Polemics, Dispensationalism & Ultra-dispensationalism
Vern Peterman · Sep 3, 2006
Polemics, No. 23
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/49260103810

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Today, dispensationalism and ultra-dispensationalism, also known as hyper-dispensationalism. Now, dispensationalism. It's a term that's founded in church history, used more recently in the English versions. People do not use it in everyday language, however, and so the meaning has gotten rather lost. If you went up to somebody who's just in line at the bank or something of that sort and you say, hey, I'm a dispensationalist, they would not know what you're talking about, right? Or if you said, you know, the word dispensationalism, they might think you have a medical condition, right? So it's a word that is dropped out of usage. And then when you add the prefix ultra to it, that doesn't help at all. People get really lost and then the alternate term hyper, you know, dispensationalism, that just means you must have a severe medical problem, right?

Okay. So we want to clarify by looking at terms here and first getting those things clear. Dispensationalism, the classical definition of dispensationalism, It has three primary characteristics. It's a distinction between Israel and the church. Now, where did the idea of distinction between Israel and the church first get started? Yeah, early on, she says. How early? Pardon? Chrysostom? John Chrysostom.

Yeah, ultimately, if you go back over 70 times in the New Testament, the word Israel is used. And in every single case, it refers to literal, you know, ethnic Israel, not some sort of a spiritual Israel or something of that sort. The distinction is not something that's been applied to the passage from the outside. It is built into the words themselves. Paul says, you know, I am an Israelite and he doesn't mean by that I'm a Christian.

Yes? Ah, yeah, let's step through a bit of quick history. We won't have time to go into massive detail, but Winnie brings up this point. You know, when did the church replacing Israel get put into place here? Essentially what happened is the authors of the New Testament saw Israel and the church as separate. And you will find passages that talk about Israel and the church, and you'll see those discussed, and they will be discussed as separate entities. The church, after all, is made of Jews and Gentiles, right?

See, that repeatedly stated. Now, what happened, however, is that in the Greek philosophy, the Greek philosophers, and we're talking about names that are well known, like Plato would be one of them. The Greek philosophers didn't believe their own Greek myths. The Greek myths had been around for centuries. And by the way, the guy who put those myths down into writing was Homer, who wrote just about the time right before Isaiah. So we're studying Isaiah just slightly before that time. Homer wrote down these Greek myths. Well, the Greek philosophers, some centuries later, but before the time of the New Testament, said, well, those myths aren't really literal. They're just allegories. So they didn't believe their own myths, right?

And so they allegorized them. So what happened is Christians came along, about in the third century, about a century and a half after the book of Revelation was done, and guess what they did? They said, oh, we think those Greek philosophers are so great, let's allegorize ours too, okay?

And that's what they did. And so they began allegorizing scripture left and right. And their definition of the process of allegorizing is that makes the scripture mature. If you look at it literally, that's immature. See, that was their way of looking at things. So that held sway for centuries.

And when the reformers, and this is what Winnie's pointing out, when the reformers came along, the great majority of them, they were arguing over how am I saved and what's the authority, but they hadn't really thought through How do I interpret some of these passages?

That's why John Calvin wrote commentaries on almost every New Testament book. He looked at Revelation and he says, I can't understand what this thing's talking about. Why? Because he had been trained to interpret it as allegory. So there's the point.

You get this allegorical interpretation that instead of saying, here's a church, here's Israel, now instead they say the church replaces Israel. And some have even taken it to the point where they say God hates the Jews. It can be that extreme. Okay, you've got a distinction between Israel and the Church.

Literal hermeneutics. Does that mean we take everything literally? This morning we'll be looking at a passage in Isaiah. Hezekiah is saying, Lord, with your eyes and with your ears. Does he mean the Lord's eyes and ears? There are figures of speech, there are numerous figures of speech, but we understand those figures of speech. Even a figure of speech refers to something literal, doesn't it? We use figures of speech in our own language and we mean something literal by the figure of speech. The same thing with the authors of scripture.

