Who Goes There, Friend or Foe
(by Mike Burke)
***In this article, Michael has given us much to study
and consider. Darroll Evans
I know of a hyper-dispensationalist Forum where one must register, and declare
one's self "a friend" before even being able to read along, but what
is the scriptural definition of a friend?
Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but lavished are the kisses of an enemy
(Prov. 27:6,
A friend is not one who agrees, always has something nice to say, or is always
non-controversial, and a true friend is certainly no flatterer.
You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed
- God is our witness (1Thes. 2:5.)
Communities that refuse to allow visitors until they identify themselves as
"friends" simply don't know the meaning of the word, but social
scientists recognize such tactics as those employed by cults, and they do serve
a purpose.
Their purpose is to aid in the gradual indoctrination of a recruit into a
closed (and therefore un-falsifiable) belief system.
Theologians may be reminded of Paul's words to Timothy:
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number
of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear (1 Tim. 4:3.)
Before hyper-dispensationalists quote this verse, they should ask themselves
where The Body of Christ was for some eighteen hundred years, as their unique
interpretation of scripture was unknown until an imaginative nineteenth century
Theologian by the name of Bullinger advanced the idea.
Since then, some have discarded even the idea of repentance as being any part
of what they call Paul's Gospel (despite the fact that Paul himself used the
word), and there has been no shortage of "itching ears."
(See Repentance and
the Pauline Gospel, by Darroll Evans.)
Hyper-dispensationalists should also ask themselves the following questions:
If their Gospels were so radically different, why do we have Paul telling
Peter:
We, who by nature are Jews, and not sinners of the nations, having
perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except
alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe in Christ Jesus
that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law,
seeing that by works of law shall no flesh at all be justified (Gal.
2:15-16, Concordant Version)?
If people were not distorting Paul’s message (as some do today), why did James
say:
But someone will be declaring, "You have faith and I have works."
Show me your faith apart from the works and I shall be showing you my faith
by my works (James 2:18, Concordant Version)?
If justification belongs to Paul's Gospel, and pardon belongs to the
circumcision, why did Jesus say:
Now the tribute collector, standing afar off, would not even lift up his
eyes to heaven, but beat his chest, saying, 'God, make a propitiatory shelter
for me, the sinner!' I am saying to you, this man descended to his home
justified, rather than that one (Luke 18:13-14, Concordant Version)?
Why did Paul say (of himself and the Colossian saints):
In Whom we are having deliverance, the pardon of sins (Colossians
1:14, Concordant Version)?
What was it in Paul’s epistles, that some were twisting to their own
destruction (2 Peter 3:16)?
If the Lord’s supper is not part of Paul’s Gospel, why did he say:
...as often as you are eating this bread and drinking this cup, you are
announcing the Lord's death until He should be coming (1 Cor. 11:26,
Concordant Version) ?
Did the Lord come when we weren’t watching, or should we still be announcing
His death till He comes?
If water baptism is no part of “Paul’s Gospel,” why were many of the Corinthians
baptized under Paul’s ministry?
Now Crispus, the chief of the synagogue, believes the Lord, together with
his whole household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were
baptized (Acts 18:8, Concordant Version.)
Paul was later glad that he hadn’t personally baptized all of them, as he did
not want to be accused of baptizing in his own name (1 Cor. 1:15), but what
does this prove?
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and
baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but
his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into
Water baptism was part of Christ’s message.
We’re told He baptized (John 3:23), and baptized more disciples than John
(John 4:1), but He Himself personally baptized no one (John 4:2.)
We’re told that many of the Corinthians were baptized under Paul’s ministry
(Acts 18:8), and he personally baptized at least two individuals, and one
household (1 Cor. 1:14-16.)
Did Paul not then personally baptize more converts than Jesus (who personally
baptized none)?
If the marriage of the Lamb is yet future (Rev. 21:2), is “the bride of
Christ" not betrothed to the Lamb?
And didn’t Paul refer to the Corinthians (Jew and Gentile) as a betrothed
virgin (2 Cor. 11:2)?
Artificial explanations aside, wasn’t he using the same figure as the so-called
“circumcision writers”?
Would Peter, Paul, James, or John recognize the teaching of
hyper-dispensationalists as anything remotely similar to the deposit of faith
that was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)?
Did Jude not say that we should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered?
Is hyper-dispensationalism really based on scripture, or the traditions of men
(and why are some so afraid of these questions)?