AV Bible Believers Fellowship

One of our members asked yesterday, in another section, about God's plan of salvation for people who are alive during the Great Tribulation. That's a very interesting subject, and with the help of the brothers and sisters here, we'll discuss it. But first, we need to lay a little background.

No, we need to lay a lot of background. So if you're in a hurry, you might put off reading this post until you have a few minutes, because it's gonna be a long one.

The evangelical and fundamentalist "party line" is this: "People in the Old Testament were saved by looking forward to the cross; people are now saved, and always will be, by looking back at the cross." This viewpoint says that everyone who was ever saved, or ever will be saved, was saved by grace through faith, in the finished work of Jesus Christ, God incarnate. That's how we're saved today, in the so-called Church Age. That's exactly how we're saved today: 1 Corinthians 15 and Ephesians 2:8, 9 are very clear!

But it hasn't always been that way. People have been saved in different ways, at different times; and in the Tribulation, they'll be saved in a different way than we are today. That goes against the doctrinal and theological traditions that most of us have been raised with, I know. But if those doctrines and traditions don't line up with the Bible, or make the Bible contradict itself, what good are they?

First, let's be clear what we're talking about. I do not intend, in this post, to address the matters of predestination, free will, election, or who'll win the World Series this year. Nor will I discuss the ordo saludis, the "order of salvation," the sequence of events that occurs in a person's salvation. No, I'm simply going to take the Philippian jailor's question - - - "Sir, what must I do to be saved?" - - - and suggest what the answer would be at various times in human history.

First, and of greatest importance, is supplying the answer for the times in which we now live. Obviously, this is of the greatest urgency: after all, if I misunderstand the "plan of salvation" for an Old Testament Jew or Gentile, I really won't suffer any consequences; but if I get confused about what God requires today, I'll die in my sins and only learn of my mistake when I find myself in Hell!! And, happily, God's requirements for salvation are quite clear for the period of time in which we live.

How can a man or woman be saved today? Why, it's so simple that even a child can understand: it's only obscure to an "intellectual." As Paul said to the Philippian jailor: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved (Acts 16:31). That's it. By a deliberate, conscious act of the will, place your trust in Jesus Christ for your salvation; confess that you need Him, and receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them that believe on His name (John 1:12) This is an act of faith. To repeat Paul's words, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8,9). It's all about faith, not works. Our "good works" - - - trying to keep the 10 Commandments, going to church, giving money to charity, fighting social evils like abortion - - - may be very positive, and are not to be despised: but they will not move us a single inch closer to Heaven. We are not saved by the good things we do; we are saved by what Jesus Christ did, once and for all, when He died for us. That is the "plan of salvation" for the age in which we live, and there is no other plan, regardless of anyone's opinions, objections, or "religious convictions." We can only be saved by faith in Jesus Christ....plus nothing!

So what about other periods of human history? Are we actually gonna suggest that there was (or will be) a different plan of salvation at some point? Of course not: that would be heresy. I'm gonna suggest, and demonstrate from Scripture, that there were four or five different plans!

Somebody says, "Why, that's outrageous! Shelton Smith and John MacArthur and Rick Warren and Jack Hyles never taught any such thing!" To which I can only shrug my shoulders, and say, "Let God be true, and every man a liar. What saith the scripture?"

As I acknowledged at the outset, the "majority position" among evangelicals and fundamentalists is that folks in the Old Testament were saved in the same way that we are saved today: by faith in God's Messiah. But this begs the question, because the Old Testament covered a lot of time and a lot of territory, and people operated in several unique spiritual environments.

For example, consider our first parents. How were Adam and Eve saved? What were the requirements, the "plan" that God laid down for them? Why, it was simplicity itself: "See that tree over there? Don't eat its fruit, and everything will be fine. You won't have to worry about going to Heaven when you die, because you'll never die; you'll live forever in perfect harmony with God right here." This was sheer, undiluted "salvation by works:" it depended on observing a single dietary restriction. "Faith" was an unknown quantity in the Garden; they talked with God face to face, and He was as real to them as the sunshine and the animals. They didn't need "faith" in God or the Republican Party or even (I say it reverently) the coming Messiah. Indeed, the Messiah wasn't even prophesied (Genesis 3:15) until after they had sinned!

