DISPENSATIONALISM IS AN UNBIBLICAL DOCTRINE

[Eddie Ramos]

Dispensationalism is a word which describes that God had a different plan of salvation for the people on the Old Testament side of the cross than he did for the people on the New Testament side of the cross. For example it is believed by many that from the time of the fall of Adam and Eve, that people were saved by their good works (obedience to God's law, the Bible), then after the cross, obedience to the law of God was no longer necessary for salvation. That is, after the cross, one only had to believe in Jesus in order to be saved.

To demonstrate this doctrine, I copied and pasted a comment in a thread I found in this forum which said, "Good works earned one salvation under the Old Testament. That is, if a person never violated any of God's laws, he or she gained eternal life..... Under the New Testament, man came under grace and not the demands of the law.".

I will debate the side that states that there was only ever one way for God's elect to become saved throughout the history of the world. It was always by grace through the faith of Christ. As my opening support, I would like to put forth this passage:

Genesis 6:6–9 (KJV 1900)
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Here we are told that the whole world was corrupt, yet Noah found grace in God's eyes. The word grace is the word "favor". Noah found favor in God's eyes. Noah did not find grace because of his good works, else grace is no more grace (Rom 11:6). God describing Noah as just and perfect, isn't describing what Noah had earned as a result of his good works, because the Old Testament clearly tells us that:

....there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. Ecclesiastes 7:20 (KJV 1900)

AND,

If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; 1 Kings 8:46 (KJV 1900)

So, when God describes someone as being perfect and just, it's because God is looking at the heart (1 Sam 16:7). A perfect heart which could only come as a result of having been saved by God's grace. This is why good works could never have earned anyone salvation before the cross. Else not a single person could have become saved prior to the cross because all have sinned.

Psalm 14:2–3 (KJV 1900)
2  The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3  They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy:
There is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The initial question for this debate is, what are the biblical texts used to support the doctrine of dispensationalism?

[JehovahsWitness]

So, I didn't say that the High priest and the Lamb represented the same thing, I said they both represented Christ. ...

I have no problem with that; however WHO was lamb sacrifced *TO* ? Who was the High Priest worshipping? Unless your point is the lamb was sacrificed to the lamb ; and the High Priest was worshipping ....the High Priest there is another individual involved in this scenerio that is neither represented by the High Priest OR the Lamb.

... who is the recipient of the sacrifice offered by the spiritual High Priest, it's God himself.

So which of the two (lamb or Highpriest) represents God in the antitypical temple system?



JW




RELATED POSTS

Who is represented by the High Priest in the Jewish temple system?
viewtopic.php?p=1089953#p1089953

What is represented by the ark of the covenant?
viewtopic.php?p=1076634#p1076634

Who is represented by the sprout in Zechariah 3?
viewtopic.php?p=387782#p387782

[Eddie Ramos]

So, I didn't say that the High priest and the Lamb represented the same thing, I said they both represented Christ. ...

I have no problem with that; however WHO was lamb sacrifced *TO* ? Who was the High Priest worshipping? Unless your point is the lamb was sacrificed to the lamb ; and the High Priest was worshipping ....the High Priest there is another individual involved in this scenerio that is neither represented by the High Priest OR the Lamb.

... who is the recipient of the sacrifice offered by the spiritual High Priest, it's God himself.

So which of the two (lamb or Highpriest) represents God in the antitypical temple system?



JW

I need you to keep it a little more simple for me and explain what you mean by "the antitypical temple system", as I have no clue what you're asking and would like to give a proper reply. But why are you not addressing any of my scriptures? I suppose if you just don't want to then that's your prerogative , I just thought that it would go a long way in making any kind of progress.

[JehovahsWitness]

So, I didn't say that the High priest and the Lamb represented the same thing, I said they both represented Christ. ...

I have no problem with that; however WHO was lamb sacrifced *TO* ? Who was the High Priest worshipping? Unless your point is the lamb was sacrificed to the lamb ; and the High Priest was worshipping ....the High Priest there is another individual involved in this scenerio that is neither represented by the High Priest OR the Lamb.

... who is the recipient of the sacrifice offered by the spiritual High Priest, it's God himself.

So which of the two (lamb or Highpriest) represents God in the antitypical temple system?



