Salvation is it eternal regardless of the circumstances or not come on lets get everyone’s opinion

[Angela Doreen]

But what is your take on what would have happened if the prodigal son or anyone who had received salvation backslides by rejecting the Father, His Son, the Holy Ghost and totally turned away from the faith and DIED without having repented or had the opportunity to return to the fold. Would that person be heading for hell or heaven? This is a conversation that came up with a couple of my work colleague when we were in an after discussion on Luke 15:11-32 so I would be interested in having a discussion and receiving everyone's point of view.

[Dr Sarah Carrol]

I would say it might be foolish to call oneself a Christian if God or Jesus even, never told anyone to be a "Christian." That being the case then "Christianity" either came from man or from even Satan.

 

That above does not mean that one should not believe or trust in Christ as savior, but what happens if we are all going around professing a word "Christianity" when it actually did not come from God or Jesus? God puts great weight and emphasis on words and our confession of words.

 

If the word "Christian" or Christianity" came from pagans, which is not of God but of Satan, then by us using the word all the time, are we not promoting something that was started by Satan?

 

By the way Jesus died so that we through Him could have the relationship that Adam had with God. Of course not many teach that so we all screw it up pitifully, but that is what Jesus died and was resurrected for. It ended the curse and your preaching and teaching the curse? 

[AMECHI GODSON]

I think you made serious and convincing arguments. Some human logics are nothing but academic speculation and empty philosophy, similar to those of the Corinthians in Apostle Paul's days. Thank you so much for your doctrinal insight.

[Dr Sarah Carrol]

I will give it my best.

 

Paul wrote what you said, "The Apostle Paul went so far as to say that "there is "neither Jew nor Greek" (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11)." But what he was saying is not to take on names as they bind us. We are or not God's people by what we do and by what we represent. If we represent the love and will of God then we belong to Him through Christ, which He gave his life so that all could be grafted into the promise.

 

So lets look at the life of Jesus? He tried to make it clear that He had no will except for the will of the Father. If Jesus is the example than that is the example we should be following, which is to have no will except for the will of the Father as Jesus did.

 

Yes I have a problem with the word "Christian" or "Christianity" as historians will likely tell you that the word came from pagans that were mocking the first believers. Now being that they were pagan, which means they belonged to Satan, do you think it is God's will that we take an name that came from Satan?

 

Ok lets look at this from another perspective. In the name of Christianity the inquisitions took place, Jews and Muslims where slaughtered. In South America in the name of Christianity the people were enslaved and in the US in the name of Christianity the land was taken from the Indians, because they were seen as pagans and Christians placed themselves over the Indians. From  Christian world view, Christians are over others, but with God the least is the greatest and the greatest is the least. God is a servant to the servant and the object lesson is to be like God and learn to be servants.

 

Now lets look at servants. Servants do not build buildings called churches and allow for people to go hungry? No, servants care about what God cares about which is the people and meeting the needs and we do so because we are called to represent the love and will of the Father who sends us, but in Christianity, we can build buildings and have possessions and basically do what we think is right in our own minds. Sounds like a scripture. 

 

This on earth is all a test to see what we will do. To love or have stuff. If we choose the stuff and the buildings and all the trappings, one should be asking themselves if that is really what God had in mind? If we want to keep the blessings flowing we have to learn how to give.

 

I personally know of instance after instance where people have gone to the church for help and they were told that they didn't have money to help because the mortgage and the staff had to be paid. Really does that sound like God's plan? But if one is honest with themselves it is ok to do that and still be a Christian. Mind you if one is from God then they are required by God to represent His love and will. With a Christian it seems to be optional.

 

Having said all of that, it does not take anything away what Jesus did. On the one hand we have the goal of being able to walk with God, being God's people and on the other hand we have an opportunity to be a Christian, which means what? Saying one is a Christian means what exactly? To some it may be that we will steal the land of others? Look at Bush who was an example of the Christian might. He justified what He did because He was a Christian and as such he could go into countries and topple governments. You have to admit that was not exactly representing the love and will of God? That really is the biggest difference.

