I was having the following conversation in a discord server I'm in. Names are abbreviated to preserve privacy.
--------
JudgeRightly:
The modern day Israel is a nation in rebellion against her God, cut off temporarily, to. Their evilness is (functionally) no different than any other evil nation's wickedness, currently.
I'm a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. Israel used to have soecial standing with God, and will again in the future, but they're currently just like any other Gentile nation.
I take Paul's position in Romans 10:
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
www.biblegateway.com
C.S.:
Dispensationalism is bad theology.
The blessing promised through Abraham’s bloodline is Jesus who will bless all nations. That promise was fulfilled.
The parable of the vineyard and Matthew 21:43 shows why and explicitly states the kingdom will be taken.
Paul very explicitly states that Jews and gentiles are one and the same in Galatians.
Only through Jesus can one be saved. I can’t remember where the passage is but it says that men who make it to heaven not through belief in Jesus are like thieves.
The followers of Christ are the sons of Abraham per Paul. And the church of Christ is the nation of Israel.
The belief that Jews can be saved without becoming followers of Christ is garbage theology created by the Jew funded Schofield Bible
C.S. (to someone else):
The reason I don’t claim a denomination is because every single one has become corrupted by the interests of men and politics
JudgeRightly:
> Dispensationalism is bad theology
God doesn't do different things at different times with different people?
Does God not change the rules ever?
> the blessing...
Agreed.
> the parable...
Taken?
> Paul very explicitly states...
What he says is that in Christ there is neither "Jew nor Gentile."
Under the New Covenant, however, that distinction remains. Which is why the New Covenant is not Paul's dispensation of the grace of God.
> only through...
Yes, under the dispensation of grace given to Paul, it's "by grace through faith."
But Paul's dispensation (oikonomia) was a mystery kept secret from the foundation of the world. In other words: it's not what most of the Bible says.
Under the New Covenant (and the Old Covenant, both of which were made between the same two parties, God and Israel), yes, it's undergirded by grace, but works were required for salvation.
> passage . . . thieves.
Please find it.
> followers of Christ...
Abraham is the grandfather of Jacob (Israel).
> the belief that Jews can be saved without becoming followers of Christ...
Agreed.
I'm not saying they don't have to follow Christ. They do, even under BOTH dispensations.
JudgeRightly (in response to C.S.'s comment about denominations):
I am very much non-denominational.
But
B.T.M (in response to my breakdown of C.S.'s comment):
Heresy.
JudgeRightly:
If I had to pick one
I'd be closest to Baptist
JudgeRightly (in response to B.T.M):
It's not.
JudgeRightly (in response to B.T.M):
It's literally the story of the Bible.
A.T.P.
All believers are priests and catholicism and orthodox priests are just wanna be Pharisees
JudgeRightly (in response to A.T.P):
The is no priesthood in the Body of Christ.
A.T.P. (in response to me):
Kinda the same net effect as what I said
C.S. (in response to my breakdown of his post):
The “old covenant” is the promise of Jesus to bless the world through one of Abraham’s children. There is no magic blood that saves someone or places them in higher status.
Men are not to be judged by the faults or the accomplishments of their fathers.
Paul was talking about the blessing of Christ and how he cleansed the world. The only thing that changed was the requirement for following the Jewish rituals. There’s a reason Jesus told the Pharisees that they had never knew him, because they never believed in their heart.
There are neither Jew nor gentile, man nor woman, master nor slave, we are all one under Christ Jesus. - there is no distinction. We are all cleansed and are all saved if we take the faith.
JudgeRightly (reply to A.T.P.):
Not really.
A.T.P. (reply to me):
Yeah. It means there is only the believer and their access to the Father through the Son, without need for ordained clergy
JudgeRightly (reply to A.T.P):
That I agree with.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.):
> the "old covenant"...
Yes.
> there is no magic blood...
Agreed. Not my position.
It's not a matter of one's blood when it comes to the Old or New Covenants. It's whether you keep your end of the deal.
But with the Body of Christ, and Paul's dispensation, there's nothing we have to do to uphold the deal. (cf. Genesis 15, contrast with Genesis 17)
> Men are not...
Agreed.
> Paul was talking...
Not quite. He's talking about those who are "sons of God."
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
www.biblegateway.com
"you are all" - he's speaking to believers
"sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ" - this is the current status of those believers
Within that group, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
> the only thing that changed...