The analogy that we used several years back in how to study the Bible was, you know, you're pulling my leg. Now, we don't literally mean you're yanking on my leg, but we mean by that you're joking. And we mentioned that in Spanish, it's you're pulling my hair. And in German, it's you're carrying me on your arm.

The figure of speech is different in each of those three different cultures, but the meaning, the literal meaning is the same. And then a view which sees the glory of God as the underlying purpose in the world. One of the ways that we've continued to express that in more detail is God's eternal purpose to declare and reveal and share his glory and so to be glorified. And so we give that more detail.

But those three things then are the essentials of classical dispensationalism. Those have been framed in about approximately the last couple of centuries, been seen real clearly. Before, there were people who were dispensationalists, even into the time, for example, the Geneva Bible, which came out of John Calvin's organization there. One of those versions even talks about, in Romans, about literal Israel and the land. Interesting. And so there was even a reference at that point in time to a literal Israel.

Okay, ultra-dispensationalism. It varies in this. They see the beginning of the church starting in Acts chapter 9, 13, or 28. Those are the three typical starts for ultra or alternately known as hyper-dispensationalism. What they look upon is the conversion of Paul, Acts 9, the start of the missionary ministry, and this is Acts 13, or his ministry while imprisoned in Rome, Acts 28. Those are the three typical ultra-dispensational points. The word ultra is not particularly illustrative, is it?

It doesn't by itself tell you what they're talking about. The church that was in existence in Acts 2 until that later time, whether it's Acts 9, 13, or 28, is then viewed as another church or the Jewish church. That's the term that you'll typically hear. Sometimes ultra-dispensationalism is called hyper-dispensationalism. The people who hold those views don't like the terms, just so you know. If you say, well, you're an ultra-dispensationalist, it'd be a slap in the face. So just don't go insulting anybody. You want to be able to discuss things without putting something in front of them. But that's how it's called and recognized by others.

Some of these views will differ in whether they participate in the Lord's table or baptism or either one. depending on which group you're talking about, they will hold to, you know, we do the Lord's Table but not baptism, we do baptism but not the Lord's Table, or we don't do either one. Because they will see those activities as part of the Jewish church and not the church established under Paul. Sue, you look like you're puzzled. I don't either. Think about it this way.

References, for example, to baptism in the New Testament epistles, are rather unusual and rare. You don't find that often references to baptism. A lot of times the word baptism is used not in a water baptism sense, but for example, Romans 6, we've been baptized into Christ, we've been placed into. It has a placed into meaning, not a water baptism. As some people put it, you know, I don't see water in Romans 6.

Oh, what they would do, the ultra dispensationalists who do practice baptism would view it as the same as we do. They also see our having been baptized into Christ as being a real and literal thing. However, they may see, depending on which group you're talking about, they may see baptism in water as being something that was done among the Jewish Church, but not valid anymore.

Because, for example, the only place you really find water baptism described in the New Testament epistles is clearly that. is like, for example, 1 Corinthians. Paul says, you know, I baptize a few of you, but that's all. And 1 Corinthians was written before Paul went to, you know, Rome. And so those who hold to an Acts 28 view would say, well, that was before, you know, all the mentions of baptism are before then. Therefore, I don't believe in baptism.

So depending on which group you're talking about, they'll cut out one, the other, or both. So different variations. I might also mention that I don't know of anybody who holds to this, but if I were to argue, I would argue not 9, 13, or 28, but chapter 10. And the reason that I would argue that is because that's when you have both Jews and Gentiles, right? But it was under Peter, so they don't like that idea. So anyway, and I won't argue too vigorously for that because it doesn't make sense.

All right. Before proceeding here, it's important to note that this critique is not intended to imply that ultra-dispensationalists are not saved, nor to ignore their many positive accomplishments and sound biblical teachings in other areas. They may well have recognized a lot of things, and we don't want to discredit any of that. So this isn't meant to speak ill, but just to discern, you know, what's right and what's wrong in teaching.