 

Ok lets try another way to look at this. To end the 20,000 sects of Christianity all one has to do is say they are here to represent the love and will of God, which is a very narrow path. I would submit the reason people like to be vague and saying one is a Christian is fairly vague and confusing, because when you tell me your a Christian, I have to try to figure out which bran of the 20,000 different sects there are just to try and understand where you are coming from. I know people that call themselves Christians and they will admit they will not listen to God or be led by His Spirit. They only pay attention to what is in the Bible.

 

If one says they are of God then they are required to represent the love and will of God. If one says they are a Christian, I agree it should mean the same thing, but most times it does not.

 

You said, "Dr. Carrol, the last paragraph in your previous post is in grave error. Jesus did not die so that we through Him could have the relationship that Adam had with God." I say we can approach God in the throne of Grace in Jesus name and be heard. I say that we have the ability to walk with God to desire to be like Him and be moved by His Heart which is His Spirit. I say that we can and should be doing this because of what Jesus did for us. It is all about that personal relationship, not only with Jesus, but out Father which is God and His Spirit, which is the one who breathes life into all living things.

 

For those that are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.

 

My perception is you have a little of De Haan there somewhere? I don't agree with De Haan, because on the one hand he wrote that the Bible was true, which sounds nice but then he took parts of the Bible and said they were no longer valid, including not keeping the commandments and he did not accept the five fold gift ministry where some are called to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and some teachers.

 

I mean to great thing missing from what you are saying first about Christianity as no one in scripture tells anyone to be a Christian and yes Israel was given that name by God as was the Hebrews which came from Abraham and of course there was Judah of which Jesus belonged to the tribe of Judah or came from the tribe of Judah I would suppose is more correct. His Father was God, no doubt but it is the mother that passes the birthright and the birthright is from Mary who was Judah. Lion of Judah? God gave those names to His people. So in comes Jesus of which we probably all agree that He is and was the Son of God. So then we have to ask the question and should, "did Jesus come to start a new religion called Christianity or did He come so that all could be grafted into the promise," and depending on how one answers that will take them in two different paths.

 

If Jesus came so that all maybe grafted in then Jesus is the Gate to God and the object is to be more like God (servant). If the answer is Jesus came to start a new religion called Christianity, that makes God's words (which by the way are eternal and not divided into dispensations, I mean really either His words are eternal or can be divided in dispensations?) void, which means the Old Covenants are no longer there and neither are the commandments, but a lot of scripture in the New Testament says that if we love God we will keep His words. Back to Jesus; if Jesus came to start a new religion that would mean that He was a heretic and not from God. 

 

So lets go back to your statement of following Jesus and the example was to be like God or represent the love and will of God as Jesus did and not start a new religion called "Christianity." Anywhere along the line Jesus could have said "call yourselves Christians etc and that would have been fine with me, but if we go back to accepting the Bible as true, then we have to understand that Jesus nor the apostles told anyone to be a Christian. One has to decide if the Bible is true or not and if it is, then please everyone follow what it says? Jesus came to represent the with of the Father and not Himself. So if that is the example then dang, how about it, why not do the same thing? I mean to me its sort of a no brainer?

 

[The Preacher Teacher]

I wish I could have had some of this family in College in those philosphy classes. Revelation is wonderful...

[Dr Sarah Carrol]

What is absolutely truly amazing is that anyone can have the Holy Spirit for the asking and the receiving, but with that comes the responsibility of leadership.

 

In the Old Testament the anointing as it was called was limited to only kings, prophets and priests, but in the New Testament anyone with an ear can have the Holy Spirit dwell with them.

 

It is amazing to me that the Holy Spirit is the very heart and essence of God, with Jesus our brother to show us the way.

[Dr Sarah Carrol]

If a person looks at the prodigal son, you will see that the father said, my son was dead and now he lives.

 

Marriage or family is not created by a piece of paper, but a condition of the heart to be family or to be married. In the Old Testament, which is were the prodigal son comes from. The son squandered his inheritance and did what he wanted to do. 

