Larss
Juniorveteran
Innlegg: 437
Registrert: 9-8-2003
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
Kontroversiell, men god Bibelundervisning og apologetikk:
Jeg anbefaller alle å ta seg en tur innom www.gracepano.com
Ikke la dere skremme av de utenlandske begrepene som brukes her, dette er god sunn lære som evangeliske kristne har forkynte i alle år.
Den såkalte husholdningslæren altså.
Jan Lilleby er her veldig konsekvent, og det er noen ting jeg er litt uenig i, eller mener blir litt mer konsekvent enn nødvendig, men når du gransker
skriften ser du at dette stemmer, selv om det iblant kan virke litt "firkantet".
Jan Lilleby har tidligere jobbet for TV-Visjon Norge sjef Jan Hanvold som forkynner på "radio visjon", og store omfattende kasettserier med
hans forkynnelse har blitt sendt utover hele Norges land. Dette forklarer også hvorfor han for enkelte kan virke firkantet, men det er fordi et slikt
brudd er så hardt og forandrende, at man må bruke sterke ord.
Men vær sikker, denne forkynnelsen er med få unntak bunnsolid.
|
|
|
Thomas
Seniormedlem
Innlegg: 220
Registrert: 17-2-2004
Bosted: Bergen
Brukeren er frakoblet
Humør: 
|
|
Men vær sikker, denne forkynnelsen er med få unntak bunnsolid.
Det er de få unntakene som skremmer meg med de fleste forkynnelser 
(1 kor 13)4 Kjærligheten er tålmodig, kjærligheten er velvillig, den misunner ikke, den skryter ikke, er ikke hovmodig. 5 Den gjør ikke noe
usømmelig, den søker ikke sitt eget, blir ikke oppbrakt og gjemmer ikke på det onde. 6 Den gleder seg ikke over urett, men har sin glede i sannheten.
7 Kjærligheten utholder alt, tror alt, håper alt, tåler alt.
|
|
|
Lionheart
Seniorveteran
Innlegg: 1041
Registrert: 25-1-2004
Bosted: Bergen, Norge
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
jeg må ærlig talt si
at jeg ikke ser hva det er som er sunn bibellære her.
disse folka plukker jo Bibelen fra hverandre og får, slik mange andre sier, disippel-apostlene (Peter & Co) og hedningenes apostel (Paulus) til å
virke som uvenner.
dette er jo helt galt. leser man epistlene så ser man at Peter har lest brevene til Paulus, og tydeligvis sier seg enig med dem, siden han godkjenner
dem.
2Pet 3:15:
Og når Herren i sitt tålmod dryger med å komme, så skal dere se det som en mulighet til frelse. Dette har jo også Paulus skrevet til
dere, ut fra den visdom som er gitt ham.
Peter og mange av de andre apostlene ble i Israel og forkynte der. Derfor forkynte de også ved loven, men like mye blodets, korsets og nådens
evangelium. poenget var at hedningene ikke var nødt til å lære seg hele loven, men bare det som Jesus lærte Sine disipler.
Jeg liker ikke det som blir gjort på siden du anbefaler, fordi de plukker Bibelen fra hverandre og utsetter den for mistillit.
Kjærligheten er ikke det at vi har elsket Gud, men at han har elsket oss og sendt sin Sønn til soning for våre synder.
1Joh 4,10
|
|
|
Larss
Juniorveteran
Innlegg: 437
Registrert: 9-8-2003
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
Å SKILLE MELLOM GUDS TIDSHUSHOLDNINGER
Å SKILLE MELLOM GUDS TIDSHUSHOLDNINGER
I den engelsktalende verden, kaller man gjerne tidshusholdning for "dispensation". Ut fra dette har man fornorsket uttrykket, og kaller det
for dispensasjonalismen. Det er en kjent sak at Guds ord viser at Guds egen handlemåte med menneskeheten er inndelt i etapper, bolker, perioder, - ja
- tidshushold-ninger. Gud handler med mennesket ut fra en etablert ordning, der Gud uttrykker ensidig at nå vil han kommunisere på den og den bestemte
måten. Gud har krav på oss, for vi kom inn under syndefallet. Vi kan derfor ikke velge, og si at "..nei, Gud - jeg godkjenner ikke dine krav til
rettferdighet i mitt liv..". Det er når mennesket ikke vil godkjenne de til enhver tid gjeldende ordninger fra Gud Allmektige, at vi faller under
hans dømmende kraft. Det er ikke vi som kan eller skal dømme Gud, men han oss. Det er vi som er "den skyldige part" i utgangspunktet, - men
når da Gud kom til det punkt i sin plan og da tiden for dette - husholdningen for dette - var inne, sendte han sin Sønn, og betalte selv den skyld vi
var kommet under ved fallet. Guds frelsesordninger styres ut fra hans eget system av etapper og perioder. Og det er disse etappene, husholdningene og
inndelingene vi oppdager i Bibelen når vi studerer denne.
Fra websiden www.dispensationalism.com trekker jeg frem en kortfattet definisjon over hva hushold-ningsinndeling er:
En husholdning, er det system ved hvilket noe blir administrert. I kristen betydning, når vi ser tilbake, så refererer dette til en av de bestemte
perioderi historien, ved hvilke Gud handlet med menneskeheten på en bestemt måte.
For eksempel samvittighetens husholdning, lovens tid og nåden.
Dispensasjonalismen:
Et teologisk system der en konstaterer hvordan Gud handler med mennesket på forskjellige måter gjennom de forskjellige tids-aldrene.
"Tidshusholdninger" er ikke tider (århundrer osv.) - men heller tjenesteordninger eller styringsprinsipper, administrasjon. Bare idet vi ser
tilbake i historien, så finner vi greit ut hva disse har vært, da vi jo kan lese oss til hva Gud en gang gjorde gjennom de som trodde Ham.
Dispensasjonalismen kjennetegnes av tre hovedprinsipper:
1. Et klart skille mellom Guds program for Israel, og hans program for menigheten.
2. En konstant anvendelse av den bokstavelige tolking av Bibelen.
3.Forståelsen av Guds hensikter som ivaretagelse av sin egen ære, mer enn hensyn til menneskeslekten. (Guds krav står fast, selv om ingen ville trodd)
ER DU DISPENSASJONALIST UTEN Å VITE OM DET?
Antagelig, hvis du har sett at Gud handlet ut fra forskjellige prinsipper i historien. Da er du en som tror at Gud har husholdningsordninger, ved
hvilke han handler med oss på prinsipper.
Ett av de tilfellene vi ser dette klarest i NT, er når Jesus ved en anledning refser disiplene for å ha talt av en ånd som ikke var Gud velbehagelig.
LUK.9, 54-56: "Da hans disipler Jacob og Johannes, så det sa de: Herre, vil du at vi skal by ild fare ned fra himmelen og fortære dem, slik som
Elias gjorde? - 55: Men han vendte seg om og talte strengt til dem og sa: Dere vet ikke hva ånd dere er av. 56: For menneskesønnen er ikke kommet
for å ødelegge menneskeliv, men for å frelse. Og de dro til en annen by. (De ville ikke ta imot Jesus i en samaritansk by)
ÅP. 11,3-6: "Og jeg vil gi mine to vitner å profetere i 1260 dager, kledd i sekk. 4: Dette er de to oljetrær og de to lyse-staker som står for
jordens Herre. 5. Dersom noen vil skade dem, da går det ild ut fra munnen deres OG FORTÆRER FIENDENE DERES. Ja, om noen vil skade dem, skal han
drepes på denne måten. 6: De har makt til å lukke himmelen så det ikke faller regn i de dager de er profeter. Og de har makt over vannene, til å gjøre
dem til blod, og til å slå jorden med all slags plager, så ofte de vil."
Hva er det vi her ser? I tilfellet med disiplene, der Jesus tilbød sin syndforlatende nåde til jødene - og der han var kommet som den lidende Herrens
tjener for å bære verdens synd, - så fordømmer han disiplene for deres holdning til samaritanene, som jo ikke ville ta imot følget i byen sin. De
ville gjerne se at ild brant dem opp.
Men plutselig, når den samme Jesus taler til Johannes - cirka 63 år senere, på Patmos, så får den disippel som i sin ungdom fikk kjeft for å ønske
ilddom over vantro, - se at Gud lar sine to profeter drepe mennesker med ild i den store trengselstiden! Her er det da en selvmotsigelse. Jesus er
imot ilddom under Rikets tilbudstid, men er for ilddom i den 70. åruken, trengselstiden? Det som i Rikets tilbudstid med apostlene var en ond tanke,
det var autorisert som en Guds kraftvirkning i den 70.åruken.
Åp.11, viser jo nettopp til tiden med åruken, som er delt i to deler: 1260 dager med de to profetene, og 42 måneder med antikrist som den falske
messias i templet.
Forklaringen er enkel: Jesu jordiske lidelsestjeneste der han tilbød Riket til jødene, var en tid med lov og nåde. Det var ikke en tidshusholdning
der det skulle dømmes ved ild. De var under en 70-årig nådetid, der Gud ønsket jødene inn under Rikets beskyttende kraft. De 70 år løp fra Jesus ble
født til år 66, da prestene steinet Jacob, Herrens bror, og selotene innledet oppstanden mot romerne.
Dette samsvarer også med den nødvendige tid som Gud ga sitt folk til å "..høre på en profet, liksom meg..." - som Moses sa i 5.mos.18,
15-18. I og med at konsekvensene ved ikke å høre på den profet Gud sendte, Messias, var så store, så tillot Gud en nådetid på 70 år. En motekvivalent
til 70 års fangeskap i Babylon. Nå fikk de tilbakebetalt den tukten av en nådig Gud, som ville at jødene skulle ta imot Jesus etter himmelfarten.
Men når menigheten er opprykket like før den 70. åruken begynner, så inntrer en mellomfase, en kort tidshusholdning på 7 år, som vi kan kalle
vredens tid (j.fr. Paulus i 1.Tes). Det er altså en markant forskjell i Guds prinsipielle handlemåte med mennesker utenfor vredens tid (den 70.åruken,
Dan.9) og de som ulykkeligvis vil komme til å befinne seg inne i den vredetiden, den store trengsel.
Riktignok ble Annas og Saffira dømt til døden ved den teokratiske standrettsinstansen som Peter var innsatt i, da de løy for Den Hellige Ånd om
salgssummen av deres eiendom. Her var en ny mellomfase kommet: Den fortsatte nådetiden for jødene og deres anledning til å få Riket. Men nå var Ånden
kommet, og Peter håndhevde Rikets lov fordi han var øverste innsatte leder i Herrens sted for dette. Vi kan i vår nådetid for menigheten, ikke opptre
teokratisk som Peter gjorde. Av Paulus har vi fått det bud, at vi ikke må dømme noe før tiden. Hvilken tid? Vredetiden, da de to profetene i Guds
mandat gjenåpner Rikets forkynnelse, med en domstid. Riket blir gjenåpnet med dom, og det blir siden avsluttet med dom,- se Åp. 20, 12. Samtidig
introduserer dommen ved Rikets avslutning, innledningen til en ny tidshusholdning, på den nye jord med Gud nedflyttet blant oss. Hele treenigheten
samlet på ett sted.
