I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that Called you into the Grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. Galatians 1:6,7
DISPENSATIONALISTS READILY ADMIT THEY HAVE TWO GOSPELS
Dispensationalists are known as Futurists and Literalists.[1] Those that claim they know anything about "advanced Dispensational truth" will readily admit they have two gospels. Sincere new believers who are captivated by Tim LaHayes' "Left Behind" series, and really do not know much more about the two gospels that lie embedded within his "adventure stories", or who watch the slick presentation of the movie, "The Omega Code" may be amazed to now find certain things out. The most surprising part is that when asked about their two gospels (you have to ask someone who really does know the actual "advanced teachings" of Dispensationalism though), they will not deny it! They say our New Testament has two gospels? What are these two gospels?
They call these "two gospels" (#1) "The Gospel of the Kingdom" and (#2) "The Gospel of the Grace of God". Here now is what the Dispensationalists say about their "two separate gospels"; separate and distinct, saying each is peculiar to two completely different "dispensations" and yet both are found in our New Testament. They are:
(#1) THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM
According to the Dispensationalists, the "Gospel of the Kingdom" was preached to Israel (the Jewish people) by Yeshua (Jesus) at His First Advent. If the Jewish people would have accepted Yeshua as their Messiah, then He would have brought in "The Kingdom Age" immediately to this earth; a visible Kingdom with Him physically Ruling in Jerusalem on "Davids' physical throne" (remember they are literalists here). All of the Old Testament Prophecies and Blessings would have been then "literally fulfilled to Israel" (the Jews only), and the Jewish people would have ruled the earth, following a pattern of the Mosaic Law for a literal 1,000 years which they term the "Millennium".
The "Millennium" would have been miraculously brought in with perfect environment, the "swords being turned into plowshares and the spears into pruning hooks" and man would "learn war no more".[2]
Since Messiah was "rejected by the Jewish people" however, God (they say) did not bring in "The Kingdom" (The Millennium) but it is now "postponed".[3] What happened then?
Here is where it starts to get a bit complicated. According to them, "the Jews' rejection" of Messiah "stopped Gods' clock" in the 69th Week of Daniels' "70 Weeks" Prophecy (see Daniel Chapter 9) and God "withdrew" the Kingdom offer, "postponing" The Kingdom (the "millennium") and brought in a "parenthesis" called "The Church Age" in which we now live. This occurred, they say, sometime around either Pentecost or Acts Chapter 3, perhaps at the stoning of Steven. They are divided somewhat on when this happened.
Nevertheless, instead of "The Kingdom Age" (The "Millennium"), they say God gave "The Church Age" to us. Their "Church Age" (now) is (here is where it gets very strange, so get this) NOT The New Covenant (the New Covenant is for their "Millennium" only)! Instead of The New Covenant, we now all have the preaching of "another gospel" which they call "The Gospel of the Grace of God" that they teach was first preached by Paul. Confused yet? Just wait. Here is now their "other gospel" called "the Gospel of the Grace of God":
(#2) THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD
"Another gospel" (they say) secretly found in the New Testament is "The Gospel of the Grace of God" and was revealed to Paul first, and then he began preaching it for the "Church Age" (us) only.
The Mosaic Law has been completely abolished in the "Church Age" and all now is "unconditional Grace".[4] A Conditional Covenant was only for the "Age of the Law" or "Age of the Jews", not for the current "Church Age dispensation".
The "Gospel of the Grace of God", differs from "The Gospel of the Kingdom" in that "The Gospel of the Grace of God" preaches the cross, but the "Gospel of the Kingdom" did not. Paul preached "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" which the previous "Gospel of the Kingdom" preached by Yeshua and the Disciples to the Jewish people, Dispensationalists say, had no cross in it.
CONCLUSIONS
Dispensationalists read not G-ds' Word aright when they make "two gospels" in the New Testament. They misinterpret G-ds' Word when they tell us The New Covenant has not yet come, and that it is not for The Church. Indeed, the title "New Testament" itself means The New Covenant!
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: Philippians 3:9
Paul here says that the Law cannot save.
There never were "two gospels", one preached by Yeshua, and "another gospel" preached by Paul. Their "Millennium" amounts to nothing more than saying Yeshua was preaching what is known as the "Golden Age of the Jews", or "The Messianic Age" to the Jewish people which was what the rabbis were also preaching, and Yeshua was preaching the exact same thing as the rabbis did?!? And do?[5] This is the Dispensationalists' "Gospel of the Kingdom" which has no cross.[6]
These things and others are then placed as a "template" over all Scripture for "ease in understanding". These thimgs lie embedded in the "Left Behind" series and "The Omega Code" by which they claim to have "rediscovered these doctrines" which "were suppressed by the whole Church until they arrived" but now we can "understand the deeper things of God" thanks to them!
