AV Bible Believers Fellowship

First let me say that I believe in dispensational thought. It is obvious that certain things pertain to certain people at certain times, i.e., the sacrifices of the O.T. not for N.T. believers and have for the most part been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. However, let me preface my concern with an actual scenario. I was a younger man sitting in an IFB college and the professor said this, "Don't take any doctrine out of the four gospels." Being a learner, I just took it in, but years later as I began to grow (again,) and hunger in my relationship with the Lord, I found that I was looking to the words of Christ for my life. Afterall, if I negate the four gospels, I am negating the words of Christ. I believe this is going too far.

An example of Christ's words for my life would be as follows:

John 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

I used to be quite proud of the somewhat militant attitude I had as an (as we'd say,) Independent, fundamental, tempermental, Baptist. It seemed funny at the time, but anyone who was not in our "camp," was the subject of ridicule and unlovely talk. Eventually the Lord dealt with me abou this. I may not be able to have church fellowship with all believers, but they are my brothers and sisters and I am to love them, period.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

I understand the doctrine of eternal security, I believe in the eternal life of a truely born again Christian. However, when we strip all the theology away, (how we describe things,) the bottom line is, in the end, on judgement day, only the followers are Christ's sheep. He said so. Do I negate what he said because I don't take my doctrine out of the four gospels? Of course not. He is being practical in his words.

O.k., brethren, let er fly!

Bro. Ben

I have no disagreement with what you've said, here.

I look at context when I study verses:

To whom was this verse spoken to?

Does it apply to me, doctrinally?

And if in doubt, I pray about it.

(04-08-2010 03:11 PM)a pilgrim Wrote: [ -> ]First let me say that I believe in dispensational thought. It is obvious that certain things pertain to certain people at certain times, i.e., the sacrifices of the O.T. not for N.T. believers and have for the most part been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. However, let me preface my concern with an actual scenario. I was a younger man sitting in an IFB college and the professor said this, "Don't take any doctrine out of the four gospels." Being a learner, I just took it in, but years later as I began to grow (again,) and hunger in my relationship with the Lord, I found that I was looking to the words of Christ for my life. Afterall, if I negate the four gospels, I am negating the words of Christ. I believe this is going too far.

An example of Christ's words for my life would be as follows:

John 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

I used to be quite proud of the somewhat militant attitude I had as an (as we'd say,) Independent, fundamental, tempermental, Baptist. It seemed funny at the time, but anyone who was not in our "camp," was the subject of ridicule and unlovely talk. Eventually the Lord dealt with me abou this. I may not be able to have church fellowship with all believers, but they are my brothers and sisters and I am to love them, period.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

I understand the doctrine of eternal security, I believe in the eternal life of a truely born again Christian. However, when we strip all the theology away, (how we describe things,) the bottom line is, in the end, on judgement day, only the followers are Christ's sheep. He said so. Do I negate what he said because I don't take my doctrine out of the four gospels? Of course not. He is being practical in his words.

O.k., brethren, let er fly!

Bro. Ben

Ya, that's hyperdispensationalism when people just automatically discount things in the Gospels. The acid test is does it contradict something Paul said?

To make it real simple, God said not to eat pigs, but then in Acts He said to have at it. Now, if Paul in turn said we needed to go back to a non-pig like diet, then that's what we'd need to do. That will probably happen in the Millennium when people go back under the law, so enjoy your bacon while you can.

(04-23-2010 03:14 PM)Rick Schworer Wrote: [ -> ]Ya, that's hyperdispensationalism when people just automatically discount things in the Gospels. The acid test is does it contradict something Paul said?

To make it real simple, God said not to eat pigs, but then in Acts He said to have at it. Now, if Paul in turn said we needed to go back to a non-pig like diet, then that's what we'd need to do. That will probably happen in the Millennium when people go back under the law, so enjoy your bacon while you can.

Believe me when I say that 'hyperdispensationalists" do not "just automatically discount" things in the Gospels." The teachings of Jesus Christ are taken very seriously. However, I'd like to submit this information: Since we live after the cross, we might think that we are living under the New Testament. Not true. The Bible has a precise meaning for Old Testament, and it also has a precise meaning for New Testament. Jeremiah 31:31 defines the New Testament, which is also called the new covenant. "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." I don't know about you, but I am not of the house of Israel or Judah, and therefore I have no right to claim these promises. They simply do not belong to me. True, we live after the cross, but we do not live in the New Testament. we live during the dispensation of grace.

Think about this - contrary to popular belief, the New Testament doesn't begin at the birth of Christ. Scripture tells us that the New Testament could not possibly begin until AFTER the death of Christ. Look at Hebrews 9:14-17 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

The New Testament did not begin until the death of the mediator of the New Testament (Jesus Christ). The four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - contain Old Testament information. Doctrinally, they are Old Testament. God was operating the world according to Old Testament principles during the time period of the four Gospels. Look at Galatians 4:4 - "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." The way to obtain eternal life during Christ's early ministry was through observing Old Testament law. Animals were offered for sacrifice as a temporary covering for sin, as God had not yet given the revelation of the gospel of grace. Jesus Christ lived under the Old Testament dispensation of Law.