Then why did the Jews in Acts 15 continue with circumcision (and to this very day, no less), while they (those in authority in Jerusalem) dispelled any obligation for Paul's converts to circumcise?
In fact, why Paul at all?
Why did God need Paul if the only change was that believers no longer needed to follow Jewish rituals? Why send only one person to the entire world, when you have twelve men who were already previously commanded to go out into the world, who largely ended up never doing so?
> Jesus . . . Pharisees...
Agreed, but at best, this doesn't help your point.
Jesus came preaching about life in the coming Kingdom of Israel, where He would be ruling as King. The Pharisees had completely forgotten that bit.
> there are neither . . . No distinction
Yes, within the Body of Christ, under Paul's dispensation of the grace of God.
But not under the New Covenant, and certainly not under the Old, because under those, Israel IS a special nation to God, set apart from the rest of the world. That program is on hold temporarily, however, until God is done working with and adding to the Body of Christ.
Israel is and always has been, and will again be, a political entity.
The Body of Christ is not a nation. It is a new creature, made up of many members.
C.S. (reply to me):
It is not within the Christian group only. It is within all of us as humans. You are either a follower of Christ or you’re not. Jews don’t have a special deal.
Israel is the church of Christ. It has nothing to do with Jews.
Jews were told that they did not need to continue circumcision. Because that ritual was not required.
Israel was a special people before the birth of Christ. They shunned God, worshipped idols, tarnished his name, and turned their back on his salvation. That is the whole point of the Vineyard and telling them that the kingdom shall be taken from them. They are no longer God’s people. All people are Gods children and everyone who takes the Christian faith is a son of Abraham.
If you believe that you cannot be saved without coming to Christ then dispensationalism is a non sensical idea.
Dispensationalism is essentially the idea that Jesus sacrifice only matters to Gentiles because Jews have their own way to heaven
It’s non sensical theology.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.):
> it is not...
What isn't? That "within the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek"?
Because the Body of Christ are Christians. "All humans" are not Christians.
> you are either...
Was Noah a "follower of Christ"? Enoch? Elijah? Abram/Abraham?
> Jews don't have a special deal.
You seem to be missing the thrust of my argument.
Yes, CURRENTLY, the Jews do not have a special deal. That isn't in dispute.
But you seem to be taking it a step futher (and wrongly) by saying "therefore there's no distinction between Israel and the Body of Christ," that they are the same group that's just changed some of its policies.
That doesn't follow, and doesn't match what the Bible says.
Israel DID HAVE a special deal with God, through Jacob. They were God's chosen people, who were to become a nation of priests to bring the rest of the world back to Him.
That program, where God establishes His Kingdom and sends them out to the world to bring the world to Him, has TEMPORARILY been put on hold (cf. Acts 7-9, Romans 9-11). At some point in the future, God will return to working with Israel directly, as He did in the past, and resume His plans for her and finish establishing His Kingdom (cf. Revelation).
But until that point, unbelieving Israel has been cut off.
The Remnant (the Jews and Gentiles who believed under the New Covenant, mentioned by Paul) died off, as access to the New Covenant had been removed by God. There is no one alive today who is a member of the New Covenant, regardless of what they may claim to believe.
The only "deal," the only "covenant" (to use the term loosely), available right now is Paul's dispensation of grace, "by grace through faith" one is saved.
Note: Both the "Remnant" from back then AND "the Body of Christ" fall into the category of "Christians." Failing to rightly divide between those two groups is what causes confusion. That's why I specify "body of Christ" when talking about modern day believers starting with those who converted under Paul.
> Israel is the church of Christ
Israel WAS the church of Christ. She is currently cut off in her rebellion against Him.
> it has nothing to do with the Jews.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the Jews!
Brief history lesson:
Jews are what remains of what was once the nation God brought out of Egypt.
> Jews were told...
No, they were not.
If they were told "you don't have to circumcise anymore," then why do they still do it to this very day?
The only people who were told "you are not required to circumcise" were Paul's converts.
The entire chapter of Acts 15 (and at least the first half of Galatians 2) is all about men from Judea who came teaching that Paul's converts (the "brethren" in verse 1) needed to be circumcised.
They (the men from Judea) taught that believers must be circumcised. Meaning 17 years after Acts 9, they were still teaching that believers should circumcise!
Nowhere in the entire Council is it mentioned that Jews should no longer circumcise. Only that the GENTILES were not required to.