 

In the Old Testament here is how it worked. The woman passed the birthright to the first born, not the man. That birthright is the covenant of God passed to the individual, which made that person the future leader of the family. Now the leader of the family had to seek God for where they went and seek God for everything, otherwise they were outside of the covenant and then died as a result or were sold into Egypt as slaves. The birthright made the person responsible to God for their family. Salvation was not just a word saying one is saved, but actually walking in the covenant that was given by God, thus creating salvation where God would take care of the family, not just for life on earth, but eternity.

One had to be a Jew to even be in the covenant or be a part of the covenant in the OT. Paul said we have a better covenant which means that we all can have the anointing which was reserved only for kings, prophets and priests and at one time the head of the family. In the NT anyone can have the anointing for the asking, but with that also comes the responsibility of being a leader.

 

In the New Covenant what happens is we exchange our life for His life, which is why Paul wrote that we were bought with a price and no longer our own. This means to be in covenant, we have to leave our life behind and be dead to self and seek God for everything including direction, who to marry, what job we have, where we live etc if we have turned our life over to God. What the flesh wants to do is find out that line and go up to it without going over the line. We want to know what that line is so we can stay on the side of God but do our own thing, just like the prodigal son.

 

Jesus came and is the representation of all the covenants, which is what gives us a better covenant. It is why it says so many times even in the New Testament that we are to obey the commandments. Yes I know everyone says that Jesus came to fulfill the commandments, but fulfill means uphold and to go along with that one can do a search and find how many times it says that if we do not keep the commandments we do not love God. Is the sabbath important? Yes it is. What day is the Sabbath? Saturday. We are not supposed to tell people what they should do to honor the Sabbath but as leaders we are responsible to God for teaching to keep the commandments. Why should we honor the Sabbath? Because God created the Sabbath and by not honoring it we put ourselves above God.

 

In the OT when God said go here or go there, you went. If you did you were then in the covenant and where ever you stepped became Holy ground and a part of Israel which is a people and a place and if they went where God wanted them to He would provide for them and would defend them against all enemies. El Shaddai is the great provider and his sons, the ones with the birthright was a provider of the family through El Shaddai the great "I am" provider.

With this anointing however is also the responsibility of what happens on earth. In the Christian church it was the priesthood that sought the anointing and the church believed it was just for the higher ups, which is how pastors got to be over congregations, but that is not how it was set up. It was set up where the least was the greatest and the greatest the least and it was man that put the priesthood over people. It created a hierarchy. That hierarchy enslaved the people and in fact put women to death that understood the birthright was passed from women and not men. In the Christian church which followed the pagan church, the man carried the birthright, which we can see all the way back and before the time of the Pharaohs. It happened so men could run the church, whether they were called and ordained by God or not, man took the right to ordain other men. Whatever God ordains, let man not put asunder and only God has a right to ordain.

 

If we go back to the first church we see that they were bought with a price and as such sold all their stuff and they lived like family and because of that the Spirit moved around them and blessed them and added to them daily. What the modern church likes to do is keep the stuff, build buildings, which gives people power (or at least that is what man thinks). Then of course we all know about the protestant reformation and how most of the churches broke from the Catholic church but sort of liked the idea of having property and buildings and all the things that go with it, but then we step away from the original covenant which is were we exchange our life for His. Everyone walks around saying Jesus is the example, but we never do see Jesus saying to build buildings called churches. What He said was take care of the hungry, the homeless the sick and those in prison.

 

In the modern church we want to say the government should take care of those things, after all we pay taxes? So then that allows us to have mortgages on church buildings, but that enslaves us to that building instead of the love and will of God, because the love and will of God is for God's people (us) to build individuals, taking care of them and skip the building of the church buildings. Now granted if all the people are being taken care of by the church then sure go build a building. At one time in the US the church was a lot of things including being the school and social center of the community and why not, people got together to raise a church building just like a barn and as I mentioned a lot of the time served as the local school.

 

Our responsibility to God if we really were bought and paid for with a price is to represent the love and will of God and that is what salvation is. If we are representing anything else we are outside of that covenant and that should concern anyone.

[Dr Sarah Carrol]

I will have to get back to you on some of this, but I needed to know what part you wondered about as far as scripture is concerned or what your looking for?

