I would not propose to serve Christ up in pieces on a platter.
Who would?
What does that even mean, anyway?
Is that supposed to be some sort of slight against dispensationalism? If so, I'm not impressed.
If you fail to rightly divide the word of truth, you're the one who aught to be ashamed, not me. It was Jesus who cut off Israel, not me. It was Jesus who commissioned the gospel of the uncircumcision to Paul, not me. Dispensationalists had nothing to do with Peter, James and John agreeing to minister to the circumcision (Israel) with their gospel of circumcision rather than going to the whole world. Dispensationalists simply acknowledge this biblical fact and it is they who pay attention to who the epistles written by Peter, James and John were written to and apply them accordingly.
So if you want to ignore the context of entire books of the bible and important facts of history as recorded in the bible so as to prevent serving up Christ in pieces on a platter, then know that it will be that self same Jesus to Whom you will give an account on judgment day as to why you ignored His word in favor of your doctrine.
In the mean time, I suggest that you avoid passive agressive attempts to belittle my doctrine and stick with making some attempt to support your own because I can guarantee you that I know what I believe and why and can defend what I believe with both the bible and sound reason and flippant remarks will only serve to convince me that you cannot do the same.
My remarks were concerning eternal life not being saved.
So those who are saved do not have eternal life? Those who are saved still die if they didn't sufficiently understand Jesus' ascension? Is that really what you believe?
What, if not death, is one saved from?
I gave you the scripture.
You gave scripture to answer a question I had not asked.
God's record of the eternal Christ reveals the requirement...see 1Jn 5:5-11, know I have not said or at least intended to say who's work it was concerning how the knowledge of it is received or even that one must say the word ascension. Albeit His ascension is rarely discussed in regard to preaching. His ascension was required in order for the Holy Spirit to descend and is more than a gift of power, it is the door way to eternal life.
But not the door way to salvation? That just does not make any sense whatsoever.
Can you find me a single verse, just one sinlge verse, where the gift of eternal life is tied to even a mention of Jesus' ascension, never mind any requirement to understand it?
Jesus told the rich young ruler that if he wanted eternal life to obey the law (don't tell Jerry!). (Matt. 19)
Jesus also said that "anyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake" will inheret eternal life. (Matt. 19)
Jesus said that anyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:15)
Jesus said that "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life." (John 6:54)
No mention of even His death and resurrection, (which He told His disciples not to tell anyone about by the way), nevermind his ascension.
I know, I know, the revelation was progressive. But the bible mentions the words "eternal life" 32 times without ever tying it to Jesus' ascension or giving any indication that salvation and eternal life are two seperate things. In fact, quite the contrary! I'll end with a quote of a passage that seems to clearly indicate thet salvation and eternal life go together, and note once more the complete lack of any mention of Jesus' ascension...
Titus 3:4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Clete