> that ritual was not required
It's fundamental to the very nature of God's chosen people. The requirement to circumcise came BEFORE Israel ever existed! It PRECEDES the law.
Saying "it's not required" is like saying "it's not necessary for the sun to be hot."
> Israel was a special people before...
Yes, and while they currently hold no special status among other nations, they are still God's chosen nation.
> they are no longer God's people
Paul says otherwise.
www.biblegateway.com
> all people are...
There's something to be said about all of humanity being God's children.
But the context of this discussion is about Israel being God's chosen nation, and the Body of Christ being members of His body, and how all believers under both the New Covenant and Paul's dispensation are "sons of God."
(will continue with the rest in a moment)
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.):
This doesn't hold water.
Were Abraham, David, Elijah, Noah, or any of the Old Testament greats, saved by coming to Christ?
No, none of them were!
They followed God. That's how they were saved. And Noah was saved by obeying God when He said to build an ark.
They were all men of faith.
Yet particularly those who came after Moses (and arguably after Genesis 17), if one did not keep the law, he would be cut off!
Those in the Body of Christ today ARE FREED from the law.
All that to say: God does different things at different times with different people.
That's literally what dispensationalism teaches.
Dispensationalism is the ONLY WAY to make sense of the Bible, because it allows one ot rightly divide the word of truth.
C.S. (reply to me):
They believed in God. They had faith before Jesus showed up and cleansed the world of its sins. The rituals and traditions were required before Jesus because this hadn’t happened yet.
When Jesus died on the cross he fulfilled the original promise in the Old Testament that all nations would be blessed of the seed of Abraham and all people have been placed on the same level.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s comment starting with "Dispensationalism is essentially..."):
Incorrect.
Dispensationalism comes from the greek word "oikonomia" (the same word from which we get our word "economy"). It (literally) means "house rules."
oikos = house
nomos = rules
Adam and Eve had only two house rules: be fruitful and multiply, and don't eat of the tree.
Cain (and the rest of the world) was essentially told not to enforce the death penalty for capital crimes (for all intents and purposes, it's the dispensation of conscience: men did whatever they thought was right in their own eyes).
Noah, immediately upon exiting the ark, was given the command to enforce the death penalty.
Abraham and his house: you must circumcise.
And THAT continues all the way to today.
Moses was given stone tablets with the rules for the House of Israel inscribed on them.
Yet...
Paul comes along and starts teaching that you don't have to be circumcised, nor do you have to keep the Mosaic Laws. He gives a completely different set of house rules for the Body of Christ than Israel has.
> because Jews have their own way to heaven
For the Jews (and Israel as a whole) it's not about "getting to heaven. It's about God establishing His kingdom on earth.
The Body of Christ has its membership in heaven.
C.S.:
For the rest of what you wrote, I agree or don’t disagree depending on what it is I’m not going to read an entire book.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "It's non sensical theology."):
It's only nonsensical if you refuse to acknowledge what it actually teaches.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "They believed in God..."):
Missed the point I was making.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "For the rest..."):
Because of this
C.S. (reply to my "It's only nonsensical if..."):
No. It’s non sensical because it ignores the vast majority of the New Testament for a few excerpts that are improperly applied.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "No. It’s non sensical because..."):
It doesn't ignore anything.
C.S.:
Yes it does
JudgeRightly:
No. It doesn't.
C.S.:
It ignores and twists very explicitly stated scriptures.
JudgeRightly:
It literally lets the ENTIRETY of scripture say what it says.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "It ignores and twists..."):
Such as?
C.S. (reply to my "Such as?"):
Everything I have already stated.
C.S.:
Your theology stems from the Schofield Bible that was written in the 1900s and was commissioned by Jews.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "Everything I have..."):
Which has already been addressed.
C.S. (reply to my "Which has already been addressed."):
No it hasn’t. But we are done now per T.
JudgeRightly (reply to my "Which has already been addressed."):
Which you, per your own words, don't want to read.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "Your theology stems from..."):
No. It comes from rightly dividing scripture, as Paul says.
C.S. (reply to my "No. It comes from..."):
Nope. It’s from the Schofield Bible
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "Nope. It’s..."):
Saying it doesn't make it so.
C.S. (reply to my "Saying it..."):
It being so does make it so
--------
At this point the discussion was forcibly ended by one of the channel moderators. I wasn't going to argue, because they're all friends.
Thoughts?