Naturally, Adam and Even wouldn't obey even so modest a command as "don't eat it," so the original plan of salvation, pure works, didn't save them. So God - - - Jehovah, the "angry tribal deity" that supposedly rules the Old Testament, according to the liberals - - - really should have let Adam and Even drop dead and go on home to Hell. But God is merciful, so He decided to make some changes. When Adam and Eve realized that they couldn't atone for their own sin, God shed the blood of a lamb (there's your "coming Messiah!"!) to help them out. And once He did that, and told them about the Messiah to come (Gen 3:15), then faith became a requirement for salvation --- along with obedience. Now Adam and Eve (and their progeny) had to have faith in the coming Messiah; but they had to obey God's laws, too.

The first plan of salvation: don't eat the fruit (works). The second plan of salvation: believe in the Messiah and obey the rules (faith and works). Ay caramba! We've already encountered two different plans of salvation, and we're not even out of the Garden of Eden! And our "Independent Fundamental Baptist" brethren say "people were saved the same way in every age?" Yup, I'm afraid they do. (Then, usually, they talk about "faith-promise giving.") But they're wrong.

Let's look at a later era. By the time Noah shows up (Gen. 6), Adam and Eve's progeny have overrun the planet (which was good) and blackened it with the most abominable sins (which was not so good). God reluctantly decides to "wash the world," and to spare nobody except Noah and his immediate family. So, what "requirement" does He lay on Noah? What is the "plan of salvation" for Noah? Again, it's very simple: build a boat. Build a boat, and you'll live; otherwise, you'll die. Noah's salvation was entirely dependent on building a boat: whether he had faith, or didn't have faith. Pure, straightforward "salvation by works!"

Somebody says, "Now you're being ridiculous, William! Building the Ark was a means of physical survival in the midst of a natural disaster. It wasn't a matter of spiritual salvation at all!" Are you sure? I mean, God was preparing to violently judge the entire human race for their disobedience. If Noah had said, "No thanks, God, I'll drown alongside all my friends," does anyone really think God would have taken him to Heaven? They do? What God are such people serving, anyway? The Pillsbury Doughboy?

Many years later, along comes Moses. And now God makes one of the most unprecedented, breathtaking, merciful moves since Creation. After untold centuries of judging men according to the "inner law" of conscience (Romans 2:12-16) He decides to codify and reveal His Law in propositional terms that any muddle-headed fool can understand. In Exodus 20, He gives Moses the 10 Commandments, and suddenly the "paradigm" (to use a hackneyed cliché) has changed. Now God's people have the Law revealed in words that they can understand; and if some of 'em can't understand, there's an entire Levitical priesthood to help explain things. What is the "plan of salvation" at this point? Very simple: with the giving of the Law, it becomes faith and works --- faith in the coming Messiah, as symbolized and prefigured in the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12:1-13), and keeping the Commandments (Ex. 19:3-6). Faith without works won't suffice, nor will works (obeying the Law) without faith.

And now the soft, reasonable voices of the evangelicals, and the gruff, authoritative voices of our fellow "fundamentalists," are raised in a crescendo of indignation: "William, you simply mustn't say these things! You're not even supposed to think that anybody was ever saved by works, or by an admixture of faith and works! Why, Jerry Falwell and Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen would be horrified!" Well, all I can say, again, is, what saith the scripture? If Jerry and Joyce and Joel disagree with the Bible, then they are cordially invited to take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

(Perhaps an interjection is appropriate here. The question might be asked, "Why are evangelicals and "fundamentalists" so zealous and so dogmatic on this point? Why do they so aggressively insist that everyone who was ever saved, was saved in exactly the same way?" There are probably several answers, but I'll focus on just one. Our fellow believers live in a world in which God and the Bible are under constant, unrelenting attack. They are probably afraid that, if they acknowledge that God saved people in different ways at different times, some over-educated, pseudo-intellectual dunce will begin to bray about God being "inconsistent." So, they try to demonstrate that God is consistent, and that He's always done things the same way. Their motivation is good and fine and, in my view, heartwarming: they're trying to "defend God's honor," just as they do when they claim that it's an "act of love" to let innocent children die in a tsunami. There are only two things wrong with their efforts: in the first place, God is quite capable of defending His own honor, thank you very much; and, in addition, God's ways (as in the case of the tsunami) are often inscrutable and "past finding out." For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. By the way, the context of those words [Isaiah 55:7-9] concerns the matter of how a person is saved!)

