Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

[Guojing]

Can you be more specific? What do each of these mean?

Which part of acts did the dispensation of grace began.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Which part of acts did the dispensation of grace began.

When jesus said it is finished?

 

[Guojing]

When jesus said it is finished?

The first Gentile to be accepted in the church only at acts 10, so that is out.

You are of course free to believe differently. As our debate over the relevance of the Great commission went, I would highly doubt you are truly a dispy, but who knows.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The first Gentile to be accepted in the church only at acts 10, so that is out.

You are of course free to believe differently. As our debate over the relevance of the Great commission went, I would highly doubt you are truly a dispy, but who knows.

What?

Jesus said to the jew first. The first gentile has no bearing on when the age of grace occured.

The age of grace started when jesus completed the payment for sin, And that occured when he said “it is finished”

 

[Guojing]

What?

Jesus said to the jew first. The first gentile has no bearing on when the age of grace occured.

The age of grace started when jesus completed the payment for sin, And that occured when he said “it is finished”

I think you understand the term dispensation differently from me.

For me, the dispensation of grace started with the Apostle Paul, Jesus saved him after the Jews made the final rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom, thru the stoning of Stephen, to preach the gospel of grace to the Gentiles.

And as our debate over the GC in the other thread goes, the GC also ended after that rejection.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think you understand the term dispensation differently from me.

For me, the dispensation of grace started with the Apostle Paul, Jesus saved him after the Jews made the final rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom, thru the stoning of Stephen, to preach the gospel of grace to the Gentiles.

And as our debate over the GC in the other thread goes, the GC also ended after that rejection.

Your the only one I ever heard who thinks this way.. And I have been a dispy all my life in many churches around my country.

 

[UnderGrace]

The evidence abounds to the contrary and yet tooth and nail they fight it, refuse to acknowledge truth and argue against the truth.......and people that are rock solid on salvation for the most part....unbelievable.....

Most intriguing isn't it

 

[Guojing]

Your the only one I ever heard who thinks this way.. And I have been a dispy all my life in many churches around my country.

There are many mid acts dispy around, so its because of your limited knowledge.

The main teachers of MAD are Cornelius R Stam and Les Feldick, among others.

 

[dcontroversal]

Most intriguing isn't it

Not really.....actually tragic to be frank........

 

[dcontroversal]

Your the only one I ever heard who thinks this way.. And I have been a dispy all my life in many churches around my country.

Gong show is another one that rejects truth..........I can see grace (though partially hidden and very limited) woven all through the O.T. and for SURE John tells us that GRACE came by JESUS, not PAUL...........Grace is clearly seen being given and supplied unto DAVID...under the LAW he should have been killed for his sins and yet he was spared, preemptively forgiven and the INNOCENT SON of DAVID took his place in death <---a big picture of JESUS.....<----thou SON of DAVID have mercy on me cried the old man.......

But hey.....when people go to seed on fallacy and refuse to actually acknowledge the truth and or even be (enlarged) open to the truth what can one expect.......NOTHING but fighting the truth tooth and nail while being in opposition of the truth......

 

[dcontroversal]

What?

Jesus said to the jew first. The first gentile has no bearing on when the age of grace occured.

The age of grace started when jesus completed the payment for sin, And that occured when he said “it is finished”

You have to remember that Gong Show believe the JEWS were saved by obedience to the law, blended with some sort of pseudo faith.....

 

[crossnote]

One key difference in CT and dispy is that the latter take the bible at its literal meaning, taking note of context, while the former tend to allegorize scripture. So for example, when we encounter a passage like Hebrews 11:31

By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

Dispy would interpret that as Rahab did not perish because she showed her faith by receiving the spies with peace.

While CTs would say, that Rahab, like us, put her faith in Jesus's dbr, and she did not perish because of that.

I know their differences but I also know they would both agree that Rahab showed her faith by hiding the spies.
Hiding the spies didn't save her. That seems to be your confusion.
Hiding the spies was simply a demonstration of her true faith...
James 2:17-18 KJV
[17] Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. [18] Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

 

[crossnote]

There are 3 main groups of dispy that I am aware of.

Acts 2
Acts 9
Acts 28.

Those are man made categories. I prefer seeing the Church beginning when Christ purchased it with His own blood. Besides Acts 9 (denying water baptism) and Acts 28 (denying water baptism and the Lord's Supper) are simply silly man made contrivances. So I like my contrivance better lol.