--------
JudgeRightly:
The modern day Israel is a nation in rebellion against her God, cut off temporarily, to. Their evilness is (functionally) no different than any other evil nation's wickedness, currently.
I'm a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. Israel used to have soecial standing with God, and will again in the future, but they're currently just like any other Gentile nation.
I take Paul's position in Romans 10:
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 10:1-4 - New King James Version
Israel Needs the Gospel - Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness...
C.S.:
Dispensationalism is bad theology.
The blessing promised through Abraham’s bloodline is Jesus who will bless all nations. That promise was fulfilled.
The parable of the vineyard and Matthew 21:43 shows why and explicitly states the kingdom will be taken.
Paul very explicitly states that Jews and gentiles are one and the same in Galatians.
Only through Jesus can one be saved. I can’t remember where the passage is but it says that men who make it to heaven not through belief in Jesus are like thieves.
The followers of Christ are the sons of Abraham per Paul. And the church of Christ is the nation of Israel.
The belief that Jews can be saved without becoming followers of Christ is garbage theology created by the Jew funded Schofield Bible
C.S. (to someone else):
The reason I don’t claim a denomination is because every single one has become corrupted by the interests of men and politics
JudgeRightly:
> Dispensationalism is bad theology
God doesn't do different things at different times with different people?
Does God not change the rules ever?
> the blessing...
Agreed.
> the parable...
Taken?
> Paul very explicitly states...
What he says is that in Christ there is neither "Jew nor Gentile."
Under the New Covenant, however, that distinction remains. Which is why the New Covenant is not Paul's dispensation of the grace of God.
> only through...
Yes, under the dispensation of grace given to Paul, it's "by grace through faith."
But Paul's dispensation (oikonomia) was a mystery kept secret from the foundation of the world. In other words: it's not what most of the Bible says.
Under the New Covenant (and the Old Covenant, both of which were made between the same two parties, God and Israel), yes, it's undergirded by grace, but works were required for salvation.
> passage . . . thieves.
Please find it.
> followers of Christ...
Abraham is the grandfather of Jacob (Israel).
> the belief that Jews can be saved without becoming followers of Christ...
Agreed.
I'm not saying they don't have to follow Christ. They do, even under BOTH dispensations.
JudgeRightly (in response to C.S.'s comment about denominations):
I am very much non-denominational.
But
B.T.M (in response to my breakdown of C.S.'s comment):
Heresy.
JudgeRightly:
If I had to pick one
I'd be closest to Baptist
JudgeRightly (in response to B.T.M):
It's not.
JudgeRightly (in response to B.T.M):
It's literally the story of the Bible.
A.T.P.
All believers are priests and catholicism and orthodox priests are just wanna be Pharisees
JudgeRightly (in response to A.T.P):
The is no priesthood in the Body of Christ.
A.T.P. (in response to me):
Kinda the same net effect as what I said
C.S. (in response to my breakdown of his post):
The “old covenant” is the promise of Jesus to bless the world through one of Abraham’s children. There is no magic blood that saves someone or places them in higher status.
Men are not to be judged by the faults or the accomplishments of their fathers.
Paul was talking about the blessing of Christ and how he cleansed the world. The only thing that changed was the requirement for following the Jewish rituals. There’s a reason Jesus told the Pharisees that they had never knew him, because they never believed in their heart.
There are neither Jew nor gentile, man nor woman, master nor slave, we are all one under Christ Jesus. - there is no distinction. We are all cleansed and are all saved if we take the faith.
JudgeRightly (reply to A.T.P.):
Not really.
A.T.P. (reply to me):
Yeah. It means there is only the believer and their access to the Father through the Son, without need for ordained clergy
JudgeRightly (reply to A.T.P):
That I agree with.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.):
> the "old covenant"...
Yes.
> there is no magic blood...
Agreed. Not my position.
It's not a matter of one's blood when it comes to the Old or New Covenants. It's whether you keep your end of the deal.
But with the Body of Christ, and Paul's dispensation, there's nothing we have to do to uphold the deal. (cf. Genesis 15, contrast with Genesis 17)
> Men are not...
Agreed.
> Paul was talking...
Not quite. He's talking about those who are "sons of God."
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 3:26-29 - New King James Version
Sons and Heirs - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are...
"you are all" - he's speaking to believers
"sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ" - this is the current status of those believers
Within that group, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
> the only thing that changed...
Then why did the Jews in Acts 15 continue with circumcision (and to this very day, no less), while they (those in authority in Jerusalem) dispelled any obligation for Paul's converts to circumcise?