So, with the coming of the Mosaic Law, folks were in a "faith and works" situation, and there they would remain until the time of Jesus Christ. But we can't leave the Old Testament without glancing briefly at Abraham, because Paul, speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, makes a big deal out of the circumstances of Abraham's salvation.

Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness....faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. (Romans 4:3, 9).

Paul, in proclaiming the great truth of salvation by grace through faith, holds Abraham up as an example of what he's talking about. He's absolutely right, of course: Abraham was one of the very greatest examples of a man saved by faith without works. If you want to see what faith looks like, look at Abraham. Sadly, however, entire generations of preachers and writers have fallen into a rather subtle error: because Abraham was saved by faith, and we're saved by faith, these folks have assumed that Abraham's salvation was exactly like ours.

It wasn't.

Abraham was saved by faith; we are saved by faith. So far, so good: we're all on the same page, just like James Dobson and Curtis Hutson and the Promise Keepers and Christianity Today say we should be. But what is the object of our faith? Jesus Christ, of course: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved (Romans 10:9). That's what we believe in. But was Jesus Christ, God's one and only promised Messiah, really the object of Abraham's faith?

The charismatics and the Baptists and the "truly reformed" Calvinists and the nondenominational "parachurch ministries" all say "yes!" The Bible says.... not exactly.

Did Abraham believe that God would someday offer salvation by means of a Jewish Messiah dying on a cross? Maybe, maybe not; the Bible doesn't record such a belief, and it's dangerous to argue from silence. But the Bible records, with great specificity, what he did believe, and it wasn't John 3:16.

Now the Lord had said unto Abram....I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed....Look now toward Heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness (Genesis 12:1-3, 15:3-6).

It's so simple that even a theologian should be able to see it: Abraham was saved by believing that God would give him a bunch of kids, and through those kids would bless the world.

Somebody says, "That's not what Paul was talking about in Romans 4." It's not? Are you joking? Paul was paraphrasing the words you just read when he wrote Romans 4:3,9! Do you actually think that Paul misunderstood the Old Testament? Paul? The Pharisee of Pharisees, the private student of Rabban Gamaliel? You think Paul didn't know the life of Abraham?

Yes, Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness: his faith in God's outrageous promise. That's how he was saved. And it's not how any of us are saved: not unless God has promised to give you more children than the stars in the sky, and make a mighty nation from you! You and I are saved by believing that God has come in the flesh, been crucified for our sins, and resurrected from the dead, according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). That's the gospel; Paul calls it "my gospel" (Romans 2:16), and says that it will be the standard of judgment for all of us living in the Church Age.

But it's not what Abraham was called upon to believe; which is where his salvation differs from ours. And, although Abraham was saved by faith alone (no works), and we are saved by grace through faith alone, it hasn't always been that way. People were not saved in the Old Testament by the same mechanism that saves us today.

And ... .if you want to accuse me of heresy, then clear your throat and choose your words! .... the time is coming, and coming quickly, when the divine formula will change again. Because after our Lord rescues His people in the Rapture, the Tribulation will begin: and in the Tribulation, folks will be saved by faith plus works, or they won't be saved at all. As for me....I'm glad I'm living in the present age, when a man or woman can be saved by grace through faith alone, and it's not of works!

But that's a subject for the question that was originally asked, and it'll have to wait for the next post.

If you've read this entire thing, thank you for your patience!

NOTE: Please notice that none of this is covered in the forum's Statement of Faith. I'm not setting out an "official position," but simply my own understanding. It's nothing to break fellowship over!

(10-18-2009 11:35 AM)Gary Wrote: [ -> ]This was excellent William. I finally understand the different ways of salvation under rightly dividing. Thank you so much for this. I look forward to the next post.