Okay. So, in dispensationalism, are we dispensing with anything? And here's the problem. We think of the word, you know, we hear the word dispensationalism, and if you don't think that that's some word related to botulism, then what do you think of? What does it make you think of when you hear the word dispensation or dispensationalism or whatnot?

What is it? What's that? It makes you think of groups. Yeah. What's that? Divisions. Okay. Pardon? Ages. All right. Just in common usage, the word dispense, have you ever heard people use like a dispenser? Something that, you know, and so our use of the word in English just doesn't give a clue. So it's something that anytime it's used has to be explained.

The thing is, what we defined earlier is classical dispensationalism. And there is, especially in the last couple of decades, a profusion of other kinds of dispensationalism or brands of it. And the most prominent of one is progressive dispensationalism. And I'm not sure it's all that progressive, because it's really a mixture of classical dispensationalism and amillennialism.

That is, it's a mixture of the idea that there's a difference between the Church and Israel, and the idea that the Church is replacing Israel. Instead of saying that Christ will come and reign on David's throne, they're saying, well, Christ is kind of reigning on David's throne now, but he's going to reign on David's throne later too. So anyway, one of the things that you'll see there, let's take a look at the bullets. These are things that are lost or at risk.

The blessed hope of Christ's appearing in a pre-tribulation rapture is one of the things that begins to get lost with the progressive dispensational teaching. And by the way, progressive dispensationalism, where is that being taught now as a prominent? Dallas Theological Seminary is substantially progressive dispensational. One of my professors at Tyndale Dr. Leitner had been teaching at Dallas Theological Seminary. He was also teaching at Tyndale. And he was objecting to the administration and in the classroom to this progressive dispensationalism. At any rate, after I left Tyndale, not too long after, the new president of Dallas called him into the office and said, that's the last time you're doing that here. Here's your walking papers, you know.

Pardon? No. No, it's the fellow who's taken over from him that's gotten it. So, at any rate, it is taken over there. Moody is another place where it's taken over, and a number of other places, but some of the places that you'd think of as kind of, you know, these are the kingpins of the dispensational teaching. Many of them have lost it. just plain lost it. And that's why some of the newer seminaries, like I went to Tyndale, there's also Schaefer in California, some of them have cropped up because they recognize, hey, it's lost there, we need to have some place where it's still solid.

So, at any rate, the blessed hope. Here is, and Nancy's going to be teaching in the women's study on this very passage here, the blessed hope of the believer, Christ's appearing. is coming for the church. That's looking forward to that. I remember one point in time, John Walvoord, when I was down there in Texas, he was talking about the Lord's coming, and I remember him looking kind of out the window and saying, I hope it's today. Ah, the clarity of Scripture.

Frequent term in progressive dispensational literature is already not yet. Already, not yet. And that's a slash that they put in there. And it's so frequently used, I went and did a search on it, just found hundreds and hundreds of listings for that. Already, slash, not yet.

And so what you do is you start getting this sort of mixtures of true and not true, and kind of, sort of, and absolutely, we hope, you know, this kind of thing where it's a real foggy line between things. Is Christ reigning on David's throne? Well, yeah, he already is, but not quite yet. So, mixtures, fogginess, lack of clarity, it just all starts to seep in. Loss of time clarity also carries over into the selective allegorization of scripture passages. They begin to allegorize things. because again, it's a compromise.

How do I mix the two? Mix dispensationalism with the Amillennial teaching, which has been the standard teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church for centuries. The distinction between Israel and the Church, which also provides the opportunity to blur the line between the Church and the law. So this is not just wrangling over how many angels will fit on the head of a pin, right? Because what happens when you introduce law into the church? You've got a problem. You've got a problem. Law is not going to be helpful. Not going to be a good thing. Oh yeah. Yeah, this is a serious and significant issue. And that's part of the problem is you just begin slipping and sliding.