 

You say that you are a follower of Christ. Yes one of the things that Jesus was sent to do is destroy the works of the devil, in part, but Jesus is supposed to be the perfect example, which tells me we should be following His example. But even Jesus said that He was sent to do the will of the Father that sent Him. We are supposed to do that as well if we are really a follower of Jesus. That takes having a personal relationship with the Father or at least that is how I see it?

 

What you said is we cannot do what Jesus did, but what He did was the will of the Father. If you do believe that, then it is impossible for you to be a Christian or follower of Christ. I mean why follow if you cant do what He did. Does that make sense to you?

 

I mean your saying you are a follower of Christ (Christian) Right? "Third, your argument about Jesus doing the will of His Father, and therefore we should do the will of the Father, is weak. I say this, out of all due respect, because the will of the Father for Jesus is not the will of the Father for us who follow the Son. Am I making sense here?"

 

I am not trying to argue first and secondly if one is a follower of Christ i would think at least your trying to do what He did? Jesus said He and HIs Father are one if you know me you know the Father that sent me. So with that in mind your saying the will of the Father was different for Jesus? huh? Really that doesn't make sense. His example was to do the will of the Father and God has something different for each of us. Different gifts and offices and purpose and then there are universal thing we should be doing which is for the whole body of Christ. We are supposed to all be ambassadors for Christ and all of a royal priesthood etc.

 

I mean if your a follower of Christ then you will do what He did? Right? Why follow Jesus if you can't do what He did? That makes really no sense to me? I mean on the one hand you say your a follower of Christ that ok, then do what He did. He did not quote scripture or verse, but you want me too? Huh? He was led by the Spirit of God to say what He did and as He is the example it is His Spirit I seek to say anything. I throw in the huh's to break it up and try to keep it on the lite side.

 

At least we are saying the same thing in that being called a "Christian" was at best derogatory. So that is the point. If it was said as derogatory, why take on a name that was said in jest? I mean if God said to be a Christian great or Jesus or even one of the apostles, that would be fine as well as they are required to speak for God. So if no one is telling people to use the name Christian then it shouldn't be used as a badge of honor. For example you said you were a born again Christian which is an adjective of being born again meaning something to you, but honestly it means little to me, only because there are so many different definitions of what being a Christian is. Like why pollute the water. What is wrong with simply stating that you are born again? What makes it muddy is saying your a born again Christian (follower) but then you admit you cannot do what He did, which tells me you can't follow Him? Does that make sense? If your following Him as the perfect example ok I can deal with that but they do what He did. I am not talking about walking on water but how Jesus viewed things. Admittedly He had all the gifts and we are given but a few, but designed to help us in what we as individuals have been called to do.   

 

I am not over you and I am not saying you can't or shouldn't say that you are a Christian. Go for it. It's OK with me. I am just saying for me I can't go with it and attempted to explain why. I am saying (for myself anyway) the reason I was created was to represent the love and will of God. You can do whatever you want or feel led to. I don't have a right to say you are correct or incorrect. I can only speak for myself and that is all I have attempted to do.

 

Each of us are supposed to seek the truth and then speak of those things God has shown us. The Holy Spirit is the teacher, not me. It is true though that there are more than 20,000 sects of Christianity. I do know by church history the Christian church at the time was the Catholic or universal Church and then most everyone split off from them as a part of the protestant reformation.

 

There was another group, far smaller that was led by the Spirit of God. They called themselves nothing and that is what I do. To them and myself and Jesus as well, we say, it is not important who I say that I am, it is only important what God shows you what I am and to that I fully agree, which is why I do it that way.

 

Yes there are a lot of negative aspects of Christianity, but if you take on the name of Christianity, you are saying you are a part of that, by your own admission. The point of Paul was to take on no name, because it is a label which may mean one thing to you and something totally different to someone else. Paul was trying to say that we should be clear. Words like Christian or Christianity muddy the water, because really no one can really define it, but most that use the word Christian is to say they are saved, which is why they are saying it. The word either came from pagan or you say Jewish origin to mock people. If that is true why take on a name like that with no Biblical reason to do so.