 

[Guojing]

I know their differences but I also know they would both agree that Rahab showed her faith by hiding the spies.
Hiding the spies didn't save her. That seems to be your confusion.
Hiding the spies was simply a demonstration of her true faith...
James 2:17-18 KJV
[17] Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. [18] Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Like I said, dispy differ from CT in that, we interpret scripture using words in their plain reading.

Thus, if James said in ch 2 that

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

And when we read Hebrews 11:31 and it says the same thing, we simply conclude that Rahab was justified by faith AND works. And it made perfect sense since the context then, the Law dispensation demanded obedience to the Law in Exodus 19

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel

Likewise, when we read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, we conclude that you need to repent/believe AND be baptized to be saved.

The best part about being a dispy, is the freedom from not having to do mental gymnastics with the English words, to get it to say something else.

 

[UnderGrace]

Like I said, dispy differ from CT in that, we interpret scripture using words in their plain reading.

Thus, if James said in ch 2 that

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

And when we read Hebrews 11:31 and it says the same thing, we simply conclude that Rahab was justified by faith AND works. And it made perfect sense since the context then, the Law dispensation demanded obedience to the Law in Exodus 19

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel

Likewise, when we read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, we conclude that you need to repent/believe AND be baptized to be saved.

The best part about being a dispy, is the freedom from not having to do mental gymnastics with the English words, to get it to say something else.

So when did understanding writing modes become "mental gymnastics"

What you are basically stating is that best to avoid the intent, purposes, style and audience of the author so that I do not have to do the real work of understanding scripture.

 

[crossnote]

Like I said, dispy differ from CT in that, we interpret scripture using words in their plain reading.

Thus, if James said in ch 2 that

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

And when we read Hebrews 11:31 and it says the same thing, we simply conclude that Rahab was justified by faith AND works. And it made perfect sense since the context then, the Law dispensation demanded obedience to the Law in Exodus 19

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel

Likewise, when we read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, we conclude that you need to repent/believe AND be baptized to be saved.

The best part about being a dispy, is the freedom from not having to do mental gymnastics with the English words, to get it to say something else.

Dispy's also consider the context, and in this case the context of not just a chapter or a book but of the Bible as a whole. With your interpretation you would have James contradicting Paul, and since the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself, your interpretation must be wrong.
Apparently you are not 'rightly dividing' but wrongly selectively taking verses that nicely fit your preconceived formula.
We must take Scripture as a whole and seek the interpretation that does not contradict other parts of Scripture, and if it does, it"s our interpretation that needs adjusting...not Scripture.

 

[UnderGrace]

Not really.....actually tragic to be frank........

Can I be frank too?
The tragedy is stating the God has two separate plans, when scripture is clear that God does not fail and everything He promised has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

It also tragic to believe that temple sacrifices are going to be reinstated in clear defiance of what is written in the book of Hebrews, in some future millennium on earth with a new temple, when the last one was destroyed as He predicted.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There are many mid acts dispy around, so its because of your limited knowledge.

The main teachers of MAD are Cornelius R Stam and Les Feldick, among others.

You missed my whole point, Since I have studied and been part of dispy churches (multiple) and have never heard this view before. I think it can be considered to be a minority view

It has nothign to do with my limited knowledge dude, My knowledge of dispensational teaching is by no means limited!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You have to remember that Gong Show believe the JEWS were saved by obedience to the law, blended with some sort of pseudo faith.....

That explains alot then..

And as I said, makes his view of dispensations the minority view. Scofield did not even believe this..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Can I be frank too?
The tragedy is stating the God has two separate plans, when scripture is clear that God does not fail and everything He promised has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

Who said he has two different plans. I mean seriously. I have heard this argument from ammil people so often but yet have never got a direct answer of who teaches two different plans?

The plan of salvation has been the same since adam, Grace through faith. That has been the ONLY plan. And that was fulfilled by Christ.

But we are not talking about a plan, or covenant which was given for salvation. We are talking about a covenent God made between himself and ONE nation. Which has NOTHING to do with salvation.

It is not two plans they are. Not even related.

It also tragic to believe that temple sacrifices are going to be reinstated in clear defiance of what is written in the book of Hebrews, in some future millennium on earth with a new temple, when the last one was destroyed as He predicted.

So when prophesy says that a new temple will be rebuilt and the jews (in sin mind you) start sacrificing again, (Again in sin) We should just ignore it, and consider it false and not scripture. Just because we do not think it should happen?

This is called selective reasoning from scripture.