Dispensationalism, John Darby, etc.

[Sudsy]

That's interesting. Do you think there are those in that heavenly multitude who did not walk in the "way that leads to life"?

No. I believe the "way that leads to life" is believing in what Jesus did to give us the gift of eternal life. This belief is life changing and gives us the desire to walk in His ways. It is called being 'born again'. Salvation cannot be earned by anything we do on earth as it is a gift freely given by a Savior who willingly left heaven to come to earth and die an unjust death on our accord. As far as our performance as true believers, our walk, this will be used to determine our rewards.

I realize there are those who believe they need to walk in certain ways of obedience besides believing in Jesus for their salvation and I wonder how they can ever have a sense of being eternally secure when they all fail to live perfect obedient lives. I believe we can be sure we are saved by believing on what Jesus did to save us and not live lives in fear that due to our failings we still might not make it. I was raised in that kind of fear but no longer. My faith is based on what Jesus did and not how perfect of a saint I am.

Jesus said that the way that leads to life is narrow, and that few will find it. I'm inclined to accept Him at his word.

I believe his word also -

Rev 7:9 - "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands."

I guess it matters about what size 'a few' is in our thinking. A 'few' of an estimated 117 billion people that have ever lived on earth can be a pretty big number. Even 1 % is over one billion. Did Jesus suffer and die so 1% or less will make heaven ? What is even more hard for me to grasp is the belief then that 99%+ will end up in endless torment in hell fire. I can 'accept Him at his word' using the word 'few' yet still believe that this 'few' will be as Rev 7:9 describes it, 'a great multitude that no one could number'.

[ken_sylvania]

No. I believe the "way that leads to life" is believing in what Jesus did to give us the gift of eternal life. This belief is life changing and gives us the desire to walk in His ways. It is called being 'born again'. Salvation cannot be earned by anything we do on earth as it is a gift freely given by a Savior who willingly left heaven to come to earth and die an unjust death on our accord. As far as our performance as true believers, our walk, this will be used to determine our rewards.

I realize there are those who believe they need to walk in certain ways of obedience besides believing in Jesus for their salvation and I wonder how they can ever have a sense of being eternally secure when they all fail to live perfect obedient lives. I believe we can be sure we are saved by believing on what Jesus did to save us and not live lives in fear that due to our failings we still might not make it. I was raised in that kind of fear but no longer. My faith is based on what Jesus did and not how perfect of a saint I am.

Jesus said that the way that leads to life is narrow, and that few will find it. I'm inclined to accept Him at his word.

I believe his word also -

Rev 7:9 - "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands."

I guess it matters about what size 'a few' is in our thinking. A 'few' of an estimated 117 billion people that have ever lived on earth can be a pretty big number. Even 1 % is over one billion. Did Jesus suffer and die so 1% or less will make heaven ? What is even more hard for me to grasp is the belief then that 99%+ will end up in endless torment in hell fire. I can 'accept Him at his word' using the word 'few' yet still believe that this 'few' will be as Rev 7:9 describes it, 'a great multitude that no one could number'.

You said earlier that you would point to Revelation 7:9 as proof against conservative Christian groups who believe that few will find the way of life. I have met many conservative Mennonites and Amish in my life, and have yet to meet one who has in any way indicated a belief that the the number of the "few" who will be saved is small enough for any man to count in his lifetime.

[gcdonner]

And my 3rd question is this: Dispensationalism, from what I understand, negates many of the teachings of Christ as being in a "prior" dispensation which makes them no longer valid, and so we must rely on the doctrines of men that came after Christ.

Or they negate the rest of the teachings of Christ as belonging to a future dispensation. And that we are living in some sort of parentheses where the teachings of Christ do not apply. Which is really bizarre. Most of the Mennonites who lean toward dispensationalism (not all do, of course) will reject that part of the package.

Even though I don't agree with your rejection of Paul, at least you are not rejecting Christ, or elevating Paul above Christ. You will not go wrong following His teachings.

By "parenthesis", they are referring to the time frame between Israels rejection of the Messiah (Jesus 1st coming) and Israels acceptance of the Messiah (Jesus 2nd Coming). I've heard very few who would state that Jesus teachings are irrelevant...even among those who are loud and proud dispensationalist.