 

So what I am saying in part, you want from me Bible and verse, which then if we are equal I should be able to say the same thing to you, like "show me somewhere that we are to take on the name of Christianity?" One can't have it both ways. If you are going to use the Bible as your belief then go with it, but it does not say anywhere that you should call yourself a born again Christian. So why do it? See that doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

[Dr Sarah Carrol]

I think you are half reading. What I am saying is if you are a follower of Christ, then follow, do what He does or did. If you can't then you cannot be a follower of Christ. It really is not complicated. What kind of person is a follower of something if they know they cannot do it? I agree we should follow His examples 1 John 3:16. If we follow His example and He was sent of the Father and only represents the will of the Father then that is what we should be doing. If we are doing anything else it should be considered sin. Make sense?

 

As far as quoting scripture, please show me where Jesus said "Luke 4:4, 4:8; 4:12," using those verses or the same with the Old Testament? He didn't say, please open your scrolls from Isaiah chapter 60 verse..... If we are doing what He did, He did not do that, He spoke what the Spirit of God spoke to Him to speak and each one of us can do that. That was my point.

 

Your offering scriptural proofs, but then you go against scripture because it says no where to call yourself a "Christian." God is not saying do that nor is the Holy Spirit saying do that. I know better on that one.

 

What your not seeing is that you have made this all very complicated with all this teaching. No where does Paul or Jesus or anyone say to chop up scripture from the Greek. I mean either teach what is there and stick to that or say that scripture is not good enough to follow. We need the Greek interpretation and we need this teaching on dispensations, because the author of scripture was in error, because the authors of scripture did not say to do that.

 

Your telling me to quote scripture and verse and I am saying to you quote scripture and verse (because your telling me to and I know that Jesus died so we could be equal) that you should call yourself a Christian or that there is dispensations. You tried to say Paul said it, but he was only talking about himself dispensing the will of God.  There is a bunch of teaching in what you are saying.

 

Really you must be thinking I am stupid or something when you tell me that Jesus came here to die for sins. Is there a reason for you telling me that. Do you think I do not understand that?

 

Back to Christianity and it is not a complaint. The point of this thread is "once saved always saved," then we get into all this Christian doctrine........ Sheeze. You said, "The main thing that you want me to do is show you where in the Bible does it state that born again believers are to be called Christians. That appears to be the gist of your complaint. There is not one passage of Scripture that states such a thing. I tried to get Amechi to tell you that when you asked him the same question, but I suppose that he could not bring himself to flat out say it or admit it."

 

If you profess that Jesus is your example and He did not say be a Christian then you probably either should not say that He is your example or stop saying your a Christian, because no where in scripture does it say to call yourself a Christian. You see on the one hand you go back to scripture telling me to quote it and you cannot even do the same thing in regards to dispensations and or Christianity. Honest your not seeing it but your reading stuff in there that is not there. For example, ""The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." This suggests, according to the Greek text that I am consulting, that it was God who named the Disciples such." It does not say that God was calling them Christians. It is your interpretation.It would be sorta nice if scripture would have said "who was calling them Christians." My understanding was that it was pagans. Your understand is that it was Jews, but both of us had the understand that the word was used to mock believers. As such then it did not come from God, but Satan. If I mock you, I mock God. Now the only one I know that is sorta dumb enough to do that is Satan. If that is true and it could be "would you want to be called something that came from Satan?" Which was what I was trying to say. I mean if Jesus or even the apostles called people Christians I would say, "cool."

 

I will give you another example if I may of how people read things into scripture. "faith cometh by hearing and hearing from the word." To most they think it is talking about the Bible, but that couldn't be because the Bible was not even there yet. When it says faith cometh by hearing it is what God speaks to you and honest when He speaks to anyone and He has me in a very clear voice outside of my head, it builds faith. Yet people read stuff into scripture all the time. When God talks to you in that type of voice all you want to do is drop to your knees, but the funny part is that He did not want me to drop to my knees. Took me by total surprise but it was something I needed badly at the time and will always be grateful for that.

