The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace

[elected4ever]

First of all, and this might sound like I'm picking nits but nevertheless, we are not saved by faith, we are saved by grace THROUGH faith. There is a difference. Everyone who has ever been saved has been so by grace and grace alone. I do not believe nor does anyone I know of teach that anyone has ever earned their way into heaven by having faith or by works or by any other means. All salvation is of grace, period.
What I, and all sensationalists, are saying is that the gospel message has not always been the same as it is today. In the previous dispensation, if you were preaching a message that left out the law of Moses then you were teaching something other than the gospel. But today if you include the law, or any aspect of it in your message you are teaching something other than the gospel. That's a change! The only difference between an Acts 9 sensationalist and an Acts 2 sensationalist is a disagreement about the timing of that change.

For once we are in almost total agreement. The dispensations that you are so found of is, to me, the differing ways faith was expressed and the manner in which God chose to communicate grace that produced that faith and His self revelation to man.

As for as an Acts 2 or Acts 9 beginning of the Church is concerned it is hard for me to believe that something could be empowered that did not exist. If in terms of empowerment then I would would be inclined toward an Acts 2 beginning. If your reference is to direct ministry to the gentile then I could support an Acts 9 beginning. I think, and this is my opinion so take it for what its worth, trying to be to precise lends itself to the error false conclusions basted on arbitrary assumptions. This is not definitive of salvation issues so I can be flexible in acceptance of a viewpoint on the subject as lone as it remains a viewpoint and not strict doctrine

If a person refused to obey the law, they very simply were not saved.

That is an assumption, not a provable fact. We do know that they lost there physical lives. Beyond that we don't really know. We can assume but we don't know. Even a blood bought child of God can lose his physical life by doing evil things but the life that is of God is not destroyed. I just do not think it is healthy to dwell on such matters.

Yes! Grace through faith alone did come first! And now that the law has been removed grace through faith plus nothing is all that remains.

I think the word ,remove, is the wrong word. God did not remove the law. He fulfilled the law and continues to fulfill the law in us.

 

[Clete]

For once we are in almost total agreement.

Then why do you intentionally change what I said and still put it in a quote box as though you didn't? What did you think, that I wouldn't notice?

The dispensations that you are so found of is, to me, the differing ways faith was expressed and the manner in which God chose to communicate grace that produced that faith and His self revelation to man.

The law was not, is not, and never will be of faith.
Further, I couldn't care less what the dispensations are "to you".

As for as an Acts 2 or Acts 9 beginning of the Church is concerned it is hard for me to believe that something could be empowered that did not exist. If in terms of empowerment then I would would be inclined toward an Acts 2 beginning. If your reference is to direct ministry to the gentile then I could support an Acts 9 beginning. I think, and this is my opinion so take it for what its worth, trying to be to precise lends itself to the error false conclusions basted on arbitrary assumptions. This is not definitive of salvation issues so I can be flexible in acceptance of a viewpoint on the subject as lone as it remains a viewpoint and not strict doctrine

It has nothing to do with empowerment, it has to do with the gospel. No one ever preached the Paul's gospel until Paul. No one, including Jesus, the twelve or anyone else every preached anything like 'you must believe that God will die and rise from the dead in order to be saved'. In fact, Jesus told the twelve to keep their mouths shut about His death and resurection (which they didn't even believe in the first place) but He did command them to go preach the gospel during His Earthly ministry.

That is an assumption, not a provable fact. We do know that they lost there physical lives. Beyond that we don't really know. We can assume but we don't know. Even a blood bought child of God can lose his physical life by doing evil things but the life that is of God is not destroyed. I just do not think it is healthy to dwell on such matters.

Umm, HELLO! GOD IS THE ONE WHO KILLED SOME OF THEM! God was on His way to kill Moses too when he finally repented and circumcised his son.

Further the apostle Paul ewxplicitly contradicts you...
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”

Deuteronomy 27:26 ‘Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them.’

I think the word ,remove, is the wrong word. God did not remove the law. He fulfilled the law and continues to fulfill the law in us.

No one asked you what you think nor does it change a thing about what is the truth.

Read Galatians much?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bob Hill]

Clete,

Those were outstanding posts! Thanks for doing such a great job.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Clete]

Wow! That's justs a brilliant way to word it! I'm going to have to get me a copy of that book. And I'm likely to pick up some of his terminology as well. I like the term "self-determination" better than "free will", it more precisely communicates what I am trying to get across.
Of course he makes an error when he makes a distinction between being in time and being eternal but the false dichotomy does no injury to the soundness of the logic as all that is necessary for the reasoning to remain sound is for the free agent to be in time, which of course he is. Otherwise Boyd shows his usual eloquent brilliance.

