Appendix B

Separating Pauline Theology From Hyper-Dispensationalism

THE PRIME TENETS OF HYPER-DISPENSATIONALISM:

  1. Since Christ was born under the Law, taught and died under the Law (to confirm the promises made unto the fathers – Rom. 15:8) which we, ourselves, teach. However, their conclusions are: do not heed or study anything that He said. All that He taught is not only not about us, but it is not for us, rather for His Jewish bride and kingdom. Thus, they smirk in derision when anyone quotes the great commission as our “marching orders.” They say, “It is not for us; it is for the Jewish church.”

They seem to forget two great truths: (1) Jesus taught in great principles applicable for all time; (2) The difference between interpretation and application (See I Tim. 6:3-5).

  1. All of Acts, since it writes about the Jewish Church and offers the kingdom all throughout to Israel is a “transitional book” and was not written about us at all; therefore, nothing in acts can apply to us as the Body of Christ. Everything in Acts is “kingdom truth” and written before the Church as “the Body of Christ” was founded in Acts 28:28. Therefore, it is not for us, at all.
  1. The Epistles of Peter, James, John, Jude, and Revelation are all Jewish and written for the later Jewish Remnant after the Rapture. Therefore, they cannot be for us, at all.
  1. Thus, all but Paul’s Epistles (and some would throw out all but the Prison Epistles) where Paul got the real revelation OF the mystery of the “body” are to be discarded.
  1. This dividing of the Church dispensation, not at Pentecost, but years later with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, and making him the founder (not just prime revelator) is their primary error from which all others spring. Such a momentous division should be clearly indicated; but what are the facts? They labor to find one proof, but come up with Acts 28:28 “Salvation is sent unto the Gentiles,” but if this be a new dispensation, then why not hyper the hyper-dispensationalists and ultra the ultra-dispensationalists. In chapter 13:46, we would have another dispensation “Lo, we turn to the Gentiles,” but in 18:6, we have another dispensation “From henceforth, I will go to the Gentiles.” These are not dispensational divisions, but Paul’s loving yearning over his brethren after the flesh, which made him go to them first, but when rejected, he turned to the Gentiles, not to start a new dispensation, but to get more converts.

This fundamental error of starting the Church as the Body of Christ, not at Pentecost (as all great dispensationalists through the ages have), but years later with a new revelation to Paul in Prison, is the breeding ground of all the attending errors of making the Acts Church a Jewish kingdom Church, throwing out baptism by water as not for this dispensation, and many discard the Lord’s Supper. In fact, hardly a Scripture is not re-interpreted by them, and even the Gospel is changed. They assume that the Church for 2,000 years, all its great teachers, scholars, and saints, have been wrong until they got here, with new light. They do not COMPARE the complete system of Paul’s gospel with the lesser revelation given to the others of the New Testament, but they CONTRAST His with theirs, and make theirs as not even for us, at all, even making them to be in different dispensations. They say the division between Law and Grace has been in the wrong place all this time (until they got here), and the church during this whole time has been on Jewish legalistic grounds misapplying Scriptures of Peter, James, John, and Acts to the true Body Church, proclaiming the wrong gospel. (You may accuse them of much, but modesty or inferiority complex is not one of them.)

The Refutation of their Prime Premise

(Which is he division of the Church from the Law, not at Pentecost, but much later with Paul’s prison revelations)

We have seen the answer to much of this error in our former consideration of the “mystery of the church.” They are ignorant of what constitutes the “Body of Christ.” The Body and the Bride are one and the same (Eph. 5:22, 23) as the wife in marriage is both the wife and the same flesh as the husband. They are ignorant of what constitutes the “baptism of the Spirit” which places us into the Body (I Cor. 13:13). This is the baptism with fire promised by Jesus Christ “not many days hence” Acts 1:4,5. This is the one and only baptism with fire promised by Jesus Christ “not many days hence” Acts 1:4,5. This is the one and only baptism with the Holy Spirit, Eph. 4:4. It never was changed. Every believer since Pentecost has partaken of that “one baptism” into the Body of Christ, and that Body is the Bride of Christ, II Cor. 11:2. Much of this “body truth” is in other than the Prison Epistles, such as Corinthians, Romans, and Galatians. In fact, nowhere is there any intimation of a change of dispensation later in Acts. You cannot read Acts candidly without a dispensational axe to grind and get that conception. There is too much unity throughout. One of the proofs of the starting of the Church at Pentecost is the singular name for it throughout.

Illustration: Paul calls it “Church of God” even before He was himself converted, Gal. 1:13 “I persecuted the Church of God.” So in I Cor. 15:9, again he refers to it, and said he was not worthy to be called an Apostle, because he persecuted THE CHURCH OF GOD.

So in a prison epistle he uses the same name for it –

I Tim. 3:15 “church of God which is the pillar and ground of Truth.” Any change yet? Not, same in name, so same in kind.

They post a mystery. They would have that church purely Jewish – but Paul in Galatians, before his imprisonment says “Neither Jew, nor Gentile in the Body of Christ” (Gal. 3:27,28).

WORST OF ALL IS THE DANGEROUS RESULT OF ULTRA DISPENSATIONALISM .

Throwing out the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as legalism

and carnal ordinances of men. They quote Col. 2:20-22, but read the context and see if the Lord’s Supper and Baptism fit this definition of man’s ordinance? Many of them call the Lord’s day observance pure legalism. It has led many of them into the same error of Bullinger – soul sleep, anihiliation and division within the Church. Dr. Knock’s “Concordant Version” is illustration in point. Worse error of all is the utter ignoring of vast amounts of Scripture, and the confining of the soul to a few short Epistles of Paul.

Remember, in our syllogism, we are not contending for the exclusive rights

of Paul to all inspiration for the Church, nor of Paul as antagonistic to the rest, but the superlative place to which God called him, to commit only to him the whole system of Church Truth, and to make him the trustee of this dispensation.