 

I have learned that it is not important what I call myself, but what God shows you that I am and the only way one can find that out is by seeking Him and thats all I suggest anyone does. Nothingness to you is something to be concerned with. Jesus was the total example of nothingness. He did not say to Peter call me this or that or take on a title, but asked Peter what God showed him. That should be our cue to follow.

 

The point is you may very well get things as a pastor or not, but I might get things a little different than you which does not make either of us wrong. We get what we get based on our calling and purpose and my purpose in life is no greater or no less than yours. We both are going to get different things.

 

Ok your a pastor but if your making this really complicated it will be very difficult for those that come to your church to go out and tell people about Jesus. Honest been there done that and honest I do not say any of this being over you, but I care and my heart is to serve.

 

[Dr Sarah Carrol]

Unteachable spirit, so then you decide that I am not of God, but a familiar spirit and I do not see that you are qualified to judge any let alone God as I assure you I was sent of God.

 

So we both understand each other, I did come to you as a student. I came just as a person and I really didn't even know why. I just know I was led here. Granted you have a lot of knowledge and a lot of pride.

 

The language the New Testament is written in? It is still being written even though many do not see it. Yes you wrote on seven dispensations, but the fruit of that spirit is division. In the Greek it says nothing about dispensations as scripture does not say that it is divided into dispensations, but it is a teaching of man. The fruit of that teaching is that it leaves one with the understanding that if one is in another dispensation, that whatever was there is no longer valid, which means with that teaching one does not have honor God's commandments as that is not in the same "dispensation."

 

There are numerous scriptures that even flat out state that if we do not keep His commandments, we do not love God. That came from scripture even though I did not quote chapter and verse. This is an informal conversation and not a thesis of why you believe what you believe. I don't think I asked you to tell me why you believed the way you did. You offered information about your beliefs and yet you offer no biblical proof (as you have required of me) that one should call themselves a Christian.

 

You have also offered no biblical proof where Paul, Peter, Jesus or anyone else of significance has stated that there are dispensations. You offered an interpretation and I even said, you may believe what you want as I am not over you. Someone has taught you or you got it from a book other than the Bible, as you put it, that there are "Seven Dispensations," and noted that you capitalized it as some teaching from God or something and God never said any of that in Scripture, but I can say that it was God that took me back in scripture and gave me some verses, which according to your teaching of the "Seven Dispensations," means the things I received from God are not valid, which is probably more offensive to God than me and if that is the case it would be wise to put the books up and seek God for the truth and then wait on Him to respond as He answers all those that diligently seek Him.

 

I would like to correct you on one thing, which I should have a right as you stated that I attacked you, which was horribly in error as I have not attacked you in anything.

 

I will say for the record that if your Greek text does not spell out word for word what is in the Bible I would suggest that either the Greek text you are using to be in error or the Bible is in serious error, because no where in the Bible at least does it state that one should call themselves a Christian or that prior to Christianity it was a different dispensation. I will admit that most walk around saying that Jesus came to fulfill the law, but that also means to uphold the law as much as to bring it to pass. I can only assume the reason why people like that verse is because they do not want to follow the commandments which are not grievous as Peter mentioned.

 

"Good scholarship demands that one offer up documentation to validate an argument." Really who are you to tell me that? You have no right, but if you want to hold me to that I can and will, but first show me where it says that one should call themselves a Christian or that there are seven dispensations. You can't, its not there, so while you are trying to hold me to a standard of quoting scripture to back and argument, then you should be the example. I asked you to do this before and you either did not know how to read or went to Evelyn Woods speed reading class, but the fruit of that is to miss what I wrote. You prattle on about how important it is to quote scripture and verse to form a belief and yet you cannot quote any verses where you it says one should call themselves a Christian or even what a Christian is or on the "Seven Dispensations."

 

But the most important thing I will say is that it makes no difference what you call yourself or how much knowledge you think you have, the only way one knows that they belong to Jesus is by our love one for the other and I would think that either you do not understand that as you say I have attacked you and you in error say that I have an unteachable spirit, which is not an act of love but of condemnation and both seriously in error.