JW

I need you to keep it a little more simple for me and explain what you mean by "the antitypical temple system", as I have no clue what you're asking and would like to give a proper reply. But why are you not addressing any of my scriptures? I suppose if you just don't want to then that's your prerogative , I just thought that it would go a long way in making any kind of progress.

Okay let me rephrase: the lamb represents Jesus, the High Priest represents Jesus the recipient is God. Is God represented by the lamb or the High Priest ? Or something else?






RELATED POSTS

Who is represented by the High Priest in the Jewish temple system?
viewtopic.php?p=1089953#p1089953

What is represented by the ark of the covenant?
viewtopic.php?p=1076634#p1076634

[myth-one.com]

John 3:13 (KJV 1900)
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is IN heaven.
Everything, when compared correctly, leads us to the only conclusion, that JEHOVAH is the Christ.

Here's a verse that points to the only possible correct conclusion:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Flesh and blood humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Jesus was a flesh and blood human.

Witnesses saw Him being carried up into the heavens. But He cannot enter Heaven with His flesh and blood body.

The only other type of body is a spiritual body. So, Jesus somehow rejoined with the spiritual bodied Word upon His return.

Ta da!

[Eddie Ramos]

So, I didn't say that the High priest and the Lamb represented the same thing, I said they both represented Christ. ...

I have no problem with that; however WHO was lamb sacrifced *TO* ? Who was the High Priest worshipping? Unless your point is the lamb was sacrificed to the lamb ; and the High Priest was worshipping ....the High Priest there is another individual involved in this scenerio that is neither represented by the High Priest OR the Lamb.

... who is the recipient of the sacrifice offered by the spiritual High Priest, it's God himself.

So which of the two (lamb or Highpriest) represents God in the antitypical temple system?



JW

I need you to keep it a little more simple for me and explain what you mean by "the antitypical temple system", as I have no clue what you're asking and would like to give a proper reply. But why are you not addressing any of my scriptures? I suppose if you just don't want to then that's your prerogative , I just thought that it would go a long way in making any kind of progress.

Okay let me rephrase: the lamb represents Jesus, the High Priest represents Jesus the recipient is God. Is God represented by the lamb or the High Priest ? Or something else.

I don't mean to keep beating a dead horse, but if you don't ignore everything I've said in my previous posts, you'd have your answer. What it seems like you're doing is just selecting a piece of what interests you without taking into account all I've showed you from the Bible. While it's sad to see, I suppose it's not uncommon.

JEHOVAH sent himself in the person of his own Son Jesus, to offer himself so that his own law would be satisfied. And all the scriptures have already been provided. So, the gospel focuses on the work of Christ and is pictured in many ways throughout the Bible (the lamb, the Priest, etc.). The gospel focuses on JEHOVAH'S work of redemption in laying down his life in the person of the Christ. So, JEHOVAH, because he took on the form of a servant in Christ, is pictured as what seems to us as the lesser of the two deities, but they are in fact one God. God offered himself up to die for sins, and because the three are one, it was all accomplished through Christ.

So, the spiritual picture paints the recipient of the sacrifice as God in heaven, and the lamb and the Priest, as God in the flesh, which is Christ. Thus, God offered himself in order to satisfy the demands of his own law.

[JehovahsWitness]

...the spiritual picture paints the recipient of the sacrifice as God in heaven...

• How can the High Priest represent Almighty God (YHWH) when he acted as a mediator between the people and Almighty God (YHWH) ?

• Provide an example in scripture when the meditor is also the object of the mediation.

• Without being circular , where in scripture is Almighty God (YHWH) represented as a sacrifice (rather than the recipient of a sacrifice)?

[Eddie Ramos]

So, I didn't say that the High priest and the Lamb represented the same thing, I said they both represented Christ. ...

I have no problem with that; however WHO was lamb sacrifced *TO* ? Who was the High Priest worshipping? Unless your point is the lamb was sacrificed to the lamb ; and the High Priest was worshipping ....the High Priest there is another individual involved in this scenerio that is neither represented by the High Priest OR the Lamb.

... who is the recipient of the sacrifice offered by the spiritual High Priest, it's God himself.