In fact, why Paul at all?
Why did God need Paul if the only change was that believers no longer needed to follow Jewish rituals? Why send only one person to the entire world, when you have twelve men who were already previously commanded to go out into the world, who largely ended up never doing so?
> Jesus . . . Pharisees...
Agreed, but at best, this doesn't help your point.
Jesus came preaching about life in the coming Kingdom of Israel, where He would be ruling as King. The Pharisees had completely forgotten that bit.
> there are neither . . . No distinction
Yes, within the Body of Christ, under Paul's dispensation of the grace of God.
But not under the New Covenant, and certainly not under the Old, because under those, Israel IS a special nation to God, set apart from the rest of the world. That program is on hold temporarily, however, until God is done working with and adding to the Body of Christ.
Israel is and always has been, and will again be, a political entity.
The Body of Christ is not a nation. It is a new creature, made up of many members.
C.S. (reply to me):
It is not within the Christian group only. It is within all of us as humans. You are either a follower of Christ or you’re not. Jews don’t have a special deal.
Israel is the church of Christ. It has nothing to do with Jews.
Jews were told that they did not need to continue circumcision. Because that ritual was not required.
Israel was a special people before the birth of Christ. They shunned God, worshipped idols, tarnished his name, and turned their back on his salvation. That is the whole point of the Vineyard and telling them that the kingdom shall be taken from them. They are no longer God’s people. All people are Gods children and everyone who takes the Christian faith is a son of Abraham.
If you believe that you cannot be saved without coming to Christ then dispensationalism is a non sensical idea.
Dispensationalism is essentially the idea that Jesus sacrifice only matters to Gentiles because Jews have their own way to heaven
It’s non sensical theology.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.):
> it is not...
What isn't? That "within the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek"?
Because the Body of Christ are Christians. "All humans" are not Christians.
> you are either...
Was Noah a "follower of Christ"? Enoch? Elijah? Abram/Abraham?
> Jews don't have a special deal.
You seem to be missing the thrust of my argument.
Yes, CURRENTLY, the Jews do not have a special deal. That isn't in dispute.
But you seem to be taking it a step futher (and wrongly) by saying "therefore there's no distinction between Israel and the Body of Christ," that they are the same group that's just changed some of its policies.
That doesn't follow, and doesn't match what the Bible says.
Israel DID HAVE a special deal with God, through Jacob. They were God's chosen people, who were to become a nation of priests to bring the rest of the world back to Him.
That program, where God establishes His Kingdom and sends them out to the world to bring the world to Him, has TEMPORARILY been put on hold (cf. Acts 7-9, Romans 9-11). At some point in the future, God will return to working with Israel directly, as He did in the past, and resume His plans for her and finish establishing His Kingdom (cf. Revelation).
But until that point, unbelieving Israel has been cut off.
The Remnant (the Jews and Gentiles who believed under the New Covenant, mentioned by Paul) died off, as access to the New Covenant had been removed by God. There is no one alive today who is a member of the New Covenant, regardless of what they may claim to believe.
The only "deal," the only "covenant" (to use the term loosely), available right now is Paul's dispensation of grace, "by grace through faith" one is saved.
Note: Both the "Remnant" from back then AND "the Body of Christ" fall into the category of "Christians." Failing to rightly divide between those two groups is what causes confusion. That's why I specify "body of Christ" when talking about modern day believers starting with those who converted under Paul.
> Israel is the church of Christ
Israel WAS the church of Christ. She is currently cut off in her rebellion against Him.
> it has nothing to do with the Jews.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the Jews!
Brief history lesson:
Jews are what remains of what was once the nation God brought out of Egypt.
> Jews were told...
No, they were not.
If they were told "you don't have to circumcise anymore," then why do they still do it to this very day?
The only people who were told "you are not required to circumcise" were Paul's converts.
The entire chapter of Acts 15 (and at least the first half of Galatians 2) is all about men from Judea who came teaching that Paul's converts (the "brethren" in verse 1) needed to be circumcised.
They (the men from Judea) taught that believers must be circumcised. Meaning 17 years after Acts 9, they were still teaching that believers should circumcise!
Nowhere in the entire Council is it mentioned that Jews should no longer circumcise. Only that the GENTILES were not required to.
> that ritual was not required
It's fundamental to the very nature of God's chosen people. The requirement to circumcise came BEFORE Israel ever existed! It PRECEDES the law.