Gary

Thank you, brother: it was a blessing to me, too, when I learned all this stuff. None of these "insights" are my own; God has blessed me with some wonderful teachers.

Before getting into "Tribulation salvation," however, I want to address an important question: What difference does all this stuff make? Why should we try to figure it out, or seek for such detailed revelation, at all?

In the previous post, I attempted to discuss some of the different ways God has saved people throughout history: the several different "plans of salvation" which have been in effect at different times. Essentially, God has saved (and will save) folks according to three basic formulae: by "works," or good deeds and obedience to God's commands; by a combination of works and faith; and by faith alone, without any reference to works whatsoever. Happily, we live in "the age of grace," when a man or woman is saved simply through faith in Jesus Christ:

For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8,9).

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5,6).

Now, that last part is very clear and very simple; there shouldn't be any confusion or misunderstanding at all. If a man or woman or child wants to be saved, all they have to do is ask Jesus Christ to save them, and receive Christ (John 1:12). That's it. Trust Jesus Christ, and you'll be saved. Trust your own "righteousness," or your own sterling character, or your church membership, or your "ethical system," and when you die, you'll find yourself in Hell with a lot of other "good people."

The question arises, then: "if God's plan of salvation is so simple and so plain, why should we complicate things with all this talk about different plans at different times in history?"

To show that the Bible does not contradict. That's why.

What is the all-time favorite criticism of the Bible by those who won't, or can't, or don't want to believe it? Why, we've all heard it a million times: "The Bible is full of contradictions." We've heard it from high school students and factory workers and college professors and homemakers and military people. Most of the time, people who say this are merely parroting the words of somebody else: they couldn't actually find a contradiction in the Bible if you gave them a month to do it. To be fair, however, it is possible to read the Bible with an open mind and a searching heart, and be confronted with what seem to be contradictions: and some of these so-called contradictions involve God's requirements for salvation.

For example: an affluent, highly "religious" young man comes to Jesus and asks, "Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" "Keep the commandments," Jesus says: don't commit adultery, don't kill or steal or lie, honor your parents. The young man answers, "Why, I've always done that stuff!" So Jesus cuts right to the heart of the matter: Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven: and come, follow me (Luke 18:18-23).

What were God's requirements for this man's salvation? Why, they were pure works: obey the commandments and give all your property to the poor. What about "by grace are you saved through faith?" What about "not of works?" Well, there's a contradiction - - - unless God's plan of salvation is different for this young man than for you and me. Let's not gloss over the inconvenient truth: if "God has always saved everyone in the same way," then we have a glaring contradiction right here. But if we acknowledge that God has done things in different ways at different times, then the "contradiction" disappears.

Again: describing the scene at God's Judgment, Jesus says, Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; and then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:34, 41). What's the difference between the two groups of people? It's the way they treated God's people, the Jews, here on earth: clothing them when they were naked, feeding them, visiting them in prison, etc. (Matthew 25:31-46). Apparently, somebody is going to be saved or damned on the basis of how they treated "the least of these my brethren", the Jews. Are they judged on "belief in the Messiah?" No, they are not. Again, we have a contradiction; unless we realize that God has saved one group of people according to one standard, another group, according to another standard. In our day, the one and only standard is faith in Jesus Christ, plus nothing: our "good works" have nothing to do with it.

But not everyone has lived, or will live, in our day; and God's way of dealing with people in the Old Testament, or when Jesus walked the earth, is different from the way He deals with people today.

This entire exercise in examining God's ways of salvation is called rightly dividing the world of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), and, far from being a foolish or unnecessary bit of angels-on-pinheads speculation, it is what God expects of every saved man and woman. God didn't give us the Bible, and preserve it by the blood of martyrs, so that it could sit on the shelf while we gossip about each other or settle down in front of the television. He expects us to study the word, to learn it, by collating things that are similar and "dividing" things that are different. God doesn't want His people to be robots or clones; He wants us to be disciples - - - and a disciple is a student, one who learns. That's what "disciple" means.