Så det er altså ingen vanskelighet å finne den ene tidsinndeling, epoke, etappe eller på engelsk "dispensation" etter den andre, når vi
studerer Bibelen. John Nelson Darby var den som først brakte temaet opp som et nytt system for bibelforståelse. Men allerede flere av kirkefedrene
hadde et klart syn for dette. Navn kan nevnes: Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenius (130-200), Klemens av Alexandria (150-200) og Augustin, etter sin
omvendelse fra gnostisismen (354-430). Siden ble Darbys tidshusholdnings-inndeling tatt til USA av Dr. Scofield, som virket gjennom Dallas School of
Theology. Barrat var sterkt påvirket av Scofield og brukte hans tidsepoker som modell for å forstå Guds handlinger med menneskeheten. Mange av de
norske pinsepredikantene er kjent for dette syn. Sverre Kornmo var blant dem. Det dispensasjonalistiske syn er ganske utbredt i Norge, - men det har
dessverre stanset noe opp i sin utforming og foredling. Dette synet er nødt til å få konsekvenser for hvordan vi blant annet leder og virker i
menigheten.
Når man ikke er konsekvent dispensasjonalistisk, så fører vi ubevisst inn fremmedelementer i bibelsk forkynnelse. En driver lett bort fra det
paulinske nådens evangelium, på den måten at man blander lov og nåde. Vi klassisk kristne kan smile overbærende av adventistene for deres overholdelse
av det 4.bud, sabbaten. Mens vi selv overholder på en lovisk måte søndagen og om tienden. Det er til og med blitt vedtatt ved lov visse åpningstider
av butikker, mot kirkens gudstjenestetider! Vi trenger ikke gå så veldig langt tilbake i modernere tid, da det var synd å bruke saks eller å sy klær
på søndag. Eller vaske klær, og mye annet rart. Så vi trenger å skjerpe oss også i våre moderne dager, for vi mennesker driver så lett inn i
loviskhet.
Den klassiske dispensasjonsforståelsen blir inndelt som følger:
1. Uskyldens tid, med Adam før fallet
2. Samvittighetens tid - etter fallet opp til vannflommen
3. Menneskets styringstid - fikk lov å ete kjøtt, dødstraff innført
4. Løftets tid - fra Abraham til Moses i Sinai
5. Lovens tid - fra Moses til korset
6. Nådens tid - fra korset til Rikets opprettelse ved Jesu komme
7. Tusenårsriket - med Jesus som Messias og Konge i Jerusalem
Denne "grunnforståelsen" er riktig, så langt den tidligere var kommet. Men Guds progresjon i nådetiden virker ved at de troende ved Ånden
får se mer i Bibelen, og derfor vokser i kjennskap, kunnskap og tro.
Paulus ba for efeserne at de måtte få visdoms og åpenbarings Ånd til kunnskap om Kristus. Hvorfor skulle en kristen behøve slik åpenbaring, dersom han
allerede er utlært og kan alle ting? Nei, vi må utvikle oss i dette, og få et klarere syn etter hvert som tiden går og bibelkunnskapen øker. Og
derfor finner vi som lever i dag, at det sjette ledd i tidshusholdningene mangler flere inndelinger, for at vi ikke skal blande sammen Guds
handlingsprinsipper med jøder særskilt, og oss hedningtroende i menigheten.
Den riktige husholdningsinndeling i dag er som følger:
6-A: Rikets tilbudstid til jødene, fra døperen Johannes kom og til korset
6-B1: Rikets tilbudstid del 2, fra Peter og apostlene til opprøret i år 66
6-B2: Nådens tid med åpenbaring av Guds hemmelighet, menigheten, Paulus
Den fortsettende tidshusholdning vil bli:
6-C: Rikets gjenopptatte tilbudstid - fra Moses/Elias Åp.11 og de 144000 til Jesu synlige komme over Jerusalem med alle sine hellige (Åp.19)
Denne 3.gangs tilbud til jødene om Riket, er det samme som den 70. åruken, eller som Paulus definerte som "vreden". Denne gang er ikke
tilbudet å anses som frivillig: Jødene og de nyankomne israelittene blir tvunget ved dødstrusler (Harmageddon) til å rope på Jesus nasjonalt.
Først etter disse fire små inndelingene av den 6. husholdning, kan vi snakke om den 7. husholdning: Riket. Denne inndeling blir karakterisert som
"Ultra dispensasjonalisme", og undertegnede tror dette.
Det er først når vi har denne konsekvente oppdeling, at alle brikker faller på plass i bibeltolkingen!
JØDENE OG HEDNINGENE
Det er i vår tid, nådens tid - der hedningene er i majoritet i menigheten - at det er viktig å holde disse fra hverandre i forståelsen av Guds planer
og intensjoner. Vår problematikk er å klare å holde det judaistiske element av Torah borte fra vår oppfatning av Guds holdning og tanke om oss,
menigheten. Vi må lære å la oss innprente med BARE NÅDE, OG INGEN LOV. Ikke en gang dekalogen skal være noen lovmessig forskrift som vi skal følge:
Det vil si, vi skal ikke på noen rituell måte oppvise for Gud at vi hele tiden følger de ti bud. Vi trenger ikke komme inn i menighetens møter, og der
fremme bekjenne at "..hele siste måned holdt jeg alle de ti bud...". Nei, vi lever i nåden, og Gud behandler oss deretter. Vi er tilgitt all
synd i Kristus, ved tro. Den Hellige Ånd i oss, sørger for å fremskynde en høy moral og en skjerpet samvittighet og varhet for synd.(Rom. Vi lever
hele tiden i en konstant tilgivende nåde. Hvorfor? Fordi Paulus lærer oss i sine brev, at Kristus ikke bare sonet synd, men han utslettet synden. Den
er borte som element innfor Gud. Vi er bokstavelig fri, og skal ikke prestere noe innfor Gud av noe slag. Dette er da i forholdet til den mosaiske
lov/Torah og også i forhold OBS! -- til Jesu nye lov/Torah, som den ble fremlært f.eks. i Matt.5-6-7, bergprekenen. Altså Rikets forkynnelse og
lære.
Vi hedninger som tilhører legemet og har Kristus som hode og overhyrde, vi skal ikke følge Jesus som lærer ( inn i jødiske bud og Jesu lære for Riket)
- men vi har fått Paulus som lærer. Det er ikke mulig for hedninger å "..følge Jesus.." tenkt i en disippelmessig forstand, slik vi ser i
de klassiske evangelier. Å følge Jesus, var ene og alene i Rikets forstand, og under Rikets egen lov opprettet av Jesus selv for jødene. Heller ikke
skal vi være "vitner", for dette innebar at en måtte ha vært sammen med Jesus fysisk og i hverdagssituasjoner. Vi hedninger er holdt helt
utenom alt jødisk i så henseende.
Dispensasjonalismen i dag, som redskap og mal til å forstå Guds planer og veier, bør være hovedsaklig å skille den nådekristne vei, fra den jødiske
Rikets vei. Riket er utsatt inntil menigheten hentes hjem. Da gjenopptar Gud Rikets tilbud til jødene, og da blir de tvunget ved krigsmakt og ved
profetiske straffe-dommer til å rope på Jesus. I den situasjonen finner vi i 2.tes.2 at jødene også den tredje gang har avvist Riket offentlig. De har
mottatt Antikrist, som har opprettet en ny jødisk lære, Torah, - det som kalles pakt i Daniel 9. Det er dette som kalles "vredens tid" hos
Daniel, og "vreden", av Paulus. Guds vrede opptennes fordi de kommer inn i frafall overfor Jehova, og antar en annen Gud: Antikrist. De
overgis til ødeleggelse for frafallets skyld, leser vi i Daniel; og i 2.tes.2. der vi leser at Gud overgir jødene til løgnen, Antikrist, og sender dem
kraftig villfarelse fordi de ikke hadde kjærlighet til sannheten, - som da er det samme som å ta imot det gjenopptatte messianske budskapet om Riket,
forkynt av de to profetene, og de 144000 sølibat-evangelistene i Åp.7. Konklusjon: Vi kommer ikke utenom en dispensasjonalistisk forståelse av
Bibelen, særlig NT!
av Jan Lilleby www.gracepano.com
-----------------------------
Selv om jeg ikke nødvendigvis er fullstendig enig i alt i denne artikkelen (må studere dette med "ultra-dispensasjonalisme" før jeg kan si
meg helt enig i det til minste detalj) finner jeg den både riktig og tankevekkende og. Uten å ta hensyn til tidshusholdninger blir rett og slett
Bibelen selvimotsigende på punkt etter punkt.
Husholdningslæren er rett og slett uunværlig for å få en rett Bibelforståelse.
|
|
|
Gunnar
Grunnlegger
Innlegg: 1390
Registrert: 16-7-2003
Brukeren er frakoblet
Humør: Liten mann, med en stor Gud.
|
|
Jeg har ikke rukket å studere så veldig mye på websiden til Jan Lilleby ennå men jeg undrer meg litt over at du Larss, er så raskt ute med anbefale
noe du selv sier at du ikke har studert så nøye?
Jeg synes det er helt greit at du henviser til en side som du synes ser bra ut, men du har jo (med noen få forbehold) erklært websiden som DEN siden
på internett som har rett lære.
Når denne siden faktisk avviker ganske mye i fra det som er regnet som tradisjonell kristendom, så kan det kanskje være lurt å ta det litt mer med ro
i svingene?
No offence
Guds fred
Vennlig hilsen
Gunnar
[Edited on 26-2-2004 by Gunnar]
|
|
|
Lionheart
Seniorveteran
Innlegg: 1041
Registrert: 25-1-2004
Bosted: Bergen, Norge
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
det som treffer meg her
...bokstavelig tolkning av Bibelen...
hvis man skal ta alt som står skrevet om de to vitner bokstavelig, må man ikke da ta alt annet bokstavelig? som f.eks at Dyret (som Bibelen er et
menneske), slett ikke er et menneske, men en leopard med syv hoder osv. Og i så fall så er faktisk Jesus bokstavelig talt et lam, et avkom av en sau,
eller ser i alle fall slik ut. det er jo helt på tur å anta noe sånt! Men bildet på Ham blir stadig kalt "Lammet" i Johannes'
Åpenbaring.
motsier da Bibelen seg selv i en og samme bok? på ingen måte!
Johannes' Åpenbaring er for det aller meste en billedlig bok. slår det noen at ilden som går ut av de to vitnenes munn er Skriftens ord? for Guds
ord er sannelig istand til å fortære mennesker, både legemlig (når de kommer fra Guds egen munn) og hva sjel/ånd angår.
Man er nødt til å skille mellom ting som skal tas bokstavelig og ting som skal tolkes.
Johannes' Åpenbaring er en gåte. det eneste den sier tydelig er at Antikrist skal ha verdensherredømme (det finnes veldig mange teorier om hva
slags herredømme dette skal være), at de sanne kristne skal bli forfulgt inntil døden (faktisk verre forfølgelser enn i menighetens første tid), at de
som holder ut til enden skal bli frelst, så kommer Jesus Kristus og oppretter tusenårsriket. deretter blir satan og hans engler kastet i ildsjøen og
alle som ikke ennå er oppstått står opp til dom/frelse. så skal endelig Gud skape den nye jord og himmel og endelig skal det være himmelsk fred
overalt hvor vi ferdes og vi skal få tilbe og lovprise Ham i all evighet.
mer enn dette blir faktisk spekulasjoner. jeg er selv en liten spekulant, men jeg syns vi skal vente og ikke være så utålmodige når det gjelder Guds
dom og frelse. nettopp den utålmodigheten har ført til så mange menneskers forførelse og frafall.
det ser vi blant annet i diverse sekter og i forsamlinger hvor man tar himmelen på forskudd (*KREMT*trosbevegelsen*HOST* )
men tro meg... om vi fortsetter å stride den gode strid, så vil vi få merke forfølgelsene på kroppen, så sant Dyret kommer i vår tid.