The Sermon on the Mount, which is most explicitly and directly said to the Jews, has some points that are applicable to the Church, but only by confirmation. That is, it would be something that would be carried over only because you can find a New Testament epistle that confirms that that's carried over. But we want to be careful that we do that. Let me give you a for instance. The word saint is a word that is used of both the Jews who are saved and the church, right? So it's something that carries over.

If we see something in the Sermon on the Mount that has to do not with how the Lord deals with us, but God's character, That's valid, right? But we can't just simply take everything that it says and say that it applies to the Church. Progressive dispensationalists, like the Amillennialists, will take the Sermon on the Mount and just pull it right into the Church. And there you've got law. Because chapter 5 is all about clarifying the law of Matthew. Okay.

Now, how about this next part here? So is ultra-dispensationalism just really, really super? What do you think? Is it really, really super? Okay. Those of Acts 9, 13, and 28, ultra-dispensationalist positions appropriately note that the church has been silent on the apostleship and the message of the Apostle Paul. In great part, that is true.

People have not recognized that the Apostle Paul had some unique messages. He alone says that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit, for instance. He provides details on the rapture that other authors do not. So there are things unique to Paul's ministry, and there's no question about that.

But what happens is all three of the different variations of ultra-dispensationalism make Paul's apostleship some aspect of it, the defining point in time. Paul writes about the way things were in the Old Testament, and then what does he do? He says, but now. And that's where some of the ultra dispensationalists start their stopwatch. They go click and get the stopwatch going right then, because he says, but now. Well, he's not talking about starting the stopwatch right when he lets the ink dry on those words. He's talking about the change that took place now with the introduction of the church and the beginning of the church.

So, what they do is they take this Acts period and start splitting it up. And one of the things that we pointed out when we went and studied through Acts here not too long ago, We said that Acts was a transition period. What do we mean by Acts is a transition period?

What's transitioning? Pardon? Okay, the Lord has come. Alright. What else can we point out as transitioning? What's changing in the book of Acts? Randy? The knowledge of who Christ was was increasingly being understood. Throughout the book of Acts, we can pinpoint places where New Testament epistles were being written. So now you begin to have, you know, specific revelation. What did you have during the book of Acts that you didn't have after the end of the New Testament era? Pardon? You had miracles. Why did you have miracles? The miracles were a testimony to who he was, and who did the miracles? Substantially, the Apostles. We have instances of others. It was a sign to the Jews, it was a verification of their validity, but the gift of Apostle did not continue.

So the New Testament era, and the book of Acts records three decades of that era, The New Testament era, from the beginning of the Church up until the time of the ink drying on the book of Revelation, was a time of transition. Acts records the first three decades of that time of transition. That's what's happening. And it's the establishment of the Church, it is the spread of the Gospel, it is the writing down in New Testament epistles, and including the book of Acts itself, the record of God's revelation and how that was spread.

It's a time of transition. You're getting things established. So a person needs to be careful about trying to divide too carefully that time period and try to make something huge out of it. Let's take it for instance. Here's Moses. He comes down off Mount Sinai.

How many of the laws has he got? He's got ten of them. Is that all he's ever going to get? You're going to get a whole lot more than just the 10th. All that is is a start. And you're going to have a period of transition. And matter of fact, they're going to go into the Promised Land. Is Moses going to be there? No. Joshua's going to be there. And so what do you have?

You have a time of transition in the same way that Acts has a kind of a handoff from Peter to Paul in terms of the substantial subject matter. You had the Jews where Moses starts them off and Joshua finishes it off taking them into the promised land. You've got a transition period in there, don't you? And it's important in those transition periods to not go trying to subdivide things based on something that's still in process. Has it begun? Yes. Has the time of law begun? Did Moses have some things to communicate? Yes. Was Moses all done when he came down with the tablets? No. Not done. It's transition time. Okay. Let's see.