If you want to live doctrinally according to the four Gospels, you'd better get your animal sacrifices ready, be ready to give ALL you have to the poor (Matthew 19:16-21), and according to Mark 16, drink poison, handle snakes, speak in tongues, heal the sick, and cast out devils.

When we use the word "gospel" we automatically take it to mean the same thing throughout Scripture. But, gospel does not always mean the same thing. In Matthew 4:23 the gospel of the kingdom is referred to; the gospel of the grace of God is referred to in Acts 20:24, and the everlasting gospel is referred to in Revelation 14:6.

While we are to study and learn much from the teachings of Jesus Christ in the four Gospels (as in the entire Bible), if we take our doctrinal beliefs from them, we are putting ourselves back under the law.

Yes, Paul was given new information from our Lord and Saviour Himself through direct revelation, and yes, it does contradict the doctrin of the fours Gospels.

Respectfully submitted.
Grace and peace to all who post here.

What does follow mean? Does it mean to follow, as in come after, or does it mean to imitate. Modern versions change it to imitate, which means "act like". Follow means follow - he is the leader, we are the sheep. Sheep walk off the path, are stupid, dumb animals that need a shepherd. They do not imitate the shepherd. They are nothing like the shepherd. They follow the shepherd.

So, someone could be following Jesus Christ, and yet walking unworthily. The sheep hear the voice of God and respond. He says "Luke, that path is wrong" and I hear and go after Him. A little while later "Luke, that path is still wrong" and I hear and go after Him. A little while later and He gets out the shepherds crook, and I go after Him. The goat just keeps on walking around, oblivious to the sound of the shepherds voice.

Also, I don't think anyone negates the words of Christ, especially if he "negates" them himself.

For example

"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matthew 6:15 vs

"Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." Colossians 3:13

We have Christ's earthly message - forgive in order to be forgiven.
VS
Christ's Pauline message (remember, it's not "paul's message". It's Jesus through Paul) - Forgive BECAUSE you ARE forgiven.

There are doctrinal issues here, but it's pretty easy to see that what came before the cross is different to that after the cross.

It is also important not to read our own understanding into passages. Follow does not mean "do good works" or "live a good life". It means to come after. If any many come after me, he must take up his cross daily. Even that doesn't mean "do good works". It means die. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ.

God bless

P.S. I am not a "hyper", although I am probably dispensational enough to be considered one by most. However, whenever I try to answer these questions (and honestly, who am I to attempt it really?), I try to answer from the mindset of the person asking. Since I've been under almost every major theological system (Calvinism, Amillennialism, Premil, etc etc), I kind of have an understanding of how people read things, although, on the flipside, it's confusing at times lol.

(06-21-2010 03:41 PM)Luke Wrote: [ -> ]What does follow mean? Does it mean to follow, as in come after, or does it mean to imitate. Modern versions change it to imitate, which means "act like". Follow means follow - he is the leader, we are the sheep. Sheep walk off the path, are stupid, dumb animals that need a shepherd. They do not imitate the shepherd. They are nothing like the shepherd. They follow the shepherd.

So, someone could be following Jesus Christ, and yet walking unworthily. The sheep hear the voice of God and respond. He says "Luke, that path is wrong" and I hear and go after Him. A little while later "Luke, that path is still wrong" and I hear and go after Him. A little while later and He gets out the shepherds crook, and I go after Him. The goat just keeps on walking around, oblivious to the sound of the shepherds voice.

Also, I don't think anyone negates the words of Christ, especially if he "negates" them himself.

For example

"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matthew 6:15 vs

"Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." Colossians 3:13

We have Christ's earthly message - forgive in order to be forgiven.
VS
Christ's Pauline message (remember, it's not "paul's message". It's Jesus through Paul) - Forgive BECAUSE you ARE forgiven.

There are doctrinal issues here, but it's pretty easy to see that what came before the cross is different to that after the cross.

It is also important not to read our own understanding into passages. Follow does not mean "do good works" or "live a good life". It means to come after. If any many come after me, he must take up his cross daily. Even that doesn't mean "do good works". It means die. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ.

God bless

P.S. I am not a "hyper", although I am probably dispensational enough to be considered one by most. However, whenever I try to answer these questions (and honestly, who am I to attempt it really?), I try to answer from the mindset of the person asking. Since I've been under almost every major theological system (Calvinism, Amillennialism, Premil, etc etc), I kind of have an understanding of how people read things, although, on the flipside, it's confusing at times lol.

Luke - you are so right. And it all comes down to right division of
Scripture. If we don't rightly divide it, we will take many passages out of context. This leads to confusion about who is being addressed and what God expects from us in this dispensation of grace. I'm glad to hear that you have waded through the confusion and came to the truth that so many miss completely.

Good post.
God Bless.

There is pratical and doctrinal information for the Church age saint in the gospels.