I don't see why you thought you were making youself vulnerable by quoting him.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I'm pretty sure that hard core settled viewers will accuse you of arrogance, if you claim to have the ability for "self-determination". All the while claiming that you have the freedom to choose.

Oh yes! I get accused of removing God from His thrown all the time! Many Calvinists in particular are just not satisfied with anything short of an absolute control freak when it comes to God.

:think:

I think I must have caught Turbo at a bad time when I asked him to split this discussion into two threads. These last few posts should have remained over on the other thread I think. Oh well! It'll get ironed out when we get the other thread openned back up.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Turbo]

I think I must have caught Turbo at a bad time when I asked him to split this discussion into two threads. These last few posts should have remained over on the other thread I think. Oh well! It'll get ironed out when we get the other thread openned back up.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Crud! I just deleted some of these recent posts, not realizing that they weren't in the other thread as well. I was able to save the content though, as I hadn't refreshed my browser.

I've now reopened the other thread.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What A DUMB *** remark.

You are going to have to raise the level of maturity level of your posts or I will be forced to ban you.

Consider this your final warning.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No man at any time was saved any other way but by grace. .

elected4ever,

Of course you are correct.

Even when the Jewish believers were keeping the law (Acts 21:20) they were still saved by grace,as witnessed by Peter's words:

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are"(Acts15:11).

Peter also said that his heart was purified by faith as was the heart of the GEntiles:

"He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith"(Acts15:9).

In fact,Paul speaks of the Jews who were keeping the law at the time he wrote these words:

"So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works"(Ro.11:5).

Why should we believe that the Jews who lived under the law had to do works in order to be saved despite the fact that Paul said the following about David,a Jew who lived under the law?:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin"(Ro.4:5-8).

If we look at Paul’s words here we can see that he is speaking of a special “blessedness” that comes to all believers throughout time,and this is “the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness apart from works”(Ro.4:5).

Then Paul continues on saying that this blessedness comes upon the uncircumcision as well as the circumcision.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Lon]

I think I aree with you for the most part Bob....the comments were outstanding, but not pristine. I found 'belittling' comments offensive (one calling the other one dumb or stupid which seems to be a commonality on this website and is bothersome to me).

I didn't orignally come here to see the thread but to post an appreciation for the careful, loving, scriptural manner in which you post and thank you for that.

I must admit, I am way more accepting of ideas when truth is spoken in love and a Christian walks the talk and actually follows scriptural mandates to be humble and gentle in reproach and correction.

Thanks Bob.

With that out of the way I have a question or rather two.

The dispensation of elected grace sounds like not only midActs dispensationalim but also Calvinistic.

Is that how you would see yourself? And on that topic, How would a person from Covenant background see your points from their perspective? In other words could those views, in your opinion be accepted from a Covenant perspective? or even Arminian perspective for that matter.

btw I would have sent an e-mail thanking you but the link for me has not been enabled and I thought the forum recognition has a positive connection anyway.

Thanks again

 

[Lighthouse]

I think I aree with you for the most part Bob....the comments were outstanding, but not pristine. I found 'belittling' comments offensive (one calling the other one dumb or stupid which seems to be a commonality on this website and is bothersome to me).

I didn't orignally come here to see the thread but to post an appreciation for the careful, loving, scriptural manner in which you post and thank you for that.

I must admit, I am way more accepting of ideas when truth is spoken in love and a Christian walks the talk and actually follows scriptural mandates to be humble and gentle in reproach and correction.

Thanks Bob.

With that out of the way I have a question or rather two.

The dispensation of elected grace sounds like not only midActs dispensationalim but also Calvinistic.

Is that how you would see yourself? And on that topic, How would a person from Covenant background see your points from their perspective? In other words could those views, in your opinion be accepted from a Covenant perspective? or even Arminian perspective for that matter.

btw I would have sent an e-mail thanking you but the link for me has not been enabled and I thought the forum recognition has a positive connection anyway.

Thanks again

It is Mid-Acts. But not necessarily Calvinistic. It is about the election of a group, and whoever joins that group becomes part of that elect, not individual election.

 

[Lon]

Thanks

Thanks

It is Mid-Acts. But not necessarily Calvinistic. It is about the election of a group, and whoever joins that group becomes part of that elect, not individual election.