Once more with feeling: either God has saved people in different ways at different times, or the skeptics and the haters are right: the Bible is full of contradictions.

And it's not.

In my next post, I'll discuss the other reason for studying this matter: a very important truth, totally ignored by the authors of Left Behind, and the vast majority of "fundamentalist" preachers: that the plan of salvation will change one more time: during the period known as the Great Tribulation, which is right around the corner.

Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

The one thing I don't understand is - If Hebrews - Revelation are primarily tribulational doctrine, how do we know what within those books is applicable to us today. I mean, obviously there is a lot of doctrinal stuff within hebrews to do with the blood atonement, and there is a lot of spiritual application within James on prayer, right living, faith etc. But for example, verses like 1 John 1:8-2:2 - Are they church age doctrine or tribulational? (I'm playing the opposition's advocate here, although, I am asking honestly as well, because sometimes it seems like we pick and choose what we want from 1 John, or Hebrews, or James, and ignore the stuff we don't like).

(10-18-2009 09:56 PM)Luke Wrote: [ -> ]The one thing I don't understand is - If Hebrews - Revelation are primarily tribulational doctrine, how do we know what within those books is applicable to us today. I mean, obviously there is a lot of doctrinal stuff within hebrews to do with the blood atonement, and there is a lot of spiritual application within James on prayer, right living, faith etc. But for example, verses like 1 John 1:8-2:2 - Are they church age doctrine or tribulational? (I'm playing the opposition's advocate here, although, I am asking honestly as well, because sometimes it seems like we pick and choose what we want from 1 John, or Hebrews, or James, and ignore the stuff we don't like).

Yes, brother, it seems that way sometimes, and we're all guilty, at one time or another, of taking a verse out of context, or applying it in the wrong way. These are usually honest mistakes, and sometimes God even honors them. William Carey, the great missionary to India, claimed Psalm 2:8 as a "promise:" Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. God gave him a wonderful ministry of over forty years in India, with thousands of converts, because God knew Carey's heart, and knew that Carey wasn't trying to twist the scripture to his own ends. But, doctrinally, that verse isn't a promise to Carey or any other Christian: it's a reference to the Millennial Reign of Christ.

One of the great principles of Bible study is that every verse in the Bible has at least three applications, and these do not contradict. Each verse has a historical application, a doctrinal application, and a spiritual or devotional application. That applies to Carey's verse, and to every other verse, whether in Job or Matthew or Hebrews or James.

We know that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16). Doctrine is important. But it's not the whole purpose of scripture: the word is also given for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. The book of James is loaded with heavy doctrine, but it's also full of reproofs and correction and very practical instruction in righteousness. That's the spiritual application.

The same goes for Hebrews. It's full of doctrinal stuff that is applicable to the Tribulation: specifically, somebody losing their salvation. (That's the subject we're moving toward in this thread.) But it's also full of spiritual encouragement, like chapters 11 and 12, and even touches on such practical matters as the marriage relationship (13:4). We're not "picking and choosing;" we're recognizing that some parts of the scripture are doctrinal, and some are spiritual (and practical).

A common mistake that "right dividers" and Ruckmanites and such people make is to focus on the doctrinal application alone. This can get very, very ugly. We both know Christians (I could name names) who are zealous for correct doctrine, obsessed with correct doctrine, but who are so self-righteous and intolerant of other Christians that they don't seem to have a spiritual bone in their body. They'll cut a man up like a fish if he doesn't believe in the Gap or some such doctrine, but where are they when that man is in trouble, or hurting? They're standing afar off, that's where, jabbering about his "doctrine." God preserve this forum from such people!

Every verse in the Bible has a historical application: what actually happened, or will happen, with certain nations and groups and individuals. And every verse has a doctrinal application: but some of these are hard to figure out. And every verse has a spiritual application, for Christians living today.

That's why we can't cut out any part of the Bible, or limit ourselves to "the Pauline writings," or be "red-letter Christians," trying to get to Heaven by following the Sermon on the Mount.