In Acts 10, Peter goes to the Gentiles by the Lord's divine revelation and assistance. So here's an interesting thing. The tendency among ultra dispensational groups is to divide by Paul. And who is the one that introduced the gospel to Gentiles? Peter was ultimately the one that did the initial introduction. And then after that, you see Paul's appointment and ministry to it.

So very interesting is if you want to try to pick a time and a place and a person, you could pick Acts 10 if you want to try to divide things that way. But here's what happens. Let's look at the top of page three there. Here is Peter, he has been with the Gentiles along with a bunch of other Jewish brothers. They're Jewish Christians like Peter. They've spent several days with the Gentiles. They've slept in the house of the Gentiles. They've eaten there. Can you imagine that? And they get back to the church in Jerusalem and those guys are saying, hey, you've got some answering to do, right? And so look at what Peter's answer is.

As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them." Who's them? The Gentiles. Just as He did upon us at, what's the beginning? Pentecost. He says right here, that's the beginning. You want to know where's the beginning? That's the beginning. And then, look at verse 17. Therefore, if God gave to them, was it a different gift? The same gift as he gave us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, was that I could stand in God's way. That's the beginning and it's the same gift. Any fog here? Any confusion? No. Peter's got it real clear. And by the way, here's something else.

This is not ultra-dismentationalism, but if you're ever talking to someone and they say, well, you know, I speak in tongues all the time, one of the things to look at here Peter did not say that as we have been speaking in tongues since the beginning, he had to point back to the beginning as a special event, not as a continuous event. He didn't say, The Holy Spirit fell on them just as He has been falling on us since the beginning, or just as we have been speaking in tongues since the beginning. He had to point to a time that was roughly a decade earlier as to when it had happened. So it was all in their memories, but that had been practically a decade ago.

1 Corinthians 2.13 and Ephesians 4.5 tell us that we've been baptized spiritually into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, which identifies us spiritually with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Scripture clearly supports this teaching.

There is no distinction made, however, between how this happens with Jews in Acts 2, with Peter present, Samaritans in Acts 8, Peter present, Gentiles in Acts 10, Peter present, or Jews in a Gentile land in Acts 9, 19, Paul present. They're all described the same and as the same event and Peter even makes the bridge here in this chapter 11 passage saying that was the beginning and it's the same. So there is no distinction made that you can subdivide, right? So an Acts 9 or an Acts 13 division doesn't set well.

Peter presents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in Acts 2 and Acts 4, 2 and 33, just as Paul presents those truths after Acts 9. Same thing as presented. Christ died. He was buried. He was resurrected. You need to know that. You need to believe it.

The typical Acts 9 ultra-dispensationalist will make much of the presentation to Israel in the early chapters of Acts and to the Gentiles in later chapters. The fact is that Acts presents a transition of ministry throughout. Though Gentiles are mentioned from Acts 1.8, you should be my witnesses, right? to the ends of the earth. And by the way, you'll be my witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Once you get beyond, you know, Samaria, you're definitely in a Gentile country. And who do you say will be my witnesses?

The ones who were there in Acts chapter one. So multiple, multiple locations in Acts point to this being a time of transition, but uniformity. The gospel is the same. The beginning is clearly laid out. The gift at the beginning is the same one that is distributed at different times. X2, X8, X10, X19. All these have a uniformity among them, even in the time of transition. Okay. Now, last paragraph.

Based on the above and viewing the previous transitions from one dispensation to another, as best of you acts as a period of transition in which the church was indeed begun in Acts 2, but in which the understanding of what is meant and the working out of its implication took time, even for the apostles, even for Paul.

Did Paul know the things that he revealed right away? No, he did not. He did not understand things right away, even Paul himself. So Acts chapter 9, If you had come to Paul there just after Ananias had seen him, he'd just gotten his eyes open and said, hey Paul, are we sealed with the Holy Spirit? He'd say, huh? He wouldn't know. There are things that Paul taught that he did not know when he was on the road to Damascus and was confronted by the Lord. Even Paul had a transition.