Kjærligheten er ikke det at vi har elsket Gud, men at han har elsket oss og sendt sin Sønn til soning for våre synder.
1Joh 4,10
|
|
|
Kristnerd
Administrator
Innlegg: 2645
Registrert: 19-7-2003
Bosted: Rogaland
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
Det virker så bra så bra...
Men dette med å skulle putte hele Guds verk inn i skjematiske menneskelige oversikter er hva som vært utganspunktet til mye av vranglæren opp igjenom.
Latter Rain taler ( blandt annet ) om at vi er en restaurerings periode. ( Sen regn - tidlig regn ) Gud restaurerer menigheten og gjeninnsetter ledd
for ledd til det fulkomne. Høres så fint ut. Men... det er nok menneske tanker og ikke Guds tanker. ( når det starter med Luther og ender med Hinn
liksom...)
I tråden "mer åpenbar vranglære" skrev jeg bittelitt om en tanke ideologi som også tar for seg "husholdninger" som du Larss kaller
det. Du kan jo titte på hvordan man der har satt opp det skjematiske.
Alt koker ned til synsing og grubling. Som i beste fall ikke fører til noe, i verste fall utvikler seg til å bli en vranglære som skiller mellom de
kristne som har skjønt det, og de som ikke har skjønt det.
Jeg snakker nå på generell basis, og ikke kun på det du pastet. Jeg finner ingen rein skjær vranglære der. Men synes ideen i seg selv bak det å sette
opp slike tids epoker blir feil...
Evangelisk kristendom snakker jo forsåvidt også om tidsepoker, den gamle og den nye pakt f.eks. Men... også dette kan dras alt for langt. For å nevne
ett eksempel så har vi jo Åge Åleskjærs utsagn rundt de ti bud og Fader vår i fjor sommer. Jeg går ut i fra at tanken og målet var å vekke de som er i
loviskhet grøfta. Men ved å regelrett utale at Fader vår tilhører den gamle pakt, ( fordi Jesus lærte det bort før forsoningen og oppstandeles ) og at
de ti bud ikke har noen gyldighet i den nye pakt, så har han etter min erfaring langt i fra fått folk opp fra grøfta, men heller villedet noen over i
grøfta på den andre siden, nemlig hykleri og fornekting av synd.
«Forstår du det du leser?» «Hvordan skal jeg kunne forstå,» sa han, «når ingen forklarer det for meg?»
\"Se på dere selv, søsken, dere som ble kalt: ikke mange vise etter menneskelige mål, og ikke mange med makt eller av fornem slekt.\"
|
|
|
Kristnerd
Administrator
Innlegg: 2645
Registrert: 19-7-2003
Bosted: Rogaland
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
"prøv alt å hold fast på det gode" --- var en del ting der som jeg helt sikker leser mere på... samtidig... jeg går sjelden god for ett helt
nettsted 100%... Og om en person går 100% god for ett nettsted jeg muligens måtte lage så vil jeg lure litt på vedkommende også... Om jeg vet at jeg
har feil og mangler, så vil jeg heller ikke rope ut og erklære andre for perfekte reinlærere.
Har ikke funnet det som Lionheart henviser til, men antar at det medfører riktighet, og i så tilfelle så er jeg fullstendig enig med henne der.
Derimot tar han jo ett kraftig oppgjør med trosbevegelsen.
Vil på ingen måte advare mot siden, men vil ikke rope den ut som det store og perfekte heller. Til og med på linke sidene til apologetisk verksted så
ser du at vi ikke velger å gå 100% god for noe. SELV OM vi finner mye bra der, er enig i mye, og tror at personene bak siden er frelst og levende med
Jesus Kristus og står med nettestedet i tjeneste for ham.
Og... Thomas dine korte små innlegg gir meg en del ganger minst like mye som
andres lange utgreininger... du treffer spikeren på hodet rett som det er...
«Forstår du det du leser?» «Hvordan skal jeg kunne forstå,» sa han, «når ingen forklarer det for meg?»
\"Se på dere selv, søsken, dere som ble kalt: ikke mange vise etter menneskelige mål, og ikke mange med makt eller av fornem slekt.\"
|
|
|
Gunnar
Grunnlegger
Innlegg: 1390
Registrert: 16-7-2003
Brukeren er frakoblet
Humør: Liten mann, med en stor Gud.
|
|
Dispensjonalisme
Hei Larss
Jeg har satt meg fore å lese igjennom alle artiklene (som omhandler Dispensjonalismen og Paulus` hemmelighet) på Jan Lilleby's side. Dette kommer nok
til å ta en god del tid, så det vil nok kunne gå en stund før jeg prøver å si så mye konkret om detaljene i forkynnelsen .
Noen artikler har jeg allikevel lest allerede, og jeg ønsker å komme med noen innledene kommentarer:
Det første som slår meg, er at dersom Lilleby har rett i det han sier, så betyr det i praksis at de fire evangeliene i bibelen, og en god del av
brevene nesten ikke har noen som helst verdi for oss hedningekristne!
Bortsett fra å gi oss litt "bakgrunnskunnskap", så virker det jo nesten som om vi likesågodt kunne ha fjernet disse bøkene i fra bibelen! (Vi trenger
jo bare Paulus sin lære...).
Noe som forresten minner meg om versene i 1. Kor 3:
Når én sier: «Jeg holder meg til Paulus» og en annen: «Jeg til Apollos», er dere ikke da som alle andre mennesker? (vers 4)
Derfor må ingen rose seg av å være tilhenger av noe menneske. For alt hører dere til, enten det er Paulus, Apollos eller Kefas, verden, liv
eller død, det som nå er eller det som kommer – alt er deres. Men dere hører Kristus til, og Kristus hører Gud til. (Vers 21-23).
Det andre som slår meg er, at for å forstå konseptet med det hele, så må man være med på en utlegging som jeg tror vil gå langt over hodet på mange
mennesker.
Jeg er verken i mot avansert teologi (tvert i mot!) eller detaljerte utlegginger, men dersom premisset for å kunne være en "sann kristen", nesten er
at man må ha "høyskoleutdanning" for å være med i tankerekkene, så er det noe som skurrer hos meg. (Se på standard signaturen min nederst).
Jeg mener ikke at kompliserte teologiske utlegginger i seg selv er et bevis for at noe er feil. Det finnes jo mange avanserte teologiske utlegginger
om det som er sant også.
Mitt poeng er bare dette, at jeg alltid blir på vakt, når forutsetningen for å forstå og etterprøve forkynnelsen, nesten er at man må
beherske både Hebraisk og Gresk, pluss være i stand til å delta i en ganske så avansert argumentasjonsrekke.
Da ender det for mange med at man detter helt ut av tankerekkene de framfører, og man begynner å lure på om det finnes en plass hvor man kan få "kjøpt
litt mer IQ", slik at man kan skjønne hva det er han egentlig forkynner!
Det finnes ting i bibelen som ingen av oss kan forstå, uten at Ånden åpenbarer det for oss, og det finnes absolutt kompliserte emner i biblelen.
Det problematiske kommer når mennesker med stor bibelkunnskap og høy inteligens, lager kompliserte utlegginger, ut av det som allerede er komplisert i
fra før, og så tar feil!
I samme stund jublet han i Den Hellige Ånd og sa: «Jeg priser deg, Far, himmelens og jordens Herre, fordi du har skjult dette for kloke og
forstandige, men åpenbart det for enfoldige. Ja, Far, for dette var din gode vilje. Luk 10,21
Brødre, tenk på hvem dere selv er, dere som ble kalt: ikke mange vise, menneskelig talt, og ikke mange med makt eller av fornem ætt. 27 Men
det som går for å være uforstandig i verden, utvalgte Gud seg for å gjøre de vise til skamme. Det som regnes som svakt i verden, utvalgte Gud seg for
å gjøre det sterke til skamme. 1. kor 1, 26-27
Som sagt så skal jeg gå gjennom artiklene til Lilleby, og jeg er alltid villig til å lytte til andres standpunkter, og tenke alvorlig gjennom dem.
Jeg vil imdlertid aldri skifte standpunkt i viktige bibelske spørsmål, uten å ha brukt veldig lang tid i ettertanke og bønn. I tillegg så vil jeg
sjekke, dobbelsjekke og trippelsjekke både mot Guds eget ord, og ved finne ut hva andre kristne har å si om emnet.
For å kunne lære/forstå litt mer om dispensjonalismen: Dersom noen av dere kommer over artikler som tar for seg (ultra)dispensjonalismen, i fra et
nøytralt eller negativt standpunkt så vil jeg gjerne at dere tipser meg om dette her i forumet. Jeg ønsker nemlig alltid å kunne se flere sider av en
sak, uavhengig av mine egne standpunkt.
Guds fred
Vennlig hilsen
Gunnar
* * * *
[Redigert den 27-7-2005 av Gunnar]
|
|
|
Gunnar
Grunnlegger
Innlegg: 1390
Registrert: 16-7-2003
Brukeren er frakoblet
Humør: Liten mann, med en stor Gud.
|
|
Helt enig!
| Sitat: | Originally posted by Kristnerd
Og... Thomas dine korte små innlegg gir meg en del ganger minst like mye som
andres lange utgreininger... du treffer spikeren på hodet rett som det er... |
He he..
Jeg hadde tenkt å si det samme som Kristnerd sier til deg ovenfor, Thomas. Jeg er nemlig helt enig med ham! 
|
|
|
Kristnerd
Administrator
Innlegg: 2645
Registrert: 19-7-2003
Bosted: Rogaland
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
tittet litt mere på den siden. Utsagn om Ulf Ekman, falske profeter, vekkelser som ikke har kommet og mye jeg sier JA og Amen til. Men... dette med
husholdnigstanken syns jeg likevell han trekker alt for langt. Jeg vil fortsette og be Fader Vår jeg ( selv om siden mener Fader Vår i dag kun er gjeldende for Israel ) Og jeg vil også fast påstå at det er bare ETT
evangelium og at Jesus sine ord og Paulus ord er det samme Evangelium.
«Forstår du det du leser?» «Hvordan skal jeg kunne forstå,» sa han, «når ingen forklarer det for meg?»
\"Se på dere selv, søsken, dere som ble kalt: ikke mange vise etter menneskelige mål, og ikke mange med makt eller av fornem slekt.\"
|
|
|
Kristnerd
Administrator
Innlegg: 2645
Registrert: 19-7-2003
Bosted: Rogaland
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
Beklager Larss. Hvor mere jeg leser på den siden hvor mindre liker jeg den. Om alt dette med å skille "Jesu lære om Rikets komme" og
"Paulus nåde evangelium" er korekt så kan jeg nesten ikke engang kalle meg frelst.
Jeg bygger min tro på at Bibelen er EN sammenhengende helhet uten motstridinger. Hvor Den nåde Paulus forkynner er i tråd med den Nåde som ble vist
Abraham ( Paulus siterer selv Abrahm fortellingen i Romerbrevet for å understreke sitt nådebudskap: "Abraham trodde Gud, og det ble regnet ham
til rettferdighet.) , vist for kong David, og vist for apostelen Peter. En nåde som kjøper fri fra lovgjerninger, men som IKKE på noen måter gir oss
rett til hykleri.