For example, James 5:1-6 makes it sound as though it's a sin to be rich. Well, that's simply not true, in our day; there are plenty of wealthy Christians, and they play a huge part in getting the Lord's work done. The historical application was James addressing some rich Jews in his own time. The spiritual application is that rich people shouldn't act in an ungodly manner, and that riches can't save you. But the doctrinal application is that yes, one day, it will be a sin to be rich: in the Tribulation, when one can only prosper by cooperating with the Antichrist. (That application is made clear by the context: see verses 7 and 8.) So, in that one passage, you see all three applications, and they do not contradict each other.

Should we cut that passage out of our Bibles, because it has a Tribulation application? No, for two reasons: first of all, it also has the other applications I spoke of. And, second .... this is heavy .... the Bible will still be here, for people to read, during the Tribulation. They'll need that passage.

How many of us have used Rev. 3:20 in witnessing? Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Well, that's a good verse for witnessing; but when we use it that way, we're using the spiritual application. The historical application was God speaking to the church at Laodicea, in John's time. The doctrinal application is very different: it refers to the condition of the church in the end times (Christ is on the outside, looking in!). So, we can acknowledge the doctrinal application, while still making use of the spiritual application.

Does that make sense?

(10-18-2009 07:34 PM)William Wrote: [ -> ]In the previous post, I attempted to discuss some of the different ways God has saved people throughout history: the several different "plans of salvation" which have been in effect at different times. Essentially, God has saved (and will save) folks according to three basic formulae: by "works," or good deeds and obedience to God's commands; by a combination of works and faith; and by faith alone, without any reference to works whatsoever. Happily, we live in "the age of grace," when a man or woman is saved simply through faith in Jesus Christ:

Does this mean Hebrews 11 is not talking about salvation? Thanks.

(10-18-2009 11:49 PM)William Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2009 09:56 PM)Luke Wrote: [ -> ]The one thing I don't understand is - If Hebrews - Revelation are primarily tribulational doctrine, how do we know what within those books is applicable to us today. I mean, obviously there is a lot of doctrinal stuff within hebrews to do with the blood atonement, and there is a lot of spiritual application within James on prayer, right living, faith etc. But for example, verses like 1 John 1:8-2:2 - Are they church age doctrine or tribulational? (I'm playing the opposition's advocate here, although, I am asking honestly as well, because sometimes it seems like we pick and choose what we want from 1 John, or Hebrews, or James, and ignore the stuff we don't like).

Yes, brother, it seems that way sometimes, and we're all guilty, at one time or another, of taking a verse out of context, or applying it in the wrong way. These are usually honest mistakes, and sometimes God even honors them. William Carey, the great missionary to India, claimed Psalm 2:8 as a "promise:" Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. God gave him a wonderful ministry of over forty years in India, with thousands of converts, because God knew Carey's heart, and knew that Carey wasn't trying to twist the scripture to his own ends. But, doctrinally, that verse isn't a promise to Carey or any other Christian: it's a reference to the Millennial Reign of Christ.

One of the great principles of Bible study is that every verse in the Bible has at least three applications, and these do not contradict. Each verse has a historical application, a doctrinal application, and a spiritual or devotional application. That applies to Carey's verse, and to every other verse, whether in Job or Matthew or Hebrews or James.

We know that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16). Doctrine is important. But it's not the whole purpose of scripture: the word is also given for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. The book of James is loaded with heavy doctrine, but it's also full of reproofs and correction and very practical instruction in righteousness. That's the spiritual application.

The same goes for Hebrews. It's full of doctrinal stuff that is applicable to the Tribulation: specifically, somebody losing their salvation. (That's the subject we're moving toward in this thread.) But it's also full of spiritual encouragement, like chapters 11 and 12, and even touches on such practical matters as the marriage relationship (13:4). We're not "picking and choosing;" we're recognizing that some parts of the scripture are doctrinal, and some are spiritual (and practical).

A common mistake that "right dividers" and Ruckmanites and such people make is to focus on the doctrinal application alone. This can get very, very ugly. We both know Christians (I could name names) who are zealous for correct doctrine, obsessed with correct doctrine, but who are so self-righteous and intolerant of other Christians that they don't seem to have a spiritual bone in their body. They'll cut a man up like a fish if he doesn't believe in the Gap or some such doctrine, but where are they when that man is in trouble, or hurting? They're standing afar off, that's where, jabbering about his "doctrine." God preserve this forum from such people!