What Jesus said applied to four dispensations:

1. The Law. He was under the Law at the time.
2. The Tribulation. Had the Jews accepted Christ, the Tribulation would have had to still happen because it was prophesied. Many of the things He spoke of pertained to it.
3. The Millennium. When He spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, most of the time He was talking about the Millennium, see Matt. 5-7.
4. The Church Age. Most of the doctrine in John pertains to the Church Age. If you say that there is no Church Age doctrine taught by Jesus, then you just tossed out some of the BEST verses on eternal security in the Bible. Jesus knew there was a good chance of a 2,000 year Church Age, so of course He said things that would apply to it.

Now, the question arises, what goes where?

1. If Paul echoes it, then it's Church Age doctine for sure.
2. If Paul says something completly contrary to it, then it's not.
3. If Paul is silent on it, weeeeeeellll... that's a whole other thing now isn't it?

This is one of the most positive and edifying threads I've seen, which is surely the grace of God, because the subject is so controversial. So far, I appreciate every single post, which have been well-reasoned and well-intended.

All of us declare ourselves to be dispensationalists, but within the ranks of real Bible believers, there are differences. Schworer and Grace and Pilgrim and I do not see everything exactly the same way; neither does Luke and Here Am I. As Ruckman says, and as I never tire of repeating, the King James Bible produces individuals, not clones.

For example, I agree with every word of Brother Rick's posts. I think he's got it right. But the tone of his emphasis on Paul makes me uneasy; he makes it sound like Paul is the final authority, rather than the totality of the scriptures. But I know him well enough to know that he doesn't believe that. As I say, it's a matter of tone, or perhaps a matter of my own sensitivities. There are those for whom Paul is the only authority, but they are the extremists, and Schworer is not among them.

Sometimes the differences, such as the differences between Grace and myself, are so fine that they can only be discerned by the sword of the Spirit. (I chose Grace's name at random.) We labor in vain to find perfect agreement, because, even if God gives is equal light, He does not give us perfect abilities to articulate our positions! Often, a preacher will seem to contradict himself, if one looks at many of his messages: a sermon on eternal security might seem to contradict a message on holy living. But such are the inadequacies of language. By the grace of God, there are no inadequacies in the language of the King James Bible.

When I read the Gospels, or the Old Testament, I accept them as equally valid as the Pauline writings, on the basis of 2 Tim. 3:16. But I don't accept them, necessarily, as doctrine for the present age; I accept their historical and spiritual and prophetic value. Even within the Pauline writings, I understand that some are not intended for me doctrinally: in Hebrews, he certainly teaches that someone can lose their salvation. But it's not me. I'm not a first-century Hebrew or a Tribulation saint.

Someone says, "If you reject a passage as doctrine, how can you claim to believe 2 Tim. 3:16?" Because the verse doesn't say that every verse is doctrinally applicable to every age: it says that every verse is profitable for doctrine. Understanding the doctrinal setting of Matthew helps me to better understand the doctrine that applies to my own age. That's rightly dividing: line upon line, precept upon precept.

The longer I study right division, the more I see that it's simple common sense. Not easy, but simple: it requires much study and prayer. The real problems arise when we allow a teacher to do our thinking for us, and accept him as the final authority. That road leads nowhere, whether the teacher is Larkin or Bullinger or Ruckman. We are each to "rightly divide," as we are each to pray. If we don't expect the preacher to do all our praying for us, we shouldn't expect the teacher to do all our rightly dividing. God wants us to study.

Well put William.

When I say Paul, I'm speaking of his clear cut Church Age epistles.

When it comes to Hebrews, I'm not sold on the idea that it teaches individuals can lose their salvation. Honestly, I'm not 100% on it either way though.

One of the best verses on eternal security is in Hebrews:

Heb 13:5, "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

Now, some heretic down south (you know I'm just kidding) teaches that this was written much later than the first twelve chapters were written - but there's no proof of that.

Bro. Ben offered a good explanation for Hebrews 10 in the thread "Baptist Problem Texts". I think if developed further, it could be very profitable.

(06-22-2010 11:43 AM)Rick Schworer Wrote: [ -> ]Well put William.

When I say Paul, I'm speaking of his clear cut Church Age epistles.

When it comes to Hebrews, I'm not sold on the idea that it teaches individuals can lose their salvation. Honestly, I'm not 100% on it either way though.

One of the best verses on eternal security is in Hebrews:

Heb 13:5, "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

Now, some heretic down south (you know I'm just kidding) teaches that this was written much later than the first twelve chapters were written - but there's no proof of that.

Bro. Ben offered a good explanation for Hebrews 10 in the thread "Baptist Problem Texts". I think if developed further, it could be very profitable.

I have always been of the opinion that the first twelve chapters were written separately, and could have been an actual sermon; and that the thirteenth was a sort of "cover letter." I think the guy down south makes a lot of sense in teaching that Paul wrote the first part in Arabia, but it's not something that can be proved, and it's dangerous to argue from silence. But I believe strongly in the Pauline authorship as a whole. That was settled in 1611.