Galaterne 5.
| Sitat: |
1 Til frihet har Kristus frigjort oss. Stå derfor fast og la dere ikke igjen tvinge inn under trelldommens åk.
|
| Sitat: |
13 Dere er kalt til frihet, brødre. La bare ikke friheten bli et påskudd for den syndige natur, men tjen hverandre i kjærlighet.
|
Les romerbrevet 12. Skrevet av Pauslus, og les Bergprekene av Jesus. Er dette to forskjellie evangelier? Nei, heldigivs ikke.
Når Paulus gang på gang påberoper seg apostel myndigheten så tilegner han seg Jesu ord om at "den som hører dere hører meg". Hvordan kan han
da forkynne noe nytt? Nei. Fra 1.Mos til Åpenbaringen er Bibelen ene og alene ett entydig budskap til frelse og dom.
2. Tim. 3.16
| Sitat: |
Alle skrifter som er inngitt av Gud, er også nyttige til å gi opplæring og tale til rette, hjelpe på rett vei og oppdra i rettferd.
|
«Forstår du det du leser?» «Hvordan skal jeg kunne forstå,» sa han, «når ingen forklarer det for meg?»
\"Se på dere selv, søsken, dere som ble kalt: ikke mange vise etter menneskelige mål, og ikke mange med makt eller av fornem slekt.\"
|
|
|
Gunnar
Grunnlegger
Innlegg: 1390
Registrert: 16-7-2003
Brukeren er frakoblet
Humør: Liten mann, med en stor Gud.
|
|
Spørsmål til Larss:
| Sitat: | Originally posted by Larss
Jeg anbefaller alle å ta seg en tur innom www.gracepano.com... ...vær sikker, denne forkynnelsen er med få unntak bunnsolid. |
Det jeg lurer på Larss, er om dette er et syn du har hatt i lang tid, eller om du ganske nylig er blitt "omvendt" til dispensjonalismen?
Jeg ser at du har postet det samme innlegget (av Lilleby) som du postet her, i forumet til Gospelsearch. Da kaller du deg for Anarko Lars. Betyr dette
at du anser deg selv for å være en slags anarkist?
Det hadde også vært fint om du kunne sagt noe om dine egne tanker om det du står for når det gjelder dispensjonalismen. Særlig er jeg nysjerrig på hva
det er som har overbevist deg om at Lilleby har rett, hvordan du ev. kom fram til den konklusjonen osv.
Håper å høre fra deg igjen Larss!
Guds fred
Gunnar.
[Edited on 28-2-2004 by Gunnar]
|
|
|
Larss
Juniorveteran
Innlegg: 437
Registrert: 9-8-2003
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
Hei!
Jeg har desverre ikke fått svart på så mange av innleggene her, noe jeg etterhvert skal gjøre.
Nei dett er ikke noe syn jeg nettopp har fått, men et syn jeg nesten bestandig har hatt. Jeg har derimot aldri følt det nødvendig å sette noe navn på
denne læren bortsett fra Bibelsk. Jeg har heller aldri konkretisert så mye, men det kommer seg naturlig å se hva som gjelder for dagens menighet og
ikke.
Eller som Aril Edvardsen sier:
"jeg er ikke noen helbredelsespredikant, jeg ber for syke, og det hender noen blir friske, men de fleste blir det ikke, det ser vi jo på
kirkegårdene..."
Selv om jeg såklart mener at mitt syn først og fremst er Bibelsk, og at Bibelen egentlig burdte være den eneste refferanse kan det vel sies at jeg i
stor grad deler synet til Nordquelle (Den Norske pinsebevegelsens far*) i en rekke saker.
Menigheten jeg går i er vel iogforseg farget på akkurat dette punktet (tidshusholdninger) av bla. det som ble undervist på Smyrna Bibelinstitutt.
*(Nordquelle "startet" pinsevekkelsen i Norge etter en sterk frihetsåpenbaring, og vekkelsen brøt ut. Etterhvert begynte T.B. Barrat å
forkynne i Nordquelles "Frie Venner" når han kom til landet, men etter en konflikt om man burdte ha innskrevne medlemmer, åndsdåp,
helbredelse osv. brøt T.B. Barrat ut, og tok pga. et system der menighetshusene sto registrert på en enkeltperson hvert eneste sted, tok Barrat med
seg mesteparten av menighetshusene. Slik ble Frie Venner (nå DFEF) og Pinsebevegelsen til)
|
|
|
Larss
Juniorveteran
Innlegg: 437
Registrert: 9-8-2003
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
Kristnerd:
Det er selvfølgelig ikke snakk om motsetninger her, men forskjellige måter å handle på til forskjellige måter.
Det man bør skjønne er at det er instruksene til menigheten, kontra instruksene til riket Israel som er forskjellige, men de er derimot ikke
konkurerende.
Paulus viste dette, og snakket varmt om de andre som forkynte rikets komme (noe han forsåvidt selv gjorde, og trodde ville komme innen hans levetid)
De som forkynte rikets komme snakket jo forøvrig varmt om Paulus. Altså er det ikke noen motsetninger her.
Når det gjelder å gå ut mot "fader vår" og å bekjenne sine synder så er det blant de tingene som jeg betegner som litt firkantet.
For, mens hans poeng bak det han skriver om det er riktig, så ser jeg ikke noe galt i å bekjenne sine synder, selv om det som han sier ikke er en
betingelse for frelse og til enhver tid å ha gjort det. Og jeg syns også at "fader vår" er en flott bønn som jeg gjerne ber, selv om poenget
hans her også egentliger riktig.
Så ingen avskriver evangeliene eller de andre brevene, eller GT for den saks skyld, man bare gjør det klart at selve ordningene er forskjellige.
Husk at Jesus når han møtte en ikke-jøde aviste denne personen og sa at han forkynte for jødene, ikke andre. Når Paulus fikk sin ordre overlevert av
Jesus så ble det jo også stort oppstyr blant apostlene, kunne det være slik at ikke-jøder kunne ta del i frelsen? Paulus selv betegner frelsen for
hedningene som Guds hemmelighet, som han var den første til å avsløre.
|
|
|
Kristnerd
Administrator
Innlegg: 2645
Registrert: 19-7-2003
Bosted: Rogaland
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
Enig i at det ikke er en betingelse for frelsen å til en hver tid ha bekjent sine synder. Da måtta man jo ha godt rundt å bekjent kontinuerlig i frykt
for å ikke være frelst.
Jeg liker betegnelsen til Ch.Fr. Wisløf om at man "bor i frelsen som i et hus". Når du en gang har blitt frelst så er du trygt bevart i ett
hus. Faller du i synd ( billedlig detter ned trappa ) så er du fremdeles i huset. Osv... Men... her går en viktig skillelinje opp mot det å leve i
synd. Bekjennelsen, (f.eks. ved å be Fader vår) , er ikke en fryktens, tvangens og pliktens frukt. Men et middel og en rett vi har for å ikke bli
liggende nede for synden når vi har falt. Og det er viktig å huske at det du bekjente i går er det meningsløst å bekjenne i dag. Du vasker vell ikke
bort samme flekken fra skjorta to ganger?
Men likefult som Jesus sa til disiplene at de en gang var badet, og dermed rene. Så sa han også at han MÅTTE få lov til å vaske deres ben for at de
skulle ha samfunn med ham. Hvis ikke vil synden bre seg, og vi beveger oss trinn for trinn mot døren på huset.
Bekjennelsen av synd er dermed ingen frelsesgjerning, med untak av den første gang. Men en stadig helligjørings gjerning som leder oss nermere,
nermere og nermere Jesus. På lik linje med de alle ting i kristenlivet. Stopper bønnen, stopper Bibelelsning, stopper broderskapet, så beveger du deg
mot døren av "frelseshuset". Og Gud kommer ikke til å hindre deg i å forlate huset om du vil.
Balansegangen mellom hva som føleles og oppleves som plikt, og hva som føles og oppleves som rettigheter og gaver er mange ganger syltyn. Mye snakk
om bekjennelse av synd vil helt klart kunne virke nedbrytende. Så dermed kan jeg forstå motivet bak f.eks. Åge Åleskjær når han skriver denne siste
boken sin. MEN; jeg er likefult uenig i skillelinjene han trekker. Da jeg opplever det som at han for å unngå en grøft, også hindrer folk fra
Gudsgidde metoder til helligjørelse.
I verstefall vil man få en lunkenhet og benekting av at den syndige natur lever videre i oss. Og kommer man så langt, så har man ikke lengre Bibelsk
grunnlag.
( 1.Johannes 1. 8 Sier vi at vi ikke har synd, da bedrar vi oss selv, og sannheten er ikke i oss.)
«Forstår du det du leser?» «Hvordan skal jeg kunne forstå,» sa han, «når ingen forklarer det for meg?»
\"Se på dere selv, søsken, dere som ble kalt: ikke mange vise etter menneskelige mål, og ikke mange med makt eller av fornem slekt.\"
|
|
|
Gunnar
Grunnlegger
Innlegg: 1390
Registrert: 16-7-2003
Brukeren er frakoblet
Humør: Liten mann, med en stor Gud.
|
|
| Sitat: | Originally posted by Kristnerd
Bekjennelsen av synd er dermed ingen frelsesgjerning, med untak av den første gang. Men en stadig helligjørings gjerning som leder oss nermere,
nermere og nermere Jesus. På lik linje med de alle ting i kristenlivet. Stopper bønnen, stopper Bibelelsning, stopper broderskapet, så beveger du deg
mot døren av "frelseshuset". Og Gud kommer ikke til å hindre deg i å forlate huset om du vil.
( 1.Johannes 1. 8 Sier vi at vi ikke har synd, da bedrar vi oss selv, og sannheten er ikke i oss.) |
Bare så det er sagt Kristnerd, så deler jeg dine synspunkter i innlegget ovenfor. La meg bare et lite øyeblikk leke "djevlenes advokat" i
forbindelse med din henvisning til 1. Johannes 1. 8:
Slik jeg forstår Lilleby, så vil en dispensjonalist hevde at disse ordene ikke er skrevet til oss hedningekristne, men til Jøder som har
tatt i mot Riket. Jødene får nemlig nåden SAMMEN med gjerninger, mens vi hedningekristne får det av nåde alene.
Med andre ord: En omvendt jøde trenger stadig å erkjenne synd, og be gjevnlig om tilgivelse. Omvendte hedninger trenger bare å takke for tilgivelsen
vi har mottatt en gang for alle, da vi ble frelst.
Gunnar.
|
|
|
Kristnerd
Administrator
Innlegg: 2645
Registrert: 19-7-2003
Bosted: Rogaland
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
Vi snakket om dette i "vekstgruppa" mi for noen uker siden faktisk. Da med en litt annen innledning. Det gjaldt ett radio intervju med
Karstein Isacksen hvor han hadde utalt at "vi må fjerne ordet skyld fra vårt vokabulær. Skyldspørsmål gjør ingenting annet enn å bryte ned
folk"...
En samlett gruppe med forskjellig alder og bakgrunn ble enige i at den "definisjonen" som jeg har gjengitt ovenfor er bare tullballere fra
Isacksen.