Every verse in the Bible has a historical application: what actually happened, or will happen, with certain nations and groups and individuals. And every verse has a doctrinal application: but some of these are hard to figure out. And every verse has a spiritual application, for Christians living today.

That's why we can't cut out any part of the Bible, or limit ourselves to "the Pauline writings," or be "red-letter Christians," trying to get to Heaven by following the Sermon on the Mount.

For example, James 5:1-6 makes it sound as though it's a sin to be rich. Well, that's simply not true, in our day; there are plenty of wealthy Christians, and they play a huge part in getting the Lord's work done. The historical application was James addressing some rich Jews in his own time. The spiritual application is that rich people shouldn't act in an ungodly manner, and that riches can't save you. But the doctrinal application is that yes, one day, it will be a sin to be rich: in the Tribulation, when one can only prosper by cooperating with the Antichrist. (That application is made clear by the context: see verses 7 and 8.) So, in that one passage, you see all three applications, and they do not contradict each other.

Should we cut that passage out of our Bibles, because it has a Tribulation application? No, for two reasons: first of all, it also has the other applications I spoke of. And, second .... this is heavy .... the Bible will still be here, for people to read, during the Tribulation. They'll need that passage.

How many of us have used Rev. 3:20 in witnessing? Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Well, that's a good verse for witnessing; but when we use it that way, we're using the spiritual application. The historical application was God speaking to the church at Laodicea, in John's time. The doctrinal application is very different: it refers to the condition of the church in the end times (Christ is on the outside, looking in!). So, we can acknowledge the doctrinal application, while still making use of the spiritual application.

Does that make sense?

Perfect sense, my friend. One of the reason that "right dividers" have received such a bad "rap" over the years is that folks think we are disregarding all the Scripture except for the Pauline epistles. And that's simply not true. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctgrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). "Perfect and throughly furnished" in this context means to be "mature". We can learn so much from all the Scripture, but not all Scripture is written about us or for us in this dispensation of grace.

I had a hard time understanding right division for a long time, and even argued many points with those who were trying to teach me correctly. It's sometimes difficult to go against what we have been taught all our lives by church groups who had no understanding of what God expects from us in this dispensation of grace.

I want to add that it is so edifying and encouraging to communicate with folks who are like-minded. I have felt way out of place in most forums, as they simply don't understand how to "rightly divide."

Have a wonderful, Christ-filled day.

Excellent Bible study, brother William! The Lord God has used you to help me understand salvation dispensation better! Thank you, because as a new Christian, this topic has been pretty hard for me to understand.

I apologize for not posting earlier, but I had missed the topic, because I thought it would be in the 'Questions and Answers' section.

I look forward to reading the Tribulation part, if the Lord God wills. Again, thanks God our Father for using you to make this Bible study!

In Jesus' Precious Name,

Rolando

Would I be right to say that TODAY,

1) The Pauline Epistles contain doctrinal, spiritual and historical FOR us and TO us
2) The Jewish Epistles contain spiritual application and historical application FOR us (but not doctrinal - at least, not that applies to us) but not written TO us.

Because that is what every "Berean" I know believes. They don't disregard the Jewish Epistles (Matthew - John & Hebrews - Revelation), because they contain doctrine, but the doctrine in them is not applicable to us. However, there are spiritual applications and historical applications within them that we can learn from today.

Maybe this is just my attempt to get along with everyone.

Great Post William.. You sum up salvation today very simply Faith in Christ plus nothing... I like that..

I have always heard that during the tribulation people that are left behind that rejected Christ can not get saved. God will send them strong delusion to what is happening. And people that have never heard the gospel will be saved the same way we are today. Faith in Christ. something like 150,000 missionaries will cover the entire Earth preaching the gospel.

If during the tribulation if there is someone that has never heard the gospel and accepts the MArk then they hear the gospel can they get saved?

I'm not trying to be argumentative I didn't say I agree with any of it. That is just what I have been taught. It is the least of my concerns because I will not be here.