Saying "it's not required" is like saying "it's not necessary for the sun to be hot."
> Israel was a special people before...
Yes, and while they currently hold no special status among other nations, they are still God's chosen nation.
> they are no longer God's people
Paul says otherwise.
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 11:1-6, Romans 11:11-32 - New King James Version
Israel’s Rejection Not Total - I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God...
> all people are...
There's something to be said about all of humanity being God's children.
But the context of this discussion is about Israel being God's chosen nation, and the Body of Christ being members of His body, and how all believers under both the New Covenant and Paul's dispensation are "sons of God."
(will continue with the rest in a moment)
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.):
This doesn't hold water.
Were Abraham, David, Elijah, Noah, or any of the Old Testament greats, saved by coming to Christ?
No, none of them were!
They followed God. That's how they were saved. And Noah was saved by obeying God when He said to build an ark.
They were all men of faith.
Yet particularly those who came after Moses (and arguably after Genesis 17), if one did not keep the law, he would be cut off!
Those in the Body of Christ today ARE FREED from the law.
All that to say: God does different things at different times with different people.
That's literally what dispensationalism teaches.
Dispensationalism is the ONLY WAY to make sense of the Bible, because it allows one ot rightly divide the word of truth.
C.S. (reply to me):
They believed in God. They had faith before Jesus showed up and cleansed the world of its sins. The rituals and traditions were required before Jesus because this hadn’t happened yet.
When Jesus died on the cross he fulfilled the original promise in the Old Testament that all nations would be blessed of the seed of Abraham and all people have been placed on the same level.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s comment starting with "Dispensationalism is essentially..."):
Incorrect.
Dispensationalism comes from the greek word "oikonomia" (the same word from which we get our word "economy"). It (literally) means "house rules."
oikos = house
nomos = rules
Adam and Eve had only two house rules: be fruitful and multiply, and don't eat of the tree.
Cain (and the rest of the world) was essentially told not to enforce the death penalty for capital crimes (for all intents and purposes, it's the dispensation of conscience: men did whatever they thought was right in their own eyes).
Noah, immediately upon exiting the ark, was given the command to enforce the death penalty.
Abraham and his house: you must circumcise.
And THAT continues all the way to today.
Moses was given stone tablets with the rules for the House of Israel inscribed on them.
Yet...
Paul comes along and starts teaching that you don't have to be circumcised, nor do you have to keep the Mosaic Laws. He gives a completely different set of house rules for the Body of Christ than Israel has.
> because Jews have their own way to heaven
For the Jews (and Israel as a whole) it's not about "getting to heaven. It's about God establishing His kingdom on earth.
The Body of Christ has its membership in heaven.
C.S.:
For the rest of what you wrote, I agree or don’t disagree depending on what it is I’m not going to read an entire book.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "It's non sensical theology."):
It's only nonsensical if you refuse to acknowledge what it actually teaches.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "They believed in God..."):
Missed the point I was making.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "For the rest..."):
Because of this
C.S. (reply to my "It's only nonsensical if..."):
No. It’s non sensical because it ignores the vast majority of the New Testament for a few excerpts that are improperly applied.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "No. It’s non sensical because..."):
It doesn't ignore anything.
C.S.:
Yes it does
JudgeRightly:
No. It doesn't.
C.S.:
It ignores and twists very explicitly stated scriptures.
JudgeRightly:
It literally lets the ENTIRETY of scripture say what it says.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "It ignores and twists..."):
Such as?
C.S. (reply to my "Such as?"):
Everything I have already stated.
C.S.:
Your theology stems from the Schofield Bible that was written in the 1900s and was commissioned by Jews.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "Everything I have..."):
Which has already been addressed.
C.S. (reply to my "Which has already been addressed."):
No it hasn’t. But we are done now per T.
JudgeRightly (reply to my "Which has already been addressed."):
Which you, per your own words, don't want to read.
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "Your theology stems from..."):
No. It comes from rightly dividing scripture, as Paul says.
C.S. (reply to my "No. It comes from..."):
Nope. It’s from the Schofield Bible
JudgeRightly (reply to C.S.'s "Nope. It’s..."):
Saying it doesn't make it so.
C.S. (reply to my "Saying it..."):
It being so does make it so
--------
At this point the discussion was forcibly ended by one of the channel moderators. I wasn't going to argue, because they're all friends.
Thoughts?