For å se for seg en "rollefordeling", så sier faktisk Bibelen at Jesus er en advokat for oss, og går i forbønn for oss når vi synder. Men er
det satan som er anklageren? Nei, det ser nesten ut som om det er Gud som er det. Til syvende og sist er det jo Gud som skal dømme.
Satans anklager rolle er ovenfor oss selv, i oss selv. For at vi skal tro at Jesus frelse ikke er nok. Men når vi står for dommen er det Gud som er
den endelige anklager og dommer. Og ved Jesus som syndoffer OG som forsvarsadvokat blir vi frikjent.
1.Joh 2.1
| Sitat: |
Mine barn, dette skriver jeg til dere for at dere ikke skal synde. Men om noen synder, har vi en som taler vår sak hos Faderen, Jesus Kristus, Den
Rettferdige.
|
[Edited on 23-4-2004 by Kristnerd]
«Forstår du det du leser?» «Hvordan skal jeg kunne forstå,» sa han, «når ingen forklarer det for meg?»
\"Se på dere selv, søsken, dere som ble kalt: ikke mange vise etter menneskelige mål, og ikke mange med makt eller av fornem slekt.\"
|
|
|
Kurt Arne
Juniormedlem
Innlegg: 11
Registrert: 10-5-2004
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
En annen anbefaling
Jeg vil mye heller anbefale nettstedet www.frihet.no Det er mye sunnere.
|
|
|
bus
Medlem
Innlegg: 118
Registrert: 29-3-2004
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
| Sitat: | For å kunne lære/forstå litt mer om dispensjonalismen: Dersom noen av dere kommer over artikler som tar for seg (ultra)dispensjonalismen, i fra et
nøytralt eller negativt standpunkt så vil jeg gjerne at dere tipser meg om dette her i forumet. Jeg ønsker nemlig alltid å kunne se flere sider av en
sak, uavhengig av mine egne standpunkt.
Guds fred
Vennlig hilsen
Gunnar |
Her er en til:
Tre menn som endret evangeliet.
http://www.mensviventer.no/mvv24/endret.htm
|
|
|
Siggen
Seniormedlem
Innlegg: 152
Registrert: 30-12-2004
Bosted: Enebakk
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
Dispensasjonalisme
Wrongly Dividing
the Word of Truth
ULTRA-DISPENSATIONALISM EXAMINED
IN THE LIGHT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
H.A. IRONSIDE, Litt.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Ultra-Dispensationalism?
The Four Gospels and Their Relation to the Church
The Transitional Period - Is the Church of The Acts the Body of Christ?
When Was the Revelation of the Mystery of the One Body Given?
Further Examination of the Epistles
Is the Church the Bride of the Lamb?
Do Baptism and the Lord's Supper Have Any Place in the Present Dispensation of the Grace of God?
Concluding Remarks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER ONE
What is Ultra-Dispensationalism?
"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2 Tim. 2: 15).
PAUL'S exhortation to the younger preacher, Timothy, has come home to many with great power in recent years. As a result, there has been a return to
more ancient methods of Bible study, which had been largely neglected during the centuries of the Church's drift from apostolic testimony.
Augustine's words have had a re-affirmation: "Distinguish the ages, and the Scriptures are plain." And so there has been great emphasis put in many
quarters, and rightly so, upon the study of what is commonly known as "dispensational" truth. This line of teaching, if kept within Scriptural
bounds, cannot but prove a great blessing to the humble student of the Word of God who desires to know His will or plan in His dealings with men from
creation to the coming glory. A careful examination of the volume of Revelation shows that God's ways with men have differed in various ages. This
must be taken into account if one would properly apprehend His truth.
The word "dispensation" is found several times in the pages of our English Bible and is a translation of the Greek word "oikonomia." This word,
strictly speaking, means "house order." It might be translated "administration," "order," or "stewardship." In each successive age, God gives to men
of faith a certain stewardship, or makes known to them a certain order or administration, in accordance with which they are responsible to behave. A
dispensation then is a period of time in which God is dealing with men in some way in which He has not dealt with them before. Only when a new
revelation from God is given, does a dispensation change. Moreover, there may be degrees of revelation in one dispensation; all, however, having to
do with a fuller unfolding of the will of God for that particular age. This was very definitely true in the dispensation of law, from Moses to
Christ. We have the various revelations: of Sinai, both the first and second giving of the law; then added instructions during the wilderness years;
the covenant with David; and the revelations given to the prophets. The circumstances in which God's people were found changed frequently during this
age of law, but the dispensation itself continued from Sinai until Jesus cried, "It is finished." It is important to have this in mind, otherwise the
vast scope of an ever unfolding dispensation may be lost sight of, and one might get the idea that every additional revelation of truth in a given age
changed the dispensation, whereas it only enlarges it.
One may illustrate a dispensation in a very simple way, remembering that the word really means "house order," and I might add, the Greek word has been
Anglicized, and we know it as "economy." Let us suppose a young woman whom we will call Mary, is going out into service. She obtains a position in a
humble home belonging to a good family of the working class. There are certain rules governing that home which she must learn to observe. All
perhaps is not plain to her at once, but as time goes on, she learns more and more fully the desires of her mistress. We will say she is to rise at
five every morning and begin to prepare the breakfast and put up the lunches for those who go out to work. At six she is to ring the rising bell; at
half-past six the family are supposed to be at the breakfast-table; and at seven they leave for work. Dinner of course is at a certain hour at night,
and in the meantime she has her different duties to perform in keeping the house in order. She learns quite thoroughly the domestic economy of this
particular home and becomes a well-qualified household servant. Now let us suppose that later on she finds that a cook and housekeeper is needed for
the large mansion on the hill. She applies for the position and is accepted. Moving in, her mistress undertakes to instruct her in the economy of
the new home, but Mary says, "You need not give me any instructions, Ma'am, I know exactly how a house should be run. just leave it to me and
everything will be attended to properly. I have had some years of experience in housekeeping and I would not have asked for the position if I did not
know what was required." Her mistress is dubious, but, for the time being, acquiesces.
The next morning, the waking-gong sounds at six o'clock. The family, who are accustomed to banker's hours during the day and are given to very late
hours at night, are astonished and chagrined at being aroused so early. The mistress calls down to the housekeeper, "What does this mean?" and learns
that breakfast will be on the table in half-an-hour.
"Why, Mary," she exclaims; "we never breakfast here until half-past eight."
"But the breakfast is hot and the lunches are all ready, Ma'am."
"No one carries lunches in this home. You see, Mary, you do not understand the arrangement here. I shall have to instruct you carefully today." And
poor bewildered Mary learns the importance of dispensational truth!
The illustration, I know, is crude, but I think any one will see the point. God had one order for the house of Israel. There is another order for
the house of God, the Church of the living God today. There will be a different order in the millennial age, and there have been varying orders in
the past.
All this comes out clearly in the pages of Holy Scripture, and is certainly involved in the expression in our English Bibles, "rightly dividing the
Word of Truth." Of course, this expression is not by any means to be limited to dispensational teaching. It also implies putting each great doctrine
of the Word in its right place. It has been translated, "cutting in a straight line the Word of Truth," that is, not confounding or confusing things
that differ. It even suggests the thought of honestly facing the Word of Truth.
It is right here then that we need to be careful, and not read into the Word of God ideas out of our own minds which are not really there. Through
doing this, some have ignored dispensational truth altogether. Others have swung to an ultra-dispensationalism which is most pernicious in its effect
upon one's own soul and upon testimony for God generally. Of these ultra-dispensational systems, one in particular has come into prominence of late
years, which, for want of a better name, is generally called "Bullingerism," owing to the fact that it was first advocated some years ago by Dr. E. W.
Bullinger, a clergyman of the Church of England. These views have been widely spread through the notes of "The Companion Bible," a work partly edited
by Dr. Bullinger, though he died before it was completed. This Bible has many valuable features and has been a help in certain respects to God's
servants who have used it conservatively, but it contains interpretations which are utterly subversive of the truth. Some of Dr. Bullinger's
positions are glaringly opposed to what is generally accepted as orthodox teaching, as, for instance, the sleep of the soul between death and
resurrection; and it is a most significant fact that while he did not apparently fully commit himself to any eschatological position as to the final
state of the impenitent, most of his followers in Great Britain have gone off into annihilation, and there is quite a sect in America who began with
his teaching who now are restorationists of the broadest type, teaching what they are pleased to call universal reconciliation, which to their minds
involves the final salvation not only of all men, but of Satan and all the fallen angels. These two views, diverse as they are, are nevertheless the
legitimate offspring of the ultra-dispensational system to which we refer.
The present writer has been urged by many for years to take up these questions, but has always heretofore shrunk from doing so; first, because of the
time and labor involved, which seemed out of all proportion to the possible value of such an examination; and secondly, because of a natural shrinking
from controversy, remembering the word, "The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness
instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." But the rapid spread of
these pernicious views and their evident detrimental effect upon so many who hold them, has led to the conclusion that it would be unfaithfulness to
God and to His people if one refused to seek to give any help he could in regard to these teachings.
Briefly, then, what are the outstanding tenets of Bullingerism and its kindred systems? For one needs to remember that a number are teaching these
ultra-dispensational things who declare that they are not familiar with the writings of Dr. Bullinger, and repudiate with indignation the name of
"Bullingerism." There are perhaps six outstanding positions taken by these teachers:
First, inasmuch as our Lord Jesus was "a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers," it is insisted that the four
Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church, the Body of Christ. All might not put it quite as boldly as this, but certainly
their disciples go to the limit in repudiating the authority of the Gospels.
Secondly, it is maintained that the book of Acts covers a transition period between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of the mystery;
that is, that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word "ekklesia" (church, or assembly), as used in that
book, refers to a different Church altogether to that of Paul's prison epistles. This earlier Church is simply an aspect of the kingdom and is not
the same as the Body of Christ!
Third, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his prison
epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to members of the Body. All of the other
epistles of Paul, save those written during his imprisonment and the general epistles, are relegated to the earlier dispensation of the book of Acts,
and have no permanent value for us, but were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish church of that time.
Fourth, the entire book of Revelation has to do with the coming age and has no reference to the Church today. Even the letters to the seven churches
in Asia, which are distinctly said to be "the things which are," are, according to this system, to be considered as "the things which are not," and
will not be until the Church, the Body of Christ, is removed from this world. Then, it is contended, these seven churches will appear on the earth as
Jewish churches in the Great Tribulation.
Fifth, the Body of Christ is altogether a different company, according to these teachers, from the Bride of the Lamb, the latter being supposed to be
Jewish.
Sixth, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul is supposed to have received his revelation of the mystery in prison, have no real
connection with the present economy, and therefore, are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.*
*As to this, these ultra-dispensationalists differ. Most of them reject water baptism entirely for this age. All of them are not prepared to go so
far in connection with the Lord's Supper, but many of them repudiate it too.
Besides these six points, there are many other unscriptural things which are advocated by various disciples who began with these views and have been
rapidly throwing overboard other Scriptural teachings. Many Bullingerites boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the
annihilation of the wicked, or, as we have seen, universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and, gravest of all, the personality of the Holy Spirit. All of these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism. Once men take up
with this system there is no telling how far they will go, and what their final position will be in regard to the great fundamental truths of
Christianity. It is because of this that one needs to be on his guard, for it is as true of systems as it is of teachers, "By their fruits ye shall
know them."