Thanks....I went to Bob's website and saw the distinction from Calvinist thought.

 

[Bob Hill]

Previous dispensations were not like the Dispensation of Grace.
According to Eph 3:1-9 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles – 2 if indeed you have heard of the Dispensation of the Grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the Dispensation of the Mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ

Our Dispensation of the Mystery, which is also called the Dispensation of Grace, is different from all past dispensations, and will be done when the rapture comes at the end of this Dispensation of Grace.

I don’t understand why many good theologians do not understand this dispensation and its freedom for the Body of Christ.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Lonster,

I just made a post, but now I saw your post. Thank you for your kind words.

When I was saved, I was discipled by two strong Calvinists. Yes, I became a Calvinist.

As I really began studying on my own, it wasn't too long before my Calvinistic armor had holes in it.

Fifty five years later, I have changed my mind on portions and parts of the Bible about 5,000 times.

I'm still open and an Open theologian.

In Christ,
Bob

 

[Bob Hill]

When I look at Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy; I always feel that my answer is not good enough.

So this is what I have done.

First, what “is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy”?

What is of the mercy showing God? Is it His stated purpose? Is it the provision of salvation? Is it His act of electing Jacob for a purpose - to be the human line that He would bring Christ from?

It could be that He wants all to be saved, but I think it isn’t even talking about being saved.

The principle of salvation under promise was laid down in Genesis 15 -faith. On the other hand, the principles of salvation under the covenant of circumcision for Israel were laid down by God in Genesis 17 and then, later, in the law. They were a lot stiffer than Grace.

The principles of salvation for this dispensation were given by God to Paul and then, in Paul’s epistles and the later part of Acts.

The circumcision epistles of Peter, James and John do not apply to us in the area of salvation.

Both of these sets of principles are of God who shows mercy. But, although the methods of salvation are different for the different dispensations, the means of God’s grace is always the same. It is the death of Jesus Christ His Son. 1 John 1:7 “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”

But the reception of His provision of salvation is by faith in every dispensation.
In our Dispensation of Grace, it is by faith alone. That’s what Romans says in 3:27,28 “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”

It said this again in a different way in Acts 16:31,32 “And he brought them out and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ 31 So they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.’”

Therefore our salvation is not predestined at all in this passage. What is predestined is the whole process of salvation after we have the faith - when we believe. Rom 8:29,30 “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

God determined everyone who believed in Christ in this Dispensation of Grace, would be justified and glorified.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Nimrod]

Lonster,

Fifty five years later, I have changed my mind on portions and parts of the Bible about 5,000 times.

I'm still open and an Open theologian.

In Christ,
Bob

Keep up the good work Bob. If you are true to your words, sooner or later you will realize that Dispensationalism is wrong.

 

[Lighthouse]

Whoah! Nimrod's back!:noway:

 

[lightninboy]

I take it that Pastor Hill teaches eternal security in the Church Age. As for eternal security before the Church Age, a lot of us could probably do some brushing up on that subject.

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003i/bryant.html
http://faithalone.org/news/y1994/94july2.html
http://faithalone.org/news/y1994/94may2.html
http://faithalone.org/news/y1998/98jan2.html
http://faithalone.org/news/y1998/98jan1.html

http://www.rbc.org/bible_study/answers_to_tough_questions/answers/30845.aspx
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/salvationot.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Oscar Mink/eternal_security.htm
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/es6.html
http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/Eternalsecuritycoverpage.html

 

[lightninboy]

[quote by Pastor Hill] I think the biggest problem in dealing with the once saved always saved issue is the promise of God to those who are saved during the Dispensation of Grace. In the dispensations before Christ called the Apostle Paul, there was no eternal security. They could lose their salvation. However, when God gave Paul the new Dispensation of Grace with its gospel, we see eternal security for the first time. It is only in this, our dispensation, that we are sealed until the day of redemption, when we are caught up to be with Him forever.

Jesus offered eternal security in the Gospel of John.

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1999/99sep2.html

 

[Bob Hill]

Nimrod,

I've understood the basis of dispensationalism for 47 years at least. I've studied the Bible for at least 20 hours a week for those 47 years. The more i've studied, the more I have seen that the answer to all of the problems is a dispensational understanding of God's Word.

No other form of theology has the answers like Mid-Acts Dispensational Theology. Now that my preaching days are about over, I have more time to study God's Word.

Most problems are easily solved by a dispensational understanding of the passages.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

lightninboy,

Where?

Bob Hill