Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation

[Lighthouse]

Do you think God's decision to take the gospel to the Gentiles was an afterthought? Did He decide this after He had set aside Israel?

Going to the Gentiles, no. Going to them apart from the law, to invoke jealousy among Israel, because they rejected Him, yes.

But it was not an afterthought. It was born from God's previous plan. But because of Israel's rejection, God modified His plan, slightly.

And in the end, if Peter and the other 11 gave us the same thing Paul did, why did we even need Paul?

 

[Sozo]

Going to the Gentiles, no. Going to them apart from the law, to invoke jealousy among Israel, because they rejected Him, yes.

But it was not an afterthought. It was born from God's previous plan. But because of Israel's rejection, God modified His plan, slightly.

I believe that God knew of Isreal's rejection beforehand, and planned to raise up someone who would bring His message to the Gentiles. I do not believe it was modified.

And in the end, if Peter and the other 11 gave us the same thing Paul did, why did we even need Paul?

God used Peter, and the others, to bring the message to the Jews knowing full well that they would reject it.

When Jesus died on the cross, it was for the whole world at that time, only it was not revealed to be so, until Paul made it known.

 

[Lighthouse]

I believe that God knew of Isreal's rejection beforehand, and planned to raise up someone who would bring His message to the Gentiles. I do not believe it was modified.

God used Peter, and the others, to bring the message to the Jews knowing full well that they would reject it.

When Jesus died on the cross, it was for the whole world at that time, only it was not revealed to be so, until Paul made it known.

Well, you're halfway to being a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. But I believe the parable of the fig tree shows that God believed it possible for Israel to accept Him, and He gave them a year, after Jesus' three years. Just as He gave Nineveh a chance to repent.

 

[Sozo]

Well, you're halfway to being a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. But I believe the parable of the fig tree shows that God believed it possible for Israel to accept Him, and He gave them a year, after Jesus' three years. Just as He gave Nineveh a chance to repent.

I think you would have to discount much of Paul's writings about the impact of Jesus' death and resurrection if Israel could have accepted Jesus as Messiah.

 

[Lighthouse]

I think you would have to discount much of Paul's writings about the impact of Jesus' death and resurrection if Israel could have accepted Jesus as Messiah.

How so?

I say, if they had accepted, we would not have Paul's writings.

 

[Sozo]

How so?

I say, if they had accepted, we would not have Paul's writings.

Why would we?

 

[Lighthouse]

Why would we?

That is my point. We wouldn't need Paul.

 

[Sozo]

That is my point. We wouldn't need Paul.

And we also would not have the fullness of the gospel. The very reasons that Jesus died and rose again.

 

[Lighthouse]

And we also would not have the fullness of the gospel. The very reasons that Jesus died and rose again.

So, if Israel had accepted Jesus, then we would not have the fulness of the gospel?

 

[Aletheia]

I am a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist.

 

[Sozo]

So, if Israel had accepted Jesus, then we would not have the fulness of the gospel?

Isn't that the contention of Mid-Acts dispensationalists?

 

[godrulz]

The cross was one dividing point, yes. But the dividing point between the law, and grace by faith alone was the conversion of Paul. This can be seen in Acts 15, and in Peter's vision of the blanket of food. Peter was very adamant that he would not eat anything unclean. It was Paul who preached that we could eat whatever, because it was no longer wrong to do so, in any instance.

I think the traditional understanding of these historical narratives is not as problematic as your view.

 

[Lighthouse]

Isn't that the contention of Mid-Acts dispensationalists?

No. I fully believe that the dispensation of grace would have come about another way, if Israel had not rejected Christ.

 

[Sozo]

No. I fully believe that the dispensation of grace would have come about another way, if Israel had not rejected Christ.

Please explain.

 

[Lighthouse]

I think the traditional understanding of these historical narratives is not as problematic as your view.

Okay then, let's hash that out...

 

[Lighthouse]

Please explain.

I believe that if Israel had not rejected Christ, and therefore been set aside, then the message of grace apart from the law would have come, eventually. Just not when it did.

 

[Sozo]

I believe that if Israel had not rejected Christ, and therefore been set aside, then the message of grace apart from the law would have come, eventually. Just not when it did.

For what reason?

What would have been different if Christ was not rejected by Israel?

 

[Lighthouse]

For what reason?

What would have been different if Christ was not rejected by Israel?

The law would have been continued to be taught, for a time. And the Jews would have made converts of the Gentiles, under the law, before the dispensation of grace was dispensed.

 

[Sozo]

The law would have been continued to be taught, for a time. And the Jews would have made converts of the Gentiles, under the law, before the dispensation of grace was dispensed.

But why? Why is it necessary to have two dispensations if Israel accepted Jesus as Lord?

 

[jeremiah]

But why? Why is it necessary to have two dispensations if Israel accepted Jesus as Lord?

Good question! If they are saying we had to have a different gospel and dispensation because Israel, in part rejected Jesus, then why is he saying that if they had accepted Jesus ,in whole, that the gentiles would still have required a different gospel.

He is undercutting his own reasoning?