Having had most intimate acquaintance with Bullingerism as taught by many for the last forty years, I have no hesitancy in saying that its fruits are
evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands, it has divided Christians and wrecked
churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look
with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has
absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no
hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth. Instead of rightly dividing the Word, I shall seek to show that these
teachers wrongly divide the Word, and that their propaganda is anything but conducive to spirituality and enlightenment in divine things.
CHAPTER TWO
The Four Gospels and Their Relation to the Church
HOWEVER they may differ in regard to minor details of their various systems, practically all ultra-dispensationalists are a unit in declaring that the
four Gospels must be entirely relegated to a past dispensation (in fact, according to most of them, they are pushed two dispensations back), and,
therefore, are not to be considered as in any sense applying to this present age. It is affirmed with the utmost assurance that the Gospels are
wholly Jewish. Inasmuch as we are told in the Epistle to the Romans (15: 8), that "Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of
God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers," the position is taken that the records of the Evangelists deal solely with this phase of things,
and that there is nothing even in the utterances of our Lord Himself in those books that has any special place for the present dispensation.
Yet a careful consideration of the very passage in which these words are found would seem to negative this entire theory and prove that it is
absolutely groundless, for when the apostle is stressing true Christian behavior, he refers the saints back to the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus
when here on earth. Notice the opening verses of Romans 15. We are told that the "strong should bear the infirmities of the weak, and not seek to
please themselves, but that each one should have in mine the edification of his neighbor," having Christ as our great example, "who pleased not
Himself, but of whom it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell on Me."
We are then definitely informed that not only what we have in the four Gospels, but what we have in all the Old Testament is for us, "for whatsoever
things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Here there is no
setting aside of an earlier revelation as though it had no message for the people of God in a later day simply because dispensations have changed.
Spiritual principles never change; moral responsibility never changes, and the believer who would glorify God in the present age must manifest the
grace that was seen in Christ when He walked here on earth during the age that is gong. It is perfectly true that He came in exact accord with Old
Testament prophecy and came under the law, in order that He might deliver those who were under the law from that bondage. He was in reality a
minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, not-observe-to fulfil at His first coming the promises made unto the fathers, but to confirm them.
This He did by His teaching and His example. He assures Israel even in setting them to one side, that the promises made beforehand shall yet have
their fulfilment.
But, observe, it is upon this very fact that the apostle bases present grace going out to the Gentiles, for he adds in verse 9:
"And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy; as it is written: For this cause I will confess to Thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto Thy
name. And again He saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His people. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud Him, all ye people. And
again, Esaias saith, There shall be a Root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in Him shall the Gentiles trust" (vers. 9-12).
Here, while not for a moment ignoring that revelation of the mystery of which he speaks in the closing chapter, Paul shows that the present work of
God in reaching out in grace to the Gentiles, is in full harmony with Old Testament Scripture, while going far beyond anything that the Old Testament
prophets ever dreamed of, and then he adds:
"Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost" (ver. 13).
While there is a change of dispensation, there is no rude severing of Old Testament or Gospel revelation from that of the present age. The one flows
naturally out of the other, and the ways of God are shown to be perfectly harmonious. This being so in connection with the Old Testament, how much
more does the same principle apply in connection with the four Gospels. While fully recognizing their dispensational place, and realizing that our
Lord is presented in the three Synoptics as offering Himself as King and the kingdom of Heaven as such to Israel, only to meet with ever-increasing
rejection, yet it should be plain to any spiritual mind that the principles of the kingdom which He sets forth are the same principles that should
hold authority over the hearts of all who acknowledge the Lordship of Christ. In john's Gospel the case is somewhat different, for there Christ is
seen as the rejected One from the very beginning. It is in chapter one that we read, "He came unto His own and His own received Him not." Then based
upon that, we have the new and fuller revelation which runs throughout that Gospel of grace, flowing out to all men who have no merit whatever in
themselves.
But in Matthew, which is preeminently the dispensational Gospel, the Lord is presented as the Son of David first of all. Then when it is evident that
Israel will refuse His claims, He is presented in the larger aspect of Son of Abraham in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. The
break with the leaders of the nation comes in chapter twelve, where they definitely ascribe the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil. In doing this,
they become guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, the crowning sin of that dispensation, which our Lord declares could not be forgiven either in
that age or in the one to follow. In chapter thirteen, we have an altogether new ministry beginning. The Lord for the first time opens up the
mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, revealing things that had been kept secret from the foundation of the world, namely the strange and unlooked-for
form that the kingdom would take here on earth after Israel had rejected the King and He had returned to Heaven. This is set forth in the seven
parables of that chapter, and gives us the course of Christendom during all the present age.
As a rule, the ultra-dispensationalists would ignore all this and push these seven parables forward into the tribulation era after the Church, the
Body of Christ, has been taken out of this scene. But this is to do violence to the entire Gospel and to ignore utterly the history of the past 1900
years. just as in Revelation two and three we have an outline of the history of the professing Church presented under the similitude of the seven
letters, so in Matthew 13 we have the course of Christendom in perfect harmony with the Church letters, portrayed in such a way as to make clear the
distinction between the Church that man builds and that which is truly of God. In chapter sixteen of Matthew's Gospel, the Lord declares for the
first time that He is going to build a Church or assembly. This assembly is to be built upon the Rock, the confession of the apostle Peter that
Christ is the Son of the living God. How utterly vain it is to try to separate this declaration from the statement in the Ephesian Epistle where we
read,
"Now therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth
unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (2: 19-22).
Here in the preeminent prison epistle of which so much is made by the Bullingerites, you find that the Church then in existence is the Church our Lord
spoke of building when He was here in the days of His flesh. The discipline of that Church is given in Matthew 18: 15-20:
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained
thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the -mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be
established. And if he shall neglect to bear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen
man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them
of My Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them."
In Matthew sixteen you have the assembly as a whole, comprising all believers during the present dispensation. Here in chapter eighteen, you have the
local assembly in the position of responsibility on earth, and its authority to deal with evil-doers in corrective discipline.
The complete setting aside of Israel for the present age is given us in chapter 23: 37-39,
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killst the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children
together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house -is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you,
Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord."
In the light of the words, "Your house is left unto you desolate," how amazing the presumption that would lead any to declare, as practically all
these extreme dispensationalists do declare, that Israel is being given a second trial throughout all the book of Acts, and that their real setting
aside does not take place until Paul's meeting with the elders of the Jews after his imprisonment in Rome, as recorded in the last chapter of Acts.
The fact of the matter is that the book of Acts opens with the setting aside of Israel until the day when they shall say, "Blessed is He that cometh
in the name of the Lord." That is His second glorious coming. In the interval, God is saving out of Israel as well as of the Gentiles, all who turn
to Him in repentance.
In Matthew twenty-four, we are carried on to the days immediately preceding that time when the Son of Man shall appear in glory, and we find the
people of Israel in great distress, but a remnant called His "elect" shall be saved in that day.
I pass purposely over chapter twenty-five as having no particular bearing on the outline, because a careful consideration of it would take more time
and space than is here available. The closing chapters give us the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and then the commission of His
apostles. People who have never investigated Bullingerism and its kindred systems will hardly believe me when I say that even the great commission
upon which the Church has acted for 1900 years, and which is still our authority for world-wide missions, is, according to these teachers, a
commission with which we have nothing whatever to do, that has no reference to the Church at all, and that the work there predicted will not begin
until taken up by the remnant of Israel in the days of the Great Tribulation. Yet such is actually the teaching. In view of this, let us carefully
read the closing verses of the Gospel:
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him: but
some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen" (28: 16-20).
According to the Bullingeristic interpretation of this passage, we should have to paraphrase it somewhat as follows: "Then the eleven disciples went
away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and
spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and earth, and after two entire dispensations have rolled by, I command that the remnant
of Israel who shall be living two thousand or more years later, shall go out and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them in that day to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, but from which I absolve all
believers between the present hour and that coming age, and lo, I will be with that remnant until the close of Daniel's seventieth week." Can anything
be more absurd, more grotesque-and I might add, more wicked-than thus to twist and misuse the words of our Lord Jesus Christ?
In view of all this, may I direct my reader's careful attention to the solemn statement of the apostle Paul, which is found in I Timothy, chapter 6.
After having given a great many practical exhortations to Timothy as to the instruction he was to give to the churches for their guidance during all
the present age, the apostle says,
"If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ' and to the doctrine which is according to
godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself" (I Tim. 6:3-5).
One would almost think that this was a direct command to Timothy to beware of Bullingerism! Notice, Timothy is to withdraw himself from, that is, to
have no fellowship with, those who refuse the present authority of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Where do you get those actual words?
Certainly in the four Gospels. There are very few actual words of the Lord Jesus Christ scattered throughout the rest of the New Testament. Of
course there is a sense in which all the New Testament is from Him, but the apostle is clearly referring here to the actual spoken words of our
Saviour, which have been recorded for the benefit of the saints, and which set forth the teaching that is in accordance with godliness or practical
piety. If a man refuses these words, whether on the plea that they do not apply to our dispensation, or for any other reason, the Spirit of God
declares it is an evidence of intellectual or spiritual pride. Such men ordinarily think they know much more than others, and they look down from
their fancied heights of superior Scriptural understanding with a certain contempt, often not untinged with scornful amusement, upon godly men and
women who are simply seeking to take the words of the Lord Jesus as the guide for their lives.
But here we are told that such "know nothing," but are really in their spiritual dotage, "doting about questions and strifes of words." The dotard is
generally characterized by frequent repetition of similar expressions. We know how marked this symptom is in those who have entered upon a state of
physical and intellectual senility. Spiritual dotage may be discerned in the same way. A constant dwelling upon certain expressions as though these
were all important, to the ignoring of the great body of truth, is an outstanding symptom. The margin, it will be observed, substitutes the word
"sick" for "doting;" "word-sickness" is an apt expression. The word-sick man over-estimates altogether the importance of terms. He babbles
continually about expressions which many of his brethren scarcely understand. He is given to misplaced emphasis, making far more of fine doctrinal
distinctions than of practical godly living. As a result, his influence is generally baneful instead of helpful, leading to strife and disputation
instead of binding the hearts of the people of God together in the unity of the Spirit.
The well-known passage in the closing chapter of Mark's Gospel, which gives us another aspect of the great commission, having to do particularly with
the apostles, is a. favorite battleground with the ultra-dispensationalists. Ignoring again the entire connection, they insist that the commission
given in verses fifteen and eighteen could only apply during the days of the book of Acts, inasmuch as certain signs were to follow them that believe.
As the commission in Matthew has been relegated by them to the Great Tribulation after the Christian age has closed, this one is supposed to have had
its fulfilment before the present mystery dispensation began, and so has no real force now. They point out, what to them seems conclusive, that in
this commission, as of course that in Matthew, water baptism is evidently linked with a profession of faith in Christ. They are perfectly hydrophobic
as to this. The very thought of water sets them foaming with indignation. There must on no account be any recognition of water baptism during the
present age. It must be gotten rid of at all costs. So here where we read that our Lord said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to
every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed" (Mark 16: 15,16), which would seem
to indicate world-wide evangelism, looking out to the proclamation of the glad glorious Gospel of God to lost men everywhere, this commission must
nevertheless be gotten rid of somehow. The way they do it is this: The Lord declares that certain signs shall follow when this Gospel is proclaimed.