 

I will state for the record once again that I sought God on what to say. Of course you can believe what you want, but will say and I hope that I am clear on this that if you dismiss me, you also dismiss God as I have not represented my will in any of this.

 

The sad part is that you are in great company with that teaching as De Haan and Moody were of the same mindset, but that did not make them right either. If you are a pastor, then you should be advising people to seek God for the truth as it is the Holy Spirit and not you or me or anyone else that leads people to the truth. The Holy Spirit is the real teacher and not men like yourself. What a true teacher in the five fold gift ministry does is help one find their purpose and calling and help them walk in that calling and purpose, not over them but as a servant and you take the position that you are to lord over others. The proof of that is telling me that I do not have a teachable spirit and you know nothing about me or anything that I have gone through or what God Himself as shown me as His promise to me is that He would take me by the hand and lead me into righteousness and as God is a God of His word, He holds His Words even above Himself.

[AMECHI GODSON]

Yea, the Holy Spirit is our ultimate teacher. But He also chooses and give gift to human teachers. However, the human must study to rightly divide the completed canon of scripture. Unfortunately, some people seem to claim fresh revelation. We must be very careful to avoid 'sincerely' adding to Scripture. May the gracious God guide us in these matters.

[Dr Sarah Carrol]

I understand the teaching of dispensationalists (if there is such a word). My problem with that if we are going to stick with scripture and scripture does not say there are different dispensations, then I won't either. 

 

The point being it is a teaching of man. You are admitting that as well. It is after the Greek. Ok great. I understand that. Once again though we should not weave back and forth between teachings of men and scripture is what I am trying to say. If the Bible is the base, then do only and teach only what is in scripture and things like dispensations and rapture and all sorts of things are not in scripture. One either believes and accepts scripture or one doesn't and either takes away from it or attempts to add to it with the teaching of men that have gone before us.

 

Ok that is where it gets VERY confusing, because in communication we are supposed to be clear. One says they are a dispensationalist and one calls themselves a Christian so what we may end up with is a person who says they are a "born again, Christian, dispensationalist Baptist or...." That requires me to understand all of that to even understand your view point. What I am saying is that according to scripture a child should be able to understand this stuff, but yet we as grow ups get into all this ""born again, Christian, dispensationalist Baptist or...." stuff, making simple communication very difficult. Am I making sense? Really do you see that?

 

To me these are doctrines of men. So are we following Christ or the doctrines of men, which has a lot to do with how we define salvation.

 

I am saved because I am a"born again, Christian, dispensationalist Baptist or....whatever" but what that is also saying to a person is that they are only saved if they believe the same thing. When one says something like that "born again, Christian, dispensationalist Baptist or...." then they are saying that is what it takes to be saved when Jesus made it really simple when He said, " they will know that you are mine by your love one for the other." Which is far different then us confessing we are saved because we are a "born again, Christian, dispensationalist Baptist or....whatever." Those adjectives muddy the water making it very difficult to communicate.

 

When one says they are dispensationalists, then they are also say that because it is a different dispensation, the old covenants no longer apply? That is why someone came up with the teaching of dispensations. To say those things no longer apply.

 

What I am saying in what I believe anyway is that man has his own pay and God reacted to what man did to institute newer or more clearer covenants, but it all goes back to "Adam was created in God's image" and what I am saying is that it is all to get us back to the point of what Adam had with God. 

[Dr Sarah Carrol]

It cut me off sorry this was a part of it.

You said, "For the record, the term dispensation can be found in four (4) places in the Bible:

(1) 1 Corinthians 9:17

(2) Ephesians 1:10

(3) Ephesians 3:2

(4) Colossians 1:25"

 

Paul was simply stating that he was dispensing the will of God in what he was doing, which we all should be doing. I would think? He was not suggesting by any of those verses that there were different dispensations.

 

The point of it is that we all can have the Spirit of God and we all should be dispensing to all His love and will to all people on earth, which is not a different dispensation. Moses was giving to the people what God gave him to give to the people. The same with Abraham. That only means to me at least, that we should seek God for what to say or write. No difference.