Rightly dividing the Bible

cfowen

Established
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
311
Sorry, I will amend my post. I don't agree that only those seven books he listed are for us. Everything from Romans to Philemon is for Christians today.

But the Great Commission was not given to us, the Lord's Prayer is not for us specifically, and the sermon on the mount is for Jews.
Looks like you're leaning towards mid-Acts dispensationalism. I was one of those for about a year. It's the second most truthful approach to scripture in the world. What mainly converted me from mid-Acts to Acts 28 was that I saw the hopes were totally different. The Acts epistles show a hope of the New Jerusalem and the post-Acts epistles show a hope of Heaven, for the first and only time in the Bible. Mid-Acts people think they can get around. that by saying the Acts period is progressive as far as changes in the church is concerned. I can't see that. Somewhere I have a long list comparing scripture during early Acts with scripture at the end of Acts. No difference. Actually, the church during Acts was a Jewish church. The only reason the few Gentiles were in the church was the hope that Israel would be provoked to jealousy and convert.

there are a lot more mid-Acts people than Acts 28 people. I think the main reason is that with mid-Acts, they can keep the rapture, their security blanket.

Anyway welcome to the glories of dispensationalism and thank God you've escaped the countless errors in Fundamentalism. Glad to see you've discarded all that Jewish only stuff from the Gospels.
 

cfowen

Established
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
311
For those who might be at least academically interested, and because part of the discussion, thus far, has been whether or not there were forms of dispensationalism prior to John Nelson Darby, here is a Catholic version, espoused by Joachin d'Fiore, or Joachim of Flora (1132-1202) ...

"The mystical basis of his [Joachim's] teaching is the doctrine of the "Eternal Gospel," founded on a strained interpretation of the text in the Apocalypse (14:6). There are three states of the world, corresponding to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In the first age the Father ruled, representing power and inspiring fear, to which the Old Testament dispensation corresponds; then the wisdom hidden through the ages was revealed in the Son, and we have the Catholic Church of the New Testament; a third period will come, the Kingdom of the Holy Spirit, a new dispensation of universal love, which will proceed from the Gospel of Christ, but transcend the letter of it, and in which there will be no need for disciplinary institutions. Joachim held that the second period was drawing to a close, and that the third epoch (already in part anticipated by St. Benedict) would actually begin after some great cataclysm which he tentatively calculated would befall in 1260. After this Latins and Greeks would be united in the new spiritual kingdom, freed alike from the fetters of the letter; the Jews would be converted, and the "Eternal Gospel" abide until the end of the world."

I find it hard to see any relationship between dispensationalism and anything in the Catholic quote, except for maybe the 2nd sentence, which is unbiblical, like most of the rest of the quote. I am interested in this Eternal (everlasting - KJV) gospel, which I've posted on before. I think that, when Paul basically repeated this everlasting gospel in Acts 14:15 to pagans, this reinforced the possibility for me that the gospel given in Rev 14:6 had some validity. Some day,I might do a search in the OT to see if anything is similar. I would bet there is.

On a lot of forums, I see threads about the history of dispensationalism. It's difficult for me to understand why people are interested in this. . If it had only existed since yesterday, but were valid, it would be as true and valid as some truth discovered 1800 years ago. Why does the when make a difference?
 

cfowen

Established
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
311
As I read and understand it, Joachim proposed three ages, corresponding to the three persons of the Trinity, and each age is characterized by -or as- a dispensation. The word "dispensation," appearing twice in the quotation, indicates this clearly enough. He said, in essence, that there are three ages, which we might use interchangeably with dispensations: that of the Father (Old Testament); the Son (New Testament and Catholic Church); and the future Holy Spirit.

Beyond that, it is only a brief encyclopedia article on the subject. I post it as an example of a form of dispensationalism from the Catholic side. I am not meaning to suggest that Joachim's bears any resemblance to more modern expressions of Protestant-discovered dispensationalism.
I do see what you're saying. Although the word dispensation (stewardship, administration, economy) is a Biblical word, I've never been able to see how it would relate in any practical way to the, probably misnamed, Bible interpretation method called dispensationalism. Acts 2 dispensationalists, especially, waste a lot of time coming up with lists of dispensations. These lists are 100% subjective.. My list has 4 dispensations. I've seen lists with as many as 16 items. The average seems to be 7, because everybody knows 7 is the number of completion..