Let's look at the top of page four there. To compare with the previous dispensation of the law, which we've done briefly here, Moses was given a part of the law, the Ten Commandments, and then given other parts later, so the Jews finally had all the law, but not the land. Dividing believers over arbitrary ending and starting points is unbiblical, even between Peter and Paul. Doesn't Paul himself write, here's 1 Corinthians 1, 10-13, Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree that there be... How many divisions among you?

None. Zip. Nada. Nada thing. But you be made complete, and of the same mind, and of the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now, I mean this, that each one of you is saying, I am of Paul, or I am of Paulus, I am of Cephas, which is Peter. I am of Christ. Has Christ been divided? Ah, there's the good question. Has Christ been divided? Oh, of course. We've got the Acts 2 and the Acts 13. Well, you get the idea. Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Paul does not want to have himself put on a pedestal that divides the body of Christ. Aren't these Paul's own words? Dividing up the body of Christ by any measure is not God's intent.

The Lord used Peter, and the Lord used Paul, and the Lord used John, the last living apostle, as far as we know. But to the Lord Jesus goes the glory and the honor. Not even Paul, through whom the truths of the present dispensation were uniquely revealed, must therefore not be divided between Peter and Paul. Nor Acts 9, in which Paul was still called Saul, had not been given any unique revelation.

Paul did, however, on conversion, display the same power of the Holy Spirit in his speaking that Peter showed on the day of Pentecost. Same spirit, same church, same Lord, same salvation, same body of Christ. Another point we can make here that's at the bottom of page four is the faith. We've underscored this from time to time because it's a valuable insight, and that is starting at Acts chapter 6. Was Paul a Christian then? Paul was persecuting Christians. As a matter of fact, later on in Acts, Paul says, whenever I had a chance, I voted for death.

At that point, you see that the term and the definite article comes through in the Greek, the faith. That phrase or two-word phrase, the faith, continues to be used from Acts chapter 6 all the way into addressing the church in the book of Revelation. The faith. There is a specific and defined the faith, and it's not a different one before and after any point in Acts. We've got Acts 6, which would be before any of the places that anybody wants to divide.

Acts 13.8, which is right about one of the divisions.

Acts 14.22, and that divides between another.

Acts 16.5, there's another division. So you end up with fake divisions of the faith by just drawing a dividing line in there. The book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament looks at the faith as singular, not divided up.

Now, let's take a look at some attached items here. These are some great write-ups that Hal has done a decade and so ago. And I think, Sue, you put this together, right? You might be familiar with this. Covenant theology. I bring this up not because we're studying it particularly, but just because that's a contrast. And Winnie actually pointed it out, that there's this covenant theology which really got developed a little more thoroughly after the time of Calvin, but nonetheless they actually come up with this idea of the Covenant of Works. The Bible doesn't call it that, but the Covenant of Works is the arrangement made centered upon Adam keeping away from, or not keeping away from, this fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. And so here's this covenant of work. So that's the work, is to do or not do. That's the pivot point in the garden. And since he made the wrong choice, he blew it, then we have the covenant of grace, and some would add to that a covenant of redemption.

Now, will you find any of those terms in the Bible? Not so much. What they are is an attempt to put something on top of Scripture, but what's interesting is what it does make is minor distinction of what the Bible does call covenants, the covenant with Abraham. So what the Bible does recognize as covenants, it makes minor distinction of, And then it makes a major distinction about the covenants that aren't named.

Do you like it? How are we doing so far? Okay. But anyway, that's what's devised here. And notice you get basically the Gentiles and Israel, and now after the cross, then the church takes the place of Israel. And the church, this is the Davidic kingdom. In the most extreme cases, they will say that we are now living in the new heavens and the new earth. Right now. How do you like it? Satan's bound. Don't laugh. They take that seriously. What's that? Yeah, this is it. You're living in the new heavens and the new earth. Now, that's in the most extreme case. I won't want to say that that's typical.

The next diagram here, this is Galatians 1, 15 through 18. Hal's done a great job of pointing out these starting points that different folks tend to pick. So here's Paul's conversion, Revelation and Acts 9, so that shows up. So these Acts 9 folks have that starting point.