Any "parenthesis" is a man made construct. The answer to that false doctrine is found in the genealogy of Matt chapter 1. The timeline counts from the one given in Daniel Chapter 9 and ends during the first coming of "Christ", specifically his anointing (Christ = anointed one). Specifically, the 69th week of Daniels prophecy begins with Jesus baptism and anointing. Did you ever wonder why all the people were in expectation? (Lk 3:15)

[Nomad]

Or they negate the rest of the teachings of Christ as belonging to a future dispensation. And that we are living in some sort of parentheses where the teachings of Christ do not apply. Which is really bizarre. Most of the Mennonites who lean toward dispensationalism (not all do, of course) will reject that part of the package.

Even though I don't agree with your rejection of Paul, at least you are not rejecting Christ, or elevating Paul above Christ. You will not go wrong following His teachings.

By "parenthesis", they are referring to the time frame between Israels rejection of the Messiah (Jesus 1st coming) and Israels acceptance of the Messiah (Jesus 2nd Coming). I've heard very few who would state that Jesus teachings are irrelevant...even among those who are loud and proud dispensationalist.

Any "parenthesis" is a man made construct. The answer to that false doctrine is found in the genealogy of Matt chapter 1. The timeline counts from the one given in Daniel Chapter 9 and ends during the first coming of "Christ", specifically his anointing (Christ = anointed one). Specifically, the 69th week of Daniels prophecy begins with Jesus baptism and anointing. Did you ever wonder why all the people were in expectation? (Lk 3:15)

I presume they were waiting in anticipation of the Messiah who would restore Israel as foretold by the prophets and promised by God.

Luke 1:54-55= Mary
[54]He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
[55]As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
Luke 1:68-70= Zacharias
[68]Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
[69]And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
[70]As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
Luke 2:25,28-32= Simeon
[25]And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
[28]Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
[29]Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
[30]For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
[31]Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
[32]A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luke 2:38= Anna
[38]And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

They were all waiting for Israels redemption as foretold by the prophets.
Daniel 9:26 states however that Jesus was "cut off" at the end of the 69th week...which then makes the timeline a little difficult if His birth was also at the same time as His being cut off...

[Nomad]

*Correction:...which then makes the timeline a little difficult if His baptism/ anointing (not birth) was also at the same time as His being cut off...

[JohnHurt]

Exactly how and when did Paul become an "apostle"?

We are not told precisely how or when Paul received that designation, which is simply a term meaning "a delegate, an ambassador of the gospel, or one that is sent." Paul was called by God in such a way that the early church viewed him as an apostle, a term which was not restricted to the twelve disciples of Jesus. If the disciples of Christ and the church accepted Paul as an apostle, then so do I. Barnabas was also spoken of as an apostle. We don't know how or when he received that designation, either. That must mean, according to you, that he is illegitimate also.

At the time of Acts 15:22,Paul and Barnabas were not called "apostles" , but were subordinate to the 12 Apostles. So Christ did not make Paul into an "apostle" in Acts 9 outside Damascus. Paul must have declared himself an "apostle" at a later date.

In 2 Cor 8:23 and Phil 2:25, the word "messenger" is "apostle". So in the original Greek, Paul is telling you that Titus and Epaphroditus are also "apostles", sent to these churches by "Paul", not Christ.

Christ did not call Titus or Epaphroditus to be Apostles, as I cannot find them in the list of the 12 Apostles in Matthew 10:2-4. To me, it looks like Paul is ordaining these new "apostles" from the ranks of his followers. What do you think?

Paul has set up a new church hierarchy, and gave some of those men a title of "apostle" that puts them at the very top of the church:

1 Cor 12:(28) And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Christ said there should be no church hierarchy as we are all servants. (Luke 22:24-27)
Christ said there should be no church titles, because we are all servants. (Matt 23:8-11)
This contradicts what Paul said.

Christ also said that His 12 Apostles will sit on 12 Thrones, judging the 12 Tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28, Luke 22:14,30)
Revelation 21:14 tells us that the heavenly Jerusalem has 12 foundations, with the names of the 12 Apostles written on them.
This means there can only be 12 Apostles, and no more.