So which of the two (lamb or Highpriest) represents God in the antitypical temple system?



JW

I need you to keep it a little more simple for me and explain what you mean by "the antitypical temple system", as I have no clue what you're asking and would like to give a proper reply. But why are you not addressing any of my scriptures? I suppose if you just don't want to then that's your prerogative , I just thought that it would go a long way in making any kind of progress.

Okay let me rephrase: the lamb represents Jesus, the High Priest represents Jesus the recipient is God. Is God represented by the lamb or the High Priest ? Or something else?

The Bible teaches us that spiritual pictures are like snapshots of the gospel woven throughout every part of the Bible. In other words (and I hope this is not what you're getting at with your questions), people, places, animals, things, events, etc found in the Bible don't always follow the same picture and neither are consistently typifying the same thing every time. So, if your looking for the spiritual picture to make logical sense to you, then you will miss the mark once again. For example, you believe that David is a type and figure of the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, does that mean the he represented Christ in every instance he is spoken of? No, certainly not in the case of adultery. So, sometimes he represented Christ and sometimes he represented the elect of God. Our job , when looking for the spiritual meaning, is to make sure that our conclusion, for each specific instance, agrees with the whole Bible.

For example, in the Bible, God is represented by many different ways. In the specific case of the high priest and the lamb, God represents himself as the recipient. Yet in another place, God is represented by an unsaved judge.

Luke 18:1–7 (KJV 1900)
And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; 2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: 3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. 7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

The parable here uses an unjust judge to portray someone who, though unjust, avenged the widow of her adversary because of her persistence, and He says, if this wicked king does this good deed, how much more GOD unto his own elect which cry unto him day and night.

And in another spiritual picture, God is typified by an unsaved king named Saul, the first king of Israel. Yet, Saul did not always and in every instance typify God, but only in few instances. And here is an instance where Saul, although he historically hated David and wanted to kill him, but was unable to do so, he still typified God because we read of David speaking of becoming the king's son in law.

1 Samuel 18:20–22 (KJV 1900)
And Michal Saul’s daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. 21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain. 22 And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king’s son in law.

Now, in this instance, David still typified the Lord Jesus Christ, and we read that Saul, the king of Israel (like God is the king of Israel) wanted David to be his son in law. But historically Saul hated him and thought to use this opportunity of David becoming his son in law to kill him by the hand of the Philistines. Yet, there is still a spiritual truth here that doesn't follow any type of logic, yet, that spiritual truth is consistent throughout the scriptures. It's that David was said to become the king's son in law. And the only way for David to become the king's son in law. Another word for a son in law is the bride's husband, or as the Bible puts it, the bridegroom, which also typifies Christ. Therefore, this account regarding David becoming the son in law to the king (God) meant that he would be the bridegroom. So, while the historical account is speaking of becoming Saul's son in law, the spiritual picture is focusing on Christ becoming the bridegroom, not Christ becoming God's son in law because that picture is not supported anywhere in the scriptures, but the bridegroom is.

John 3:28–30 (KJV 1900)
Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. 29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

So, how do we know which spiritual picture is painted and when? When we compare our conclusion against the whole of the scriptures. Therefore, when JEHOVAH made himself of no reputation in the person of Christ, he became the servant of God and the very sacrifice He required. We therefore, being naturally minded, conclude that this must mean that if one is lower than another, then they cannot be the same God. But, then the Bible as a whole would quickly contradict that conclusion because it shows that they indeed are one God.

[Eddie Ramos]

John 3:13 (KJV 1900)
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is IN heaven.
Everything, when compared correctly, leads us to the only conclusion, that JEHOVAH is the Christ.

Here's a verse that points to the only possible correct conclusion:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Flesh and blood humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Jesus was a flesh and blood human.

Witnesses saw Him being carried up into the heavens. But He cannot enter Heaven with His flesh and blood body.

The only other type of body is a spiritual body. So, Jesus somehow rejoined with the spiritual bodied Word upon His return.

Ta da!

That is incorrect. The term "flesh and blood" must be understood in light of the Bible. It doesn't mean a human being, it means a corrupted human being.

1 Corinthians 15:50 (KJV 1900)
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Christ was not born of the corruptible seed of Adam, he was born of God. This is why he was without sin, this is why he could not sin.