No, Thanks.
MORE FOLLOWING SOON!
PEOPLE OF G-D MINISTRIES
© Copyright 2002 - 2004 People of G-d Ministries, Inc. No reproduction or redistribution of this page without Prior Written Consent and Approval of People of G-d.
FOOTNOTES
[1
[2
Here is what Darby said about the possibility that Yeshua would not have been "rejected by the Jewish people".
"Supposing for a moment that Christ had not been rejected, the kingdom would have been set up on earth. It could not have been so, no doubt, but it shows the difference between the kingdom and the church." (Darby. Lectures. p. 113.)
[3
There are several passages that deny the masses of Jews rejected Yeshua. First, after the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, the Jews sought Him to "make Him a king by force". He went away "to a private place instead" however, denying that He came to be a physical literal king over Israel and subdue the Romans by force as Dispensationalists claim was His "gospel of the kingdom" message and intent.
The next passage we should consider is where Peter hears Jesus saying that He must be turned over the Gentiles and crucified. Peter says, "Not so L-rd!" Yeshua does nothing else than call Peter, "Satan":
In other words, if Dispensationalism were true and Yeshua would have been preaching the "gospel of the kingdom" and trying to get all to accept the "Millennium" with Him as literal king sitting on Davids' literal (presumably rediscovered and dusted-off) throne, why did He rebuke Peter for suggesting He not go to the cross? The Pharisees were preaching a "Golden Age of the Jews" to arrive with Messiahs' Appearance. Was that not also what Peter also thought? Peter knew the teaching of the rabbis. But didn't Jesus say the rabbis' teaching was "of men"? The crucifixion is asserted by Dispensationalists as proof of the denial of the "Millennial Offer" outright. Are not the Dispensationalists actually preaching what Christ condemned? The doctrine of satan which was "of men"? That Christ could have avoided the cross as Peter also once thought!?!
Further, according to them, the Old Testament Prophets neither spoke nor knew anything about the Church or the "Church Age" at all, nor were they even made aware of it! "The Church" was a total mystery to all the Old Testament Prophets? This is a total rejection of Scripture by Dispensationalists.
They tell us that nothing in the Old Testament as far as Blessings, belongs to the Church proper, or any Christian in the "Church Age" (now). They are all strictly Israel's earthly Blessings for "The Millennium". To say that any Old Testament Blessing is for the Church is, they say, to "rob Israel" of its Blessings. They say they were not fulfilled to Israel yet, such as the Promises in the Torah regarding the Land, for instance. This disagrees with Solomons' testimony:
The vast majority of Dispensationalists (even "teachers") will also be surpised to learn that the "promises to Israel only (the Jews only)") also means the New Covenant. Jeremiah 31:31 was not for the Church they say. The New Covenant pertains to both the houses of Israel (which they say are Jews only) and not the Church as the Old Testament prophets of course, (they say) knew nothing of the Church! This is consistent with their position that the Church was a "total mystery" to the Old Testament prophets.
Darbys' own words:
"The New Covenant will be made with both the two houses of Israel." (he means a Sinai-like Covenant will be re-established with Israel)
"The gospel is not a covenant, but the revelation of the salvation of God."
"The New Covenant will be established formally with Israel in the millennium. Meanwhile, the old covenant is judged by the fact that there is a new one." (to be revealed in the future!)
Darby only follows hos own Dispensationalist system here. No prophesy of the Old Testament has anything to do with the Church! What about Scofield? He agreed with Darby, although few would recognize in his notes that he did so.
Scofield:
The New Covenant, "...secures the perpetuity, future conversion and blessing of Israel. (Jer. xxxi. 31-40)."
Scofield never said the New Covenant had anything to do with the Church. How could he? That would be denying their own system!
Darby tried to base this "total mystery of the Church revelation" on Ephesians 3:5. In doing so, he had to alter the Scripture. Look at Darbys' "Scripture quote" and then side-by-side the KJV below it:
Darbys' misquote:
"never made known in the past ages, but now revealed by the Spirit to the apostles and prophets". (Darby. Synopsis. iv. p. 404)
Dispensationalists today, deceived by following Darbys' misquote of Ephesians 3:5, will often (because of sloppy scholarship?) cite the same verse. They seem not to have the time to notice the substitution by Darby of "never" for "not" but more importantly, the clever substitution of "but" for "-AS- IT IS NOW REVEALED":
Which in other ages was NOT made known unto the sons of men, AS it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; Ephesians 3:5 KJV (Emphasis ours)
The Greek of the KJV Textus Receptus has "as" (hos) which is an adverb of comparison; "but" on the other hand, which Darby substitutes here for "as" would be alla, an adversative particle, which is absolutely not found in the Greek text.