Acts 1:21-22 tells us that to be an Apostle, you had to be a witness of Christ from His Baptism until His Resurrection:

Acts 1:(21) Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

(22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

This requirement to be a witness of Christ from His Baptism until His Resurrection disqualifies Paul, Titus, and Epaphroditus from ever being a true "apostle" of Christ, because they weren't followers of Christ from the beginning of His ministry.

So apparently, there are two churches: One set up by Christ with no church hierarchy or titles, - that has only 12 Apostles, and another "church" set up by Paul that has as many "apostles" as you can shake a stick at, as well as popes, cardinals, bishops, pastors, preachers, ministers, elders, deacons, etc.

Yes. Two churches. And here is how you can find out which one you are in:

One way Paul "proves" he is an "apostle" in your church is that you are listening to him:

1 Cor 9:(2) If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

So if you are listening to Paul and following Paul's doctrines, then Paul must really be an "apostle" in your church.

Paul is also telling you he is not lying about being an "apostle" in your church:

1 Tim 2:(7) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

Paul is very clear that he doesn't lie:

Rom 9:(1) I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 Cor 11:(31) The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
Gal 1:(20) Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

So who are you going to believe? Christ, or Paul? One of them is lying.

Christ said that there are only 12 Apostles, and Paul is claiming to be "Number 13", we just aren't sure where, when, or how he became "#13". And Paul is also making his buddies into "apostles" too, so that means there ares at least 15 "apostles" and rising. Is there an upper limit? I mean, would 147 "apostles" of Paul be too much? We probably have more than that now.

And do these new "apostles" of Paul, do they get to set church policy, and make up their own new church doctrines, or speak "ex cathedra" like the Pope? Wouldn't that be following the doctrines of men that Christ condemned? Matt 15:9

So there are two churches:

One is led by Christ, has no church hierarchy, and has only 12 Apostles who are instructed by Christ to teach only the Doctrines of Christ. Matt 28:20
This church teaches the Salvation that Christ taught, that we are saved by keeping the 10 Commandments (Matt 19:16-19), and other acts of obedience to the doctrines of Christ.

The second church is led by men, like Paul, the Pope, Luther, Calvin, and many others. This church has a hierarchy, is saved by keeping a thought in their head which they call "faith" (Eph 2:8), and they have no problem with 13, 14, 15, or 256 "apostles", as long as these "apostles" or "whatever title they have" - can make up new man-made doctrines, like Transubstantiation, Infant Baptism, Original Sin, Papal Infallibility, etc.

This second church sits on seven hills, where it originated, and gave birth to many daughters, which are the denominations we see today. I wouldn't be "caught dead" in this church or its daughters. Nor should anyone else.

But there has always been a true church.

And here is the true church:

Rev 14:(12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

This is their reward:

Rev 22:(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

And here is who persecutes them:

Rev 12:(17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

I think having the testimony and faith of Jesus Christ is just as important as keeping the Commandments. What do you think?

Christ has told us to only teach His Doctrines:

Matt 28:(20) 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.

So when we break this clear instruction from Christ, and teach the doctrines of men, we put ourselves into one or the other of these two different churches.

Blessings,

John

[mike]

So apparently, there are two churches: One set up by Christ with no church hierarchy or titles, - that has only 12 Apostles, and another "church" set up by Paul that has as many "apostles" as you can shake a stick at, as well as popes, cardinals, bishops, pastors, preachers, ministers, elders, deacons, etc.

The term apostle doesn't denote a title but a function, as do other New Testament terms such as bishop, deacon, or elder. An apostle just means one who is sent, and I don't know of anywhere in the New Testament that says the use of the term apostle must be restricted to men whom Jesus personally sent. Even by that definition, Paul is an apostle, because he was called and sent by Christ (I know you don't agree with this).

Paul must have declared himself an "apostle" at a later date.

I don't even begin to have enough time to respond to all your points, but this is a classic example of how you misuse the text of scripture. There are so many things that you say "must" have been the case, but the only reason they "must" have been the case is because you are forcing your views upon the text.