And then the first missionary journey, when Paul turns to the Gentiles in Acts 13.46, would be the start of the church for those Acts 13 folks. And then some folks say, no, it's got to wait until the end of Acts, Acts 28, then not until then do you start the church. And those are the ones who would be most likely to deny both the Lord's table and baptism, to lay those aside. How many of you had contact with one or more of these either groups or individuals of of this group. Some of you had some contact.

It's interesting. I've mostly run across the Axe-9 persuasion and seen that. I had a friend in Carson City. His uncle worked for the printing company that printed the Axe-9 material his whole life. So he was real steeped in this thing. But anyway, you may encounter this.

They have some churches that were the whole church centers on this. They also have some colleges and seminaries. I've talked to guys over the phone, emailed, corresponded with some guys up in Oregon at Canyon View. They've got everything from a summer camp to a college to a seminary there at their facility there in Oregon.

So there are people who, you know, carry this out to, you know, the point of having established, you know, whole systems that go along with this. Now, then there's another final summary at the back there. This is July 17, 1994 that Hal had prepared. And that also is quite good.

Now, let's ask the question, what difference does it make? Should we just say, well, they want to believe this, that's fine. What difference does it make? Why does it matter? Why should we even bring it up? I think one of the things is that the Pentecost rationale or fact gives full credit to God And that's important.

He gives credit to God as the one who is over the church. So Carol's made that point. Any other thoughts? The Creator. Good. Any other thoughts? Why does this matter? Well, it matters because It's a, God has said and taught in his scripture, it's a matter of the scripture itself. If these views are right, scripture is wrong.

Okay. Yeah, it does become a point of scripture matters. Okay. All right. Yeah. So art also has made another good point. Just scripture matters. What scripture says does matter. And to find something and we say, OK, we've got an issue here, to just sort of throw up our hands and say, well, it doesn't make any difference. Well, Scripture does matter. Scripture has presented what it has for a reason. So good. Other points? It makes a difference in that, matters in that what applies to us as believers today and what does not apply to us. Yes.

They teach that the gospel that was preached during the The gospel of the kingdom is different from the gospel of Paul. And so when you come to the Great Commission, they say that's the gospel of the kingdom that is to be preached. And so we need to learn where to be preaching. Here is, I would say, a point of distinction, and depending on which group you talk to, it's going to matter.

Some of them would say, even among Paul's writings, the ones that were written before, in the Acts 28 case, the ones that were written before Paul was in prison, like 1 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, the earlier books of Paul are set aside as being not really applicable.

You see that? You have to start taking apart even of the New Testament and begin to say, no, wait a minute, that's not fully applicable to us because that's for a different church. So it underscores Art's point that scripture matters. And so what you end up doing is taking a part of scripture and kind of discounting it, setting it aside because that was for a different church. That's not for us. Okay, good. Any other reasons why it begins to matter, why it makes a difference, what we believe about these things? Ah, okay.

The difference between law and grace. The ultra-dispensationalists are not going to be prone to be legalists, but what they will do, depending on where they divide it, is still make law apply to some earlier portion of believers. And I think that's another thing, is the body of Christ is one body. Are those who have died in the Lord, those who are believers in Christ, are those who have died in the Lord part of the body of Christ?

Yes. Yes, they are. The rapture happens. Are we going to be caught up with them in the air? Yeah. Yeah. And so, it is a matter also of dividing up the body of Christ, even if you're talking about dividing up the body of Christ among those who have gone home to be with the Lord. We, likely all of us, know people who have been believers, who are home with the Lord, they're a part of the body of Christ too.

And we should not be dividing up the body of Christ. That's Paul's point in 1 Corinthians chapter 1. unless you want to discount that. Yeah, dividing up the body of Christ is serious business. The oneness, the singularity of the body of Christ is an underscored teaching in scripture. And so splitting it up by fine hairs is not God's intent.