I'm really not trying to be difficult. I mentioned before that somewhere I have a list of quotes from early church fathers that suggest they were thinking about dispensations and, maybe, the use of dispensational truth to use as an aid to interpretation. I guess my problem is that I'm a practical person who is only interested in the absolute truth found in the scriptures. I just could care less about what any historical character feels about the scriptures, unless they contribute to the truths that God has written. In my opinion, I have never felt that any of the church fathers or other early historical persons have ever been helpful in my understanding of anything. In my opinion, they just really seemed to know very little about anything important. It's been a long time since I read them but I have read them. And, from my experience, I would have to put any Catholic scholar in a much lower position, since they are operating from a position of about 95% fabricated doctrine. Sorry for my Babel.
 
Last edited:

cfowen

Established
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
311
Thunderian,

Unless I'm mistaken about what Fundamentalists believe, it and dispensationalism very much oppose each other. I'll read that when I get a chance. Are you the first one?
 

cfowen

Established
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
311
What do you suppose Fundamentalists believe?
Sorry I took so long. I've read a bit on Fundamentalism and it seems I have been wrong about the definition of the word. I had no idea it was a movement. I thought it was people that believed things like:: they would be part of the Kingdom of Heaven, the gospel of the Kingdom given by Christ was all important to us, the existence of Hell, every saved person goes to heaven, saved Gentiles make up spiritual Israel, That man has a soul and it is immortal. Stuff that I don't see as being scriptural at all. Things that are more in the line of tradition than scriptural fact.

However, I find that I believe most of the things that Fundamentalists actually believe in, like the inerrancy of scripture, the historical literacy of scripture, the physical 2nd Coming, the virgin birth, resurrection, the atonement, etc. There's even some dispensationalism thrown in there, it seems. One place even said that Fundamentalists are prone to using the KJV. All these things, I totally believe. In fact, I find that I'm pretty much a Fundamentalism myself, except for the hell or heaven thing.

I apologize to those I vilified for being Fundamentalists when I had no idea what a Fundamentalist was.

Thank you, Thunderian, for helping make me aware of these things.
 
Last edited:

Unknown Warrior

Established
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
177
I am relatively new to this forum and I admit that there are others who probably know a lot more about the Bible than I do. I have been studying it myself for most of my life and I feel like I have only scratched the surface. I have realized after many years that the only way that I can learn more about God is to live my life in submission to Him and allow Him to reveal the wisdom to me through His word and from other believers who God brings into my life. We can only do our best to please Him in this world and I am far from being perfect. I believe that God knows that we all are helpless without Him and He tries to lead us into the truth.
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Sorry I took so long. I've read a bit on Fundamentalism and it seems I have been wrong about the definition of the word. I had no idea it was a movement. I thought it was people that believed things like:: they would be part of the Kingdom of Heaven, the gospel of the Kingdom given by Christ was all important to us, the existence of Hell, every saved person goes to heaven, saved Gentiles make up spiritual Israel, That man has a soul and it is immortal. Stuff that I don't see as being scriptural at all. Things that are more in the line of tradition than scriptural fact.

However, I find that I believe most of the things that Fundamentalists actually believe in, like the inerrancy of scripture, the historical literacy of scripture, the physical 2nd Coming, the virgin birth, resurrection, the atonement, etc. There's even some dispensationalism thrown in there, it seems. One place even said that Fundamentalists are prone to using the KJV. All these things, I totally believe. In fact, I find that I'm pretty much a Fundamentalism myself, except for the hell or heaven thing.

I apologize to those I vilified for being Fundamentalists when I had no idea what a Fundamentalist was.

Thank you, Thunderian, for helping make me aware of these things.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post, cfowen. I admit I was surprised at your regard for fundamentalists, since you seemed like one yourself, and some of the people you said were fundamentalists, actually weren't.

I am a fundamentalist, and to me that means that I take the Bible literally. And when I say Bible I mean the King James that we have today. It is the preserved word of God for us in this age. If you feel the same way then we should have some fruitful discussions.

Can you tell me what a person must do today to be saved?
 

cfowen

Established
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
311
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post, cfowen. I admit I was surprised at your regard for fundamentalists, since you seemed like one yourself, and some of the people you said were fundamentalists, actually weren't.

I am a fundamentalist, and to me that means that I take the Bible literally. And when I say Bible I mean the King James that we have today. It is the preserved word of God for us in this age. If you feel the same way then we should have some fruitful discussions.

