To prove that dispensationalism is correct the starting postulates or assumptions of dispensationalism have to be stated clearly and these have to be looked at in terms of relevant New Testament scriptures.

I can quote the starting postulates of dispensation by quotations for the founders of this theology and many dispensations here will not agree with these quotes.

"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..

Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has "...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.." Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447

Chafer, a founder of dispensationalism or Christian Zionism, following John Darby and C.I. Scofield, claimed the Bible is a mass or more or less conflicting writings and that dispensationalism or Christian Zionism makes the Bible more easily classified and assimilated, or more easily understood.

In his book, Dispensationalism (1966), Charles Ryrie says "The
essence of Dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel
and the church." (page 3, "Dispensationalism")

J. Dwight Pentecost is another dispensationalist theologian who in his
book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church
and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.
The church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament. (page 193,
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965).

My other interest for this thread is "how is the issue of the division of the Gospel taught by Peter, John, James and other earlier New Testament writers from a supposed different Gospel taught by Paul relevant to the starting doctrines of dispensationalism?" If that difference is important for dispensationalism then dispensationalists should be able to say how it relates to the starting doctrines of the theology.
 

binyamin7

Active member
You still have not provided any evidence that the "gospel" which the Twelve preached at Luke 9:6 is the same gospel that declares that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor.15:3).

Tell us how it was possible that the gospel which the Twelve preached at Luke 9:6 declared that Christ died for our sins because at the time of Luke 9:6 the Twelve didn't even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die.

Please stop saying that people didn't preach Christ crucified before He was in fact crucified. Please stop. No one preached the exactness of Christ crucified before He was. We do not need to rehash that as if it even means anything.
 

binyamin7

Active member
My other interest for this thread is "how is the issue of the division of the Gospel taught by Peter, John, James and other earlier New Testament writers from a supposed different Gospel taught by Paul relevant to the starting doctrines of dispensationalism?" If that difference is important for dispensationalism then dispensationalists should be able to say how it relates to the starting doctrines of the theology.


Because I dared to cast shade on their sacred calf, mid-acts dispensationalism. And instantly they came to defend their leader Enyart who they believe speaks ex-Cathedra.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Please stop saying that people didn't preach Christ crucified before He was in fact crucified. Please stop. No one preached the exactness of Christ crucified before He was. We do not need to rehash that as if it even means anything.

So are you saying that the gospel which the Twelve preached at Luke 9:6 declared that the Lord Jesus was crucified even though the Twelve didn't even know at that time that He was going to die?
 
Top