Any other thoughts on this here? Randy? There is a need for division through the scriptures to define where the church starts and stops. Yes. Because I run into multiple covenant people who say, well, you're making a false division, just like we would say. Sure. Right. You need to make that distinction. You need to be aware of what the scriptures say and be able to understand those passages clearly and discuss them. intellectually honest, being intellectually honest with the text, so that when a covenant theologian levels to the dispensationalist, oh, well, you're making a division there, that we can say, yes, but it's a legitimate division.

Here's where it is biblically portrayed, and here's why. Peter pointed to the beginning. It's the beginning of something, right? Randy's point, just to reiterate it here, especially for those who are listening and recording, Randy's point is that the covenant theologians will tend to point to us and say, well, you're making a division between, you know, those who are of Israel and those who are of the church and putting a sharp divide there.

The division that we're making is one that is specifically biblical. And it's not to overlook the fact that Jews who are saved outside, who are not in the church, but are saved. Let's take King David. Saved, but not of the church. He's of Israel. But the distinction is biblical. And it's a dividing line that we are biblically called to make, rather than imposing one upon the scripture.

Now Bob, I think you had your hand raised. I was thinking this may be kind of in relation to what Art has said. Okay. The covenants that God, the promises that God made to the Jewish nation, I mean, that you'd have to kind of discard them because, I mean, there is going to be a time and a place for the Jews at Babylonia, or after Babylonia.

During the millennium, yes. It's interesting that that millennial time is something that all three people groups, the Gentiles, the Jews, and the Church, will have a specific place. And all three will have a different expression of the Lord's glory. And will fulfill God's eternal purpose in a special way. But there is a particular difference between those groups. It's not all just thrown into one. And it is important to see distinctions that are in Scripture, but it's also important not to put a distinction that Scripture doesn't make.

If you look at Acts chapter 9, you would not in any means guess that some new church was starting because Paul was converted. Especially after reading Peter's words, you know, back at the beginning. That's the beginning. As you look at the passages, you don't get the sense that something is getting started anew, afresh, that's different from the prior one. You don't get that from any of those passages. What you do get when you look at Acts chapter 2, especially after reading Acts chapter 1, is something new is starting here, and it's real different. That's the impression you get. And all Peter does when he talks in Acts chapter 11 is confirm it. Back at the beginning. Back at the beginning. The same gift he gave us that he gave them. Other thoughts?

Yes? Isn't that the one that gave you the wandering of what's known today as Canaanites? Yes. Yeah. Denominationalism, you know, it's interesting. You look at what starts denominations, frequently a personality is involved. And what's happened in the three different primary categories of ultra-dispensationalism, what they've done is they put Paul as the personality that has divided it. Yeah, good point. The same thing that typically divides up different denominational groups, and some of them will take the name and some not, but very often you can start at who began this thing.

You can look at, you know, Luther. What was the denominational group that got started? The Lutherans, right? And whether it gets the name Calvinism, and you got the Calvinist ones that were begun by that. You know, Mennonites were started by a guy by the name of Menno, you know. It goes on and on. The Wesleyan, you know, we talked last time about the Wesleys. Boy, it just happens again and again.

So good point, but what happens is these groups take Paul and they make him the dividing point, which if Paul were around to say anything, he'd say, no, no. And that's exactly what he does in 1 Corinthians chapter 1, isn't it? Was Paul crucified for you? No. The answer is no. And it's because the Lord began what he began when he began it and recorded it for us very clearly. Acts chapter 2.

Okay, we're out of time. But it's okay. Hang around. You don't have to leave. Let's pray. Lord, we thank you. As we look here, we thank you for the oneness that you have given the body. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. And Lord, we do give you thanks for the clarity of your word, for the unity of the body, that we have unity in you. And we pray, Lord, that you would work in hearts, that we would be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit, the unity that you have made and you have brought about since that day in Acts, recorded for us in Acts chapter 2. In Jesus' name, amen.