Can you tell me what a person must do today to be saved?
Paul is the only Apostle for us Gentiles. By rightly dividing the Word of God, the rules and directions he gives us in his last 7 epistles (total of only 27 pages in my Bible) take precedence over any other rules and directions given in any other books, including Paul's Acts books. There are numerous differences in the doctrines in Paul's Acts books and his post-Acts books and, therefore, they must be separated by right division. Otherwise, there will be confusion.

In 1Cor 15:1-4, we find what Paul sometimes calls, "My Gospel" in other places
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


There might be other things that Paul carried over from his Acts epistles to his post-Acts epistles, but the only example I know for sure is this "My Gospel." The best proof of this occurs in Phil 4:15, a post-Acts book, "Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only." Paul's trips to Macedonia occurred from Acts 16-20, several years before Israel was set aside. In Eph 1:13, Paul calls this same Gospel, the Gospel of your salvation. "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,. Note that the saved Gentiles he's talking to in Eph are the same Gentile Ephesians that believed his Gospel during Acts. In Eph, he's upgrading them to the new rules and directions, the new doctrine.. In Eph 2:8-9, he tells them that you can't work for your salvation. " 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast." Also, the 4 ordinances that that were forced on the saved Gentiles in Acts 15 were eliminated in Col 2. Salvation is obtained by faith through God's grace, period.

Paul says he received many direct special revelations from God, starting with the Damascus Road in Acts 9, that guided him throughout his ministries. There is no record of anyone else receiving these. I believe that, when Paul obtained the special revelation concerning the setting aside of Israel and the Brand New hope, calling, and resurrection for Gentiles, he immediately started teaching these new truths to those that visited him in his hired house and in prison. Tradition has it that Paul spent his last years in prison and was executed there by Nero. However, all roads led to Rome and it wouldn't take long for Paul's people to deliver his new epistles to the saints (from his Acts ministry) in Ephesians, Colossians, etc.

Just totally believe in all your being that Paul's Gospel of Salvation in 1Cor 15:1-4 and you are saved.
 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
Sorry I took so long. I've read a bit on Fundamentalism and it seems I have been wrong about the definition of the word. I had no idea it was a movement. I thought it was people that believed things like:: they would be part of the Kingdom of Heaven, the gospel of the Kingdom given by Christ was all important to us, the existence of Hell, every saved person goes to heaven, saved Gentiles make up spiritual Israel, That man has a soul and it is immortal. Stuff that I don't see as being scriptural at all. Things that are more in the line of tradition than scriptural fact.

However, I find that I believe most of the things that Fundamentalists actually believe in, like the inerrancy of scripture, the historical literacy of scripture, the physical 2nd Coming, the virgin birth, resurrection, the atonement, etc. There's even some dispensationalism thrown in there, it seems. One place even said that Fundamentalists are prone to using the KJV. All these things, I totally believe. In fact, I find that I'm pretty much a Fundamentalism myself, except for the hell or heaven thing.

I apologize to those I vilified for being Fundamentalists when I had no idea what a Fundamentalist was.

Thank you, Thunderian, for helping make me aware of these things.
*faints*
 

cfowen

Established
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
311
I just thought of a different definition or understanding of dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism, of which there are 3 main types, Ac2, mid-Acts (Ac9 or ac13), and Ax28, are the only groups in the world that I know of, that obey the rule of right division, as given in 2Tim 2:15, by Paul, the only Apostle to the Gentiles. The Ac2 people do the least, the Ac28, the most, and mid-Acts is in between. 2Tim 2:15 reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Since only dispensationalists rightly divide, only dispensationalists are approved by God and needeth not to be ashamed, according tp scripture.

The reason God pushes us to rightly divide, is that He knows the only way to obtain scriptural truth is by right division. Everyone that doesn't use it is in a quagmire of confusion, without knowing it. Besides 1Cor 15:1-4 and Eph 2:8-9, 2Tim 2:15 is probably the most important passage in the Bible. No joke.

I also should mention that the right division verse appears only in Paul's letters written after the end of Acts. From Gen 12 through the end of Acts, everything pertained to Israel only. Therefore, there was no need to rightly divide. After Acts, for the 1st time in 2000 years, the Gentiles held the position of dominance and the rules had totally changed. The rules for Gentiles during Acts were based on Israel and the rules after Acts are brand new and are not based on Israel. Therefore, to avoid confusion and contradictions, everything concerning Israel must be eliminated from our doctrine. That is right Division. Since Paul's Acts epistles were written in light of Israel's Acts Church, they must also go. Remember that God is not the author of confusion. We are.
 
Last edited:
Top