1 John 3:9 (KJV 1900)
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Luke 1:35 (KJV 1900)
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

This is why Christ, appeared many times as the angel of the Lord throughout the Old Testament. In other words, he appeared in human form.

Daniel 3:25 (KJV 1900)
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Your understanding of flesh and blood is incorrectly asserting that it cannot be a physical body, and the Bible disagrees. That is why the word "flesh and blood" is associated with corruption in the very same verse. Christ's body saw no corruption because there was no sin in him, but in order for him to be able to physically die, he had to be born of a woman.

Acts 13:36–37 (KJV 1900)
For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: 37 But he (Christ), whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Likewise, Lazarus's body stunk after 4 days because his body was conceived in corruption, yet not Christ's. This is why Christ could transfigure himself in his own body to reveal his spiritual body, but not his only, but also Moses' and Elijah's because they already received their incorruptible bodies, and these were spiritual bodies that could be seen.

Matthew 17:1–4 (KJV 1900)
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

So, it's true that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, which is precisely why we need our bodies to be changed into an incorruptible body. And then in the last day, our born again soul will be joined to our new body.

1 Thessalonians 4:13–14 (KJV 1900)
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep (this is the physically dead children of God), that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope (those who are dead forever). 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Jesus (God) is bringing with him those believers who have already died, but their souls have been in heaven this whole time. They are the sons of God.

Job 1:6 (KJV 1900)
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

At the last day, God will bring them with him and they will be united with their new resurrected, transformed and incorruptible body.

1 Corinthians 15:35–49 (KJV 1900)
But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? (Now God is going to liken what comes out of the ground with a seed that we plant in the ground) 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. (In other words, when we put a dried up dead seed in the ground, what comes out of the ground looks nothing like the seed itself, but it comes up as something much more glorious. Now God is going to talk about the types of flesh) 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual BODY. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual BODY. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit (because he raised our dead souls back to life). 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural (Adam); and afterward that which is spiritual (Christ was spiritual). 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Our spiritual bodies are in no way invisible spirits but actual bodies, just like Christ's at the mount of transfiguration.

[myth-one.com]

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Flesh and blood humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

That is incorrect. The term "flesh and blood" must be understood in light of the Bible. It doesn't mean a human being, it means a corrupted human being.

The Bible describes only two types of bodies, physical and spiritual:

There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (I Corinthians 15:44)

There are two type of bodies, physical and spiritual and they are different. Each of these body types requires a different birth:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)

I do not see any difference noted between corrupted or uncorrupted flesh -- just flesh.

[Eddie Ramos]

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Flesh and blood humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

That is incorrect. The term "flesh and blood" must be understood in light of the Bible. It doesn't mean a human being, it means a corrupted human being.

The Bible describes only two types of bodies, physical and spiritual:

There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (I Corinthians 15:44)

There are two type of bodies, physical and spiritual and they are different. Each of these body types requires a different birth:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)

I do not see any difference noted between corrupted or uncorrupted flesh -- just flesh.

That's because you are neglecting the death and resurrection of the soul. John 3:6 is not speaking of our incorruptible bodies, but of our born again soul. Our dead soul is born of the Spirit of God and when we are born again, our flesh profits nothing from is because our flesh is still under the corruption of sin. At least until we receive our new immortal bodies.

John 6:63 (KJV 1900)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 3:3 (KJV 1900)
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

How then are we born again?

1 Peter 1:23 (KJV 1900)
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Being (present tense, not future) born again by the Word of God. This is salvation by the preaching of the gospel. Our dead soul has been quickened (made alive/born again). This is why salvation (being quickened in our dead soul) was the first thing that had to take place so that we could call upon the name of the Lord the way he required it.

Psalm 80:18 (KJV 1900)
18  So will not we go back from thee:
Quicken us (make us who are spiritually dead, alive), and we will call upon thy name.

Until we receive our incorruptible bodies, the true child of God has a born again resurrected soul living inside a corruptible sin cursed body. And they are in complete disagreement. Our born again soul desires and does the will of God, and yet our flesh desires sin. This is what God explains to us through Paul.

Romans 7:14–25 (KJV 1900)
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.