The Church was in indeed previously spoken of in shadow prophetic imagery by the Old Testament Prophets. The very founders of Dispensationalism lied against Scripture?
[4
Darby on "God's Covenant witn Man" and "Of the Law of God" (Chapters VII and XIX respectively) in the Westminister Confession:
"All this is a fable and a mischievous fable. And I notice it because it is the foundation of the whole religious system to which it belongs."
"this nonsense which Presbyterians accept by tradition."
"a grave and fundamental error."
"The basis for the entire system of moral relationship with God in Presbyterianism is false; and it has tainted the whole Evangelical system everywhere." (Darby)
Darby flies against the Covenant Theology which says that Blessing is based on Obedience. Darby puts forward instead that all Blessings are "unconditional" now, in the "Church Age". The "unconditional" position is also preached by the Jehovahs' Witnesses. (see Rutherford) Adding to this, Dispensationalists insist that all the Old Testament Prophecies must be fulfilled unconditionally and literally on this earth to Israel, that is, the Jewish people. They accept no Full Spiritual fulfillment of the Kingdom in the Church as Old Testament fulfillment.
Other founders of Dispensationalism announced their "system" was far superior than what the entire Church had believed for centuries with such statements as these:
"the mind should be freed, so far as possible, from mere theological conceptions and presuppositions". (Scofield)
another railed against "man-made creeds, systems of theology, different kinds of orthodox statements". (Gaebelein)
Gaebelein also said Matthew Henry in his Commentaries was "in darkness" with regard to Old Testament prophecies. Scofield agreed, also rejecting Matthew Henry, saying he (Scofield) instead "sat at the feet" of Gaebelein with regard to prophetic interpretation.
[5
"The Messiah will be a king who will restore the kingdom of David to its original state. He will rebuild the Temple and gather together all Jews, no matter where they are scattered.
"All the Laws of the Torah will be fulfilled as they were originally. The sacrificial system as well as the practices of the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee will all be restored. We will then be able to once again observe all the commandments of the Torah.
"...We find further evidence [in the Torah] from the commandment concerning the cities of refuge. [The Torah thus says] (Deuteronomy 19:8,9), "when G-d enlarges your borders, and you shall add three cities." This never took place, but it is certain that G-d would not give a commandment in vain. [We therefore see that this will have to take place in the Messianic Age]." (Kaplan. pps. 92,93).
R" Kaplan further (and shockingly) states of the writings of RaMBaM, unlike the Dispensationalists who DO demand a literal fulfillment, RaMBaM says categorically that Messiah will fulfill all the Prophecies allegorically (not literally)!
"It is true that the Prophet Isaiah predicted (Isaiah 11:6), "the wolf shall live with the sheep and the leopard shall lie down with the kid." This, however, is merely an allegory, meaning that the Jews will live safely, even with the wicked nations, who are likened to wolves and leopards....All prophecies such as these regarding the Messiah are allegorical. Only in the Messianic Age will we know the meaning of each allegory and what it comes to teach us." (ibid. p. 94.)
This makes Dispensationalists more "rabbinic" (in demanding a literal fulfillment) than even the rabbis!?!
[6
1. a "Golden Age of the Jews", The rabbis call it "The Messianic Age".
2. "an age of pure Law, without an ounce of grace nor a drop of blood in it". (Scofield. What Do The Prophets Say?. page 75)
It will be this "Gospel of the Kingdom" which will be preached IN THEIR
SEVEN YEAR TRIBULATION AND MILLENNIUM ("the great tribulation" and the "Golden Age of the Jews") that will result, they say, in far greater percentages of people being saved then, than the "Church Age" ever produced with our pitiful "Gospel of the Grace of God"!!!
And yes, the animal sacrifices will still continue at the 4th Tenple (remember the 3rd Temple will be destroyed by "the Antichrist" in their "7 Year Great Tribulation"), but these "Millennial" sacrifices will have no atonement purposes they tell us, they are just "memorials". (Scofield)
Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church.
Darby, John Nelson. Lectures on the Second Advent.
ibid. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 Volumes.
Gaebelein, A.C. Listen! God Speaks.
Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Genesis to Revelation. Six Volumes. 1706.
Kaplan, R" Areyeh. MAIMONIDES PRINCIPLES: The Fundamentals of Jewish Faith. Brooklyn, New York, Mesorah Publications. 1984. Paperback
Rutherford, "Judge". Jehovah.
Scofield, C.I. The Scofield Reference Bible.
ibid. Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.
Westminister Confession of Faith. 1646.