[JohnHurt]

John you posted 'So what happens to a Christian that eats pork? They have high blood pressure, or get trichinosis.' Here is something that would seem to contradict that - entitled - 'World's oldest woman, 116, eats bacon daily' -
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /73444660/

Anyway, John, I keep thinking that if your interpretations regarding Paul are correct and most Christians are living according to lies that he wrote, that he said were given him by the Lord, then the number of those who will go to heaven will be few and could be counted by any person. However, scripture says this is not true and it will be a number that no man can count. Rev 7:9. I would say this to some 'conservative' Christian groups also that point to the scripture that says 'few there be that find it' and see themselves as that chosen few.

I chose to believe that God truly is willing that none should persish and that He will make a way for all to be saved. He did that already for OT people when He preached to them during His death and resurrection. This salvation is not based on works of righteousness that we have done but rather fully trusting on what He did, in His mercy toward us, to save us. Not all will be saved as we still have free will but it is my belief that it will not just be those who have understood everything and lived by the Bible correctly that will be saved. Others chose to understand God differently on this.

I think I will check out now on this thread as I'm not following some of the points being made here (old age perhaps). Whatever you chose to believe about the OT, I believe what is of primary importance is believing what Jesus did to give us eternal life and I also believe He knows all our struggles to interpret scripture correctly. I'm trusting that this core belief I'm embracing will save me.

Have a nice day and keep seeking to know more about Him.

Sudsy,

It has been nice talking to you, and I appreciate our conversation.

One thing that gives me hope for eternal life for those that have never heard of Christ, is that in Matt 19:16-19, Christ lists only 5 of the last 6 commandments as the qualifications for eternal life, with the emphasis of these Commandments as being how we treat our neighbors.

Christ left out the first 4 Commandments from this qualification, which are how we respect God. This gives me hope for those that have never heard or understood about the Sabbath, taking the Lord's name in vain, images, or having other lawmakers before YHVH - that these people have "hope" of eternal life in Christ even if they lack knowledge in these areas.

If Christ can have "last minute forgiveness" to the thief on the cross, then there is hope for many. But for the "church people", who go to church to 'be seen", have church titles, (Matt 23:5-12) and still throw the widow out of her house when she doesn't pay her rent (Matt 23:14) - for these people who don't have compassion on others but make "church" as their 'god", then Christ had a different viewpoint. Matt 23:15

If I am wrong about following only the Doctrines of Christ and not following the men that came after Him, then I don't see how that could hurt my relationship with Christ.

If I understand the OT the same way as Christ, then that should be a blessing, not a curse.

But if someone wanted to "convert" me to follow the doctrines of men as being superior to Christ, then they would have to use the Words of Christ to do it. I don't see how that is possible, given what Christ said. Matt 15:7-9.

And following the doctrines of men is what Dispensationalism really is. They "dispense" with the Doctrines of Christ by putting them under the "law of Moses", which they say makes everything Christ said obsolete. That is one of the greatest anti-Christian heresies of the 19th century.

Take care, and I appreciate your friendship and honesty with me.

John

[gcdonner]

They were all waiting for Israels redemption as foretold by the prophets.
Daniel 9:26 states however that Jesus was "cut off" at the end of the 69th week...which then makes the timeline a little difficult if His birth was also at the same time as His being cut off...

Better read that passage again, it doesn't say "at the end", but "after". He was cut off in the middle of that last week, a week being 7 years and Jesus' ministry lasting 3 1/2 years, which would be "after" the 69th week. Jesus' ministry took place during the 70th week. Matthew is consistent with Daniel.

[Nomad]

They were all waiting for Israels redemption as foretold by the prophets.
Daniel 9:26 states however that Jesus was "cut off" at the end of the 69th week...which then makes the timeline a little difficult if His birth was also at the same time as His being cut off...

Better read that passage again, it doesn't say "at the end", but "after". He was cut off in the middle of that last week, a week being 7 years and Jesus' ministry lasting 3 1/2 years, which would be "after" the 69th week. Jesus' ministry took place during the 70th week. Matthew is consistent with Daniel.

Daniel 9:24-27
[24]Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
[25]Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
[26]And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
[27]And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I reread it and I still see it as being at the end of the 69th week. It doesn't say in the middle of the 70th week like you appear to be interpreting it. If it said, at the 69 and a half week He shall be cut off then I would agree with you...but it doesn't. The 70th appears to happen AFTER the 69th week has ended which is marked by His being cut off. I'm sorry, I dont fault your view...I just don't agree with it. I also recognize this is a major battleground passage with many different views...