These signs evidently followed in the days of the Acts. They declare they have never followed since. Therefore, it is evident that water baptism is
only to go on so long as the signs follow. If the signs have ceased, then water baptism ceases. The signs are not here now, therefore no water
baptism. How amazingly clear (!!), though, as we shall see in a moment, absolutely illogical. The signs accompanied preaching the Gospel. Why
continue to preach if such signs are not now manifest?
The Matthew commission makes it plain that baptism in the name of the Trinity is to go on to the end of the age, and that age has not come to an end
yet, whatever changes of dispensation may have come in. Now what of this commission in Mark? Observe first of all that our Lord is not declaring
that the signs shall follow believers in the Gospel which is to be proclaimed by the Lord's messengers. The signs were to follow those of the
apostles who believed, and they did. There were some of them who did not believe. See verse eleven: "And they, when they had heard that He was alive
and had been seen of her, believed not." Then again, notice verse thirteen: "They went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them." And
in the verse that follows, we read: "Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of
heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen." Now our Lord commissions the eleven, sends them forth to go to the ends
of the earth preaching the Gospel to every creature. There is nothing limited here. It is not a Jewish commission. It has nothing to do with the
restoration of the kingdom to Israel. It is a world-wide commission to go to all the Gentiles, and to go forth preaching the Word. Responsibility
rests upon those who hear. They are to believe and be baptized. Those who do are recognized among the saved. On the other hand, He does not say,
"He that is not baptized shall be ****ed," because baptism was simply an outward confession of their faith, but He does say, "He that believeth
not shall be ****ed."
Then in verses seventeen and eighteen, we have what Paul later called "the signs of an apostle."
"These signs shall follow them that believe: In My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents;
and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
During all the period of the book of Acts, these signs did follow the apostles. More than that, if we can place the least reliance upon early Church
history, the same signs frequently followed other servants of Christ, as they went forth in obedience to this commission, and this long after the
imprisonment of the apostle Paul. We should expect this from the closing verses of Mark:
"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached
everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with signs following" (Mark 16:19,20).
In this last verse, Mark covers the evangelization of the world (not merely a message going out to the Jews), during all the years that followed until
the last of the apostles, John himself, had disappeared from the scene. I do not mean to intimate that Mark knew this, but I do mean that the Spirit
of God caused him so to write this closing verse as to cover complete apostolic testimony right on to its consummation. They preached everywhere, not
simply in connection with Israel. Yet in the face of this, the statement has been made over and over again by these ultradispensationalists, that the
twelve never went to the Gentiles, excepting in the case of the apostle Peter and a few similar instances. The statement has also been made that all
miracles ceased with Paul's imprisonment, that there were no miracles afterwards. What superb ignorance of Church history is here indicated, and what
an absurd position a man puts himself in who commits himself to negatives like these! An eminent logician has well said, "Never commit yourself to a
negative, for that supposes that you are in possession of all the facts." If a man says there were no miracles wrought in the Church after the
imprisonment of the apostle Peter, it means, if that statement is true, that he has thorough knowledge of all that has taken place in every land on
earth where the Gospel has been preached, in all the centuries since the days of Paul's imprisonment, and knows all the work that every servant of
Christ has ever done. Otherwise he could not logically and rationally make such a statement.
What then is the conclusion? It is wrongly dividing the Word of Truth to seek to rob Christians of the precious instruction given by our Lord Jesus
in the four Gospels, though fully recognizing their dispensational place. It is an offense against Christian missions everywhere to try to set aside
the great commission for the entire present age. It is not true that a definite limit is placed in Scripture upon the manifestation of sign gifts,
and that such gifts have never appeared since the days of the apostles.
CHAPTER THREE
The Transitional Period
Is the Church of The Acts the Body of Christ?
HERE is perhaps nothing about which the ultradispensationalists are more certain, according to their own expressions, than that the book of the Acts
covers a transitional period, coming in between the age of the law and the present age in which the dispensation of the mystery has been revealed.
They do not always agree as to the name of this intervening period. Some call it the Kingdom Church; others the Jewish Church; and there are those
who prefer the term Pentecostal Dispensation. The general teaching is about as follows: It is affirmed that the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day
of Pentecost and His baptizing the one hundred and twenty and those who afterwards believed, did not have anything to do with the formation of the
Church, the Body of Christ. On the contrary, they insist that the Church throughout all of the book of Acts up to Paul's imprisonment was of an
altogether lower order than that of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Assemblies in Judea, Samaria, and the various Gentile countries, were simply groups
of believers who were waiting for the manifestation of the kingdom, and had not yet come into the full liberty of grace. The ordinances of the Lord's
Supper and of baptism were linked with these companies and were to continue only until Israel had definitely and finally refused the Gospel message,
after which the full revelation of the mystery is supposed to have been given to the apostle Paul when he was imprisoned at Rome. From that time on a
new dispensation began. Surely this is wrongly confounding the Word of Truth. How any rational and spiritually-minded person could ever come to such
a conclusion after a careful reading of the book of Acts, and with it the various epistles addressed to the churches and peoples mentioned in that
book, is more than some of us can comprehend. Let us see what the facts actually are.
In the first place, it is perfectly plain that the Church, the Body of Christ, was formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Very definitely this
term is used of that great event which took place at Pentecost and was repeated in measure in Cornelius' household. In each instance the same exact
expression is used. Referring to Pentecost, our Lord says, "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts 1: 5). Referring to
the event that took place in Cornelius' household, Peter says:
"Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch
then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was 1, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:
16,17).
In 1 Corinthians 12: 12, 13, we read:
"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."
Here we are distinctly informed as to the way in which the Body has been brought into existence, and this is exactly what took place at Pentecost.
Individual believers were that day baptized into one Body, and from then on the Lord added to the Church daily such as were saved. It is a
significant fact that if you omit this definite passage in I Corinthians, there is no other verse in any epistle that tells us in plain words just how
the Body is formed; although we might deduce this from Ephesians 4: 4, where we read: "There is one Body and one Spirit." Undoubtedly this refers to
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, by which the Body is formed, in contradistinction to water baptism in the next verse. But this is simply
interpretation, and all might not agree as to it. But there can surely be no question as to the application of the passage in 1 Corinthians 12: 13.
Yet, singularly enough, the very people who insist that the Body is formed by the Spirit's baptism, declare that these Corinthians were not members of
the Body, nor did that Body come into existence until at least four or five years afterwards.
A careful reading of the book of Acts shows us the gradual manner in which the truth of the new dispensation was introduced, and this is what has led
some to speak of this book as covering a transitional period. Personally, I have no objection to the term "transitional period," if it be understood
that the transition was in the minds of men and not in the mind of God. According to God, the new dispensation, that in which we now live, the
dispensation of the grace of God, otherwise called the dispensation of the mystery, began the moment the Spirit descended at Pentecost. That moment
the one Body came into existence, though at the beginning it was composed entirely of believers taken out from the Jewish people. But in the minds
even of the disciples, there was a long period before they all fully entered into the special work that God had begun to do. Many of them, in fact,
probably never did apprehend the true character of this dispensation, as we shall see further on.
The position is often taken that the twelve apostles were very ignorant of what the Lord was really doing, and that their entire ministry was toward
Israel. Have not such teachers forgotten that during the forty days that the Lord appeared to His disciples before ascending to Heaven, He taught
them exactly what His program was, and the part they were to have in it? In Acts 1: 3, 4, we read:
"He also showed Himself alive after His passion by many in fallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to
the kingdom of God: and being assem bled together with them, commanded them that they should no; depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of
the Father, which, saith He, ye have heard of Me."
And it was then that He distinctly told them of the coming baptism of the Holy Spirit. According to the divine plan, the Gospel message was first to
be proclaimed in Jerusalem,, then Judea, then Samaria, and then unto the uttermost parts of the earth. This is exactly what we find in the book of
Acts. The earlier chapters give us the proclamation in Jerusalem and Judea. Then we have Philip going down to Samaria, followed by John and Peter.
Later Peter goes to the house of Cornelius, and he and his household, believing the Gospel, are baptized by the same Spirit into the same Body. The
conversion of Saul of Tarsus prepares the way for a world-wide ministry, he being specifically chosen of God for that testimony.
But before Saul's conversion, there were churches of God in many cities, and these churches of God together formed the Church of God; churches
signifying local companies, but the Church of God taking in all believers. Years afterwards, Paul writes, "I persecuted the Church of God and wasted
it" (Gal. 1: 13). And again, "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God"
(I Cor. 15: 9). The Church of God was to him one whole. It was exactly the same Church of God as that of which he speaks in 1 Timothy 3: 15, when,
writing to the younger preacher, he says: "That thou mightest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself 'in the house of God, which is the Church of
the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." In the meantime he had been cast into prison and had written all the rest of the so-called prison
epistles, with the exception, of course, of Titus, which was written while he was at liberty, between his imprisonments, and 2 Timothy, which was
written during his second imprisonment.*
(* I make this statement on the supposition that the note at the end of I Timothy is correct, namely that the epistle was written from Laodicea, a
place not visited by Paul before his first imprisonment. If written earlier the argument does not apply, except to show that Paul ever recognized the
Church of God as one and undivided.)
There is no hint of any difference having come in to distinguish the Church of God which he says he persecuted, from the Church of God in which
Timothy was recognized as a minister of the Word. It is one and the same Church throughout.
Going back to Acts then, we notice that after his conversion, Paul is definitely set apart as the apostle to the Gentiles, and yet everywhere he goes,
he first seeks out his Jewish brethren after the flesh, because it was God's purpose that the Gospel should be made known to the Jew first, and then
to the Gentile. In practically every city, the same results follow. A few of the Jews receive the message; the bulk of them reject it. Then Paul
turns from the Jews to the Gentiles, and thus the message goes out to the whole world. Throughout all of this period, covered by the ministries of
Peter and Paul particularly, both baptism in water and the breaking of bread have their place. The signs of an apostle follow the ministry, God
authenticating His Word as His servants go forth in His Name. However, it is perfectly plain that the nearer we get to the close of the Acts, the
less we have in the way of signs and wonders. This is to be expected. In the meantime various books of the New Testament had been written,
particularly Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, the Corinthians, and the Romans. In all likelihood, the Epistle of James had also been produced,
though we cannot definitely locate the time of its writing. The Epistles of Peter and of John come afterward. They were not part of the earlier
written ministry.
Everywhere that Paul goes, he preaches the kingdom as the Lord Himself has commanded, and finally he reached Rome a prisoner. There, following his
usual custom, though not having the same liberty as in other places, he gets in touch first with the leaders of the Jewish people, gives them his
message, and then tells them that even though they reject it, yet the purpose of God must be carried out, and the salvation of God sent to the
Gentiles. This is supposed by many to be a dispensational break, but we have exactly the same thing in the thirteenth chapter of Acts. There we read
from verse 44 on, how the Jews in Antioch of Pisidia withstood the Word spoken by Paul, and Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said:
"It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of
everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set Thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that Thou
shouldest be or salvation unto the ends of the earth."
I ask any thoughtful reader: What difference is there between this account of Paul's dealing with the Jews, the proclamation of grace going out to the
Gentiles, and that found in chapter 28 of this same book? In the light of these two passages, may we not say that if Paul was given liberty, as we
know he was, to preach for several years after his first imprisonment, he undoubtedly still followed exactly the same method of proclaiming the Gospel
to the Jew first, and then to the Gentiles? It is passing strange that these ultra-dispensationalists can overlook a passage like Acts 13, and then
read so much into the similar portion in chapter 28. According to them, as we have pointed out, the dispensational break occurred at this latter time,
after which Paul's ministry, they tell us, took an entirely different form. It was then that the dispensation of the mystery was revealed to him,
they say, which he embodied in his prison epistles. He was no longer a preacher of the kingdom, but now a minister of the Body. The theory sounds
very plausible until one examines the text of Scripture itself.
Let us look at the last two verses of Acts 28:
"And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching those things
which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."
Now observe in chapter one, verse three, our Lord is said to have spoken to His disciples during the forty days of "the things pertaining to the
kingdom of God." In the very last verse of the book, after Paul's supposed later revelation, he is still "preaching the kingdom of God;" certainly the
next phrase, "teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ," implies continuance in exactly the same type of ministry in which he had
been engaged before. There is no hint here of something new.
Now let us go back a little. In chapter 20 of the book of Acts, we find the apostle Paul at Miletus on his way to Jerusalem. From there he sent to
Ephesus for the elders of the church. We have a very touching account of his last interview with them. Among other things, he says to them:
"I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers, to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:27,28).
And then he commends these elders in view of the coming apostasy, not to some new revelation yet to be given, but "to God and the word of His grace,
which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all them that are sanctified." Note particularly the breadth of the statement found in
verse 27. "All the counsel of God" had already been made known through Paul to the Ephesian elders before he went up to Jerusalem for the last time.
There is not a hint of a partial revelation, not a hint of a transitional period, but they already had everything they needed to keep them until the
coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I venture to say that the better one is acquainted with the book of Acts, the clearer all this will become. It is truly absurd to attempt to make two
Churches out of the redeemed company between Pentecost and the Lord's return. The Church is one and indivisible. It is the Church that Christ built
upon the rock, namely the truth that He is the Son of the living God. It is the Church of God which He purchased with the blood of His own Son. That
Church of God, Saul in his ignorance, persecuted. Of that same Church of God, he afterwards became a member through the Spirit's baptism. In that
Church of God, Timothy was a recognized minister, not only before, but after Paul's imprisonment.
In regard to the statement so frequently made that God was giving Israel a second chance throughout the book of Acts, it is evident that there is no
foundation whatever for such a statement. Our Lord definitely declared the setting aside of Israel for this entire age when He said, "Your house is
left unto you desolate. Ye shall not see Me again until ye say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!" It was after that house was left
desolate that the glorious proclamation at Pentecost was given through the power of the Holy Spirit, offering salvation by grace to any in Israel who
repented, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call, which, of course, includes the whole Gentile world. Not once in any of the sermons recorded
of Peter and of Paul do we have a hint that the nation of Israel is still on trial, and that God is waiting for that nation to repent in this age. On
the contrary, the very fact that believers are called upon to "save themselves from that untoward generation" is evidence of the complete setting
aside of Israel nationally, and the calling out of a select company of those who acknowledge the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ. By their baptism,
they outwardly severed the link that bound them to the unbelieving nation, and thus came over onto Christian ground. To this company, Gentile
believers were later added, and these two together constitute the Body of Christ. It is perfectly true that the Body as such is not mentioned in the
book of Acts, and that for a very good reason. In this book, we have the record of the beginning of the evangelization of the world, which involves,
of course, not the revelation of the truth of the Body, but the proclamation of the kingdom of God, which none can enter apart from the new birth.
A careful study of the epistles, taking particular note of the times at which, and the persons to whom, they were written. will only serve to make
these things clearer.
CHAPTER FOUR
When Was the Revelation of the Mystery of the One Body Given?
IT IS contended by Bullingerites, and others of like ilk, that Paul did not receive the revelation of the mystery of the one Body until he was
imprisoned in Rome, 63 A. D. Generally, too, the ground is taken that this revelation was given to him alone, and that the twelve knew nothing of it.
Let us see if these assertions will stand the test of Holy Scripture.
We shall turn, first of all, directly to the writings of the apostle Paul, and examine the passages in which he refers to this subject. The first one
is found in the Epistle to the Romans which was written, according to the best authorities, in the year A. D. 60, at least three years before Paul's
imprisonment, and certainly some time before he reached Rome, as in that letter he tells the Romans that he is contemplating the visit to them, and
asks them to pray that it might be a prosperous one. It might seem as though his prayer was not answered inasmuch as he reached Rome in chains, a
prisoner for the Gospel's sake. But God's ways are not ours, and we can be sure that in the light of eternity, we shall see that this was indeed one
of the most prosperous voyages that anyone ever made. Now in closing this epistle to the Romans, the apostle says in chapter 16, verses 25 to 2 7:
"Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery,
which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the
everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen."
Here we have the plain statement that Paul's preaching throughout the years had been in accordance with the revelation of the mystery previously kept
secret, but at that time made manifest. Moreover, he intimates that it had been already published abroad in writing, for he says, "It is made
manifest (not exactly by the Scriptures of the prophets, as though he referred to Old Testament prophets, but) by prophetic writings," that is, his
own and others. And this proclamation of the mystery had been made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.
Does anyone ask, How can any ultra-dispensationalist dare to say in the face of such a Scripture as this, that the mystery had not been made known and
had not been previously preached before Paul was imprisoned at Rome? If a simple believing Christian, he will probably be amazed at the answer. Dr.
Bullinger and others who follow him suggest that in all likelihood the last three verses of the Epistle to the Romans were not written by Paul when he
sent the letter from some distant Gentile city, but that they were appended to the letter after he reached Rome and received the new revelation. Is
this unbelievable? Nevertheless, it is exactly what these men teach. It is higher criticism of the worst type and impugns the perfection of the Word
of God. For, even supposing their contentions were true, how absurd it would be for Paul to add these words after he reached Rome, to an epistle
purporting to be written before he got there! And how senseless it would be for him to speak while he was in prison, of a Gospel and a revelation
which he was supposed to have preached in all the world, if he had never yet begun that proclamation. Needless to say, the contention of Dr.
Bullinger is an absolute fabrication. It is the special pleading of a hard-driven controversialist, bound to maintain his unscriptural system at all
costs, even to destroying the unity of the Word of God.
Error is never consistent, and even the astute Bullinger has overlooked the fact that earlier in this very epistle, Paul declares the truth of the one
Body just as clearly and definitely as he does in Ephesians or any later letter. Notice particularly Romans 12: 4, 5:
"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and everyone members
one of another."
Could we have a clearer declaration than this of the truth of the mystery? What ultra-dispensationalist will dare to say that this passage is an
interpolation added in after years in order to make Romans fit with Ephesians? God's Word is perfect and always exact. These unspiritual theorists
invariably overtook something that completely destroys their unscriptural hypotheses.
When then did Paul get this revelation of the truth of the one Body? He tells us he had been preaching it throughout the world among all nations.
The answer clearly is, he received it at the time of his conversion, when he cried in amazement, "Who art Thou, Lord?" and the glorified Saviour
answered, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." This was the revelation of the mystery. In that announcement our Lord declared that every Christian on
earth is so indissolubly linked up with Him as the glorified Head in Heaven, that everything done against one of them is felt by the Head. This is,
the mystery-members of His Body, of His flesh, and of His bones.
And moreover, this is in exact accord with certain statements elsewhere made in the book of Acts. For instance, in chapter 5, verse 14, we read:
"And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women."
This was before Paul's conversion. Observe it does not simply say that they were added to the company of believers, nor even added to the assembly
alone, but they were added to the Lord. This is only by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Quite in keeping with this, when we turn to chapter 11:
22-24, we read concerning the character and ministry of Barnabas that,
"He was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith: and much people were added unto the Lord."
Now no one was ever added to the Lord in any other way than by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So that clearly we have the Body of Christ here in the
Acts, although the term itself is not used.
When we turn to 1 Corinthians, the only epistle which gives us divine order for the regulation of the affairs of the churches of God here on earth, we
have the plain statement of this mystery as we have already seen, in chapter 12: 12-14.
"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit
are we all baptized into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For
the body is not one member, but many."
It is absurd to say, as these ecclesiastical hobby-riders do, that the Body referred to here is not the same thing as the Body of Ephesians and
Colossians. It is a Body made up of those who formerly were Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, but are now all one in Christ. And this Body has been
formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In no other way was the Body of Christ brought into existence. Objection has been raised that when the
apostle goes on to apply practically the truth of our responsibility as members of the Body in our relation to each other, he uses the illustration of
the eye and ear as members of the head, which, they tell us, he could not use if he thought of Christ as the Head of the Body, and was thinking of
believers as one Body with Him. But he tells us distinctly in the previous chapter that the Head of every man is Christ. This could only be said of
those who were linked with Him in this hallowed fellowship and members of this divine organism. The great difference, of course, between the Body as
presented in Corinthians and as in Ephesians is this: the Body in Ephesians embraces all saints living or dead as to the flesh, from Pentecost to the
Rapture, whereas the Body in Corinthians embraces all saints upon the earth at any given time. Seen thus in the place of responsibility, it is quite
in keeping that the apostle should use the illustration that he does. It is in vain for these ultra-dispensationalists to fight against
responsibility.
Recently I overheard a leader among them make this statement: "Whenever you get commandments of any kind, you are on Jewish ground, and you have given
up grace." Yet in every epistle of the New Testament, we have commandments and exhortations insisting upon the believer's responsibility to recognize
the government of God in this way. Grace and government are not opposing principles, but are intimately linked together. He who refuses the truth of
responsibility does not thereby magnify grace, but rather is in danger of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and becomes practically an
antinomian, throwing off all restraint, professing to be saved by grace, but refusing to recognize the claims of Christ.
Coming back then to consider the passage in I Corinthians, we have the truth of the Body clearly set forth, and are shown how it was brought into
existence in a letter written at least four years before Paul's imprisonment; and he writes that letter to a group of believers who had been brought
to a knowledge of Christ through his preaching some years before. To them he says in verses 2 6, 2 7:
"And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the Body of
Christ, and members in particular."
Verse 26 only emphasizes what we have referred to above, that here we have the Body in the place of responsibility on earth. Members in Heaven do not
suffer. All members on earth do. But it is objected again that in the Greek there is no definite article before the word "body," and therefore the
passage should simply read, "Now ye are a Body of Christ," and so we are told this refers only to a local church. This does not touch the question.
Every local church in apostolic days was the Body of Christ representatively in that place. It would be so today if it were not for the fact that so
many unsaved people have been received into the membership of the local churches. According to the Word of God, there was only the one Body, and in
any city where the Gospel had been preached and believed, that Body could be found as a local company.
When we pass on to 2 Corinthians, we find the same precious truth ministered by the apostle long before he was imprisoned at Rome. He tells us, in
chapter 5: 16,17:
"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (or literally, this is a new creation): old things are passed away; behold, all things are
become new."
Could words more plainly set forth the truth of the mystery than these? Old relationships ended and every believe
|
|
|
Anastasis
Juniorveteran
Innlegg: 382
Registrert: 29-3-2005
Brukeren er frakoblet
|
|
Man kan snakke meget om detaljer frem og tilbage. Men det helt afgørende, om man accepterer Paulus definition for hvad en jøde er. Gør man det, så vil
man se hvor misforstået al forherligelsen af den stat, der kalder sig Israel er.
Jesus er vor eneste Herre og Ejer (Judas 1v4). Det står selv i Jehovas Vidners oversættelse.
Advarsel!!: Jeg betragtes som kætter af dette forum, og min tro placerer mig udenfor ortodoks kristendom.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbxproblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
