[pneuby]

I'm concerned about 'some' of the doctrine I've found on this site, and I wondered if anyone of you were familiar with them. Since there is more than a few hourse of reading here, I'll point you to this page, specifically....

http://www.av-1611.com/Key_Understanding_Bible.htm

Thus we see that the Word of God itself provides us with the key to its own proper understanding and right division:

Time Past: In Matthew through John we find the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ to the nation Israel. In the book of Acts we have the fall of Israel and salvation going to the Gentiles through the ministry of the Apostle Paul.

But Now: Romans through Philemon provide the doctrine for the present dispensation of grace.

Ages To Come: Hebrews through Revelation focus on the ages to come when God will bring to fruition His purposes for both the nation Israel and the Body of Christ.

We are not the only people in the programs and purposes of God. People in other ages need Scripture to instruct them in the specifics of God's dealings with them just as we do. Remember: All of the Bible is for us but it is not all to us nor is it all about us. If we fail to recognize this important fact we will never be able to properly understand just what God is doing today nor will we know just what He would have us do.

Thus it is in Paul's writings alone that we find the doctrine, position, walk and destiny of the Body of Christ.

[mjf]

av1611.com != av-1611.com

[Diligent]

I don't see anything wrong with the snippet you quoted, but of course I am not reading the totality of their statement. I suppose it could morph into hyperdispensationalist teaching from there, but I have not read the full article so I do not know.

But, regardless: av-1611.com is not affiliated in any way with this site, which is av1611.com. If you have questions for them (or whomever runs that site), you'll need to take it there.

Hello pneuby,

The ground has been scorched here lately on some of this, so I will merely repeat what I have stated on other threads, this may help you better understand when you come across something like that...

The replies you get will differ because there are different views on it among KJV believers. There are good people on different sides of this. I think you will find that there are several levels of dispensational doctrine being taught here.

For example, some reject all dispensational teaching. On the other hand I think most of us are going to subscribe to a "moderate" dispensational teaching. Then there are also a few on here that in my opinion go beyond that into the realm of Hyperdispensationalism or Ultra-dispensationalism. The errors of Bullingerism should also be something believers should be aware of. For more on that here are a few articles for your review:
http://cnonline.net/~rkmiller/ultrad...m-ironside.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/books/hy...tionalism.html

On the other hand, according to a recent poll, I think most believers on this board, including the owner, are in support of the ordinances like water baptism for believers (a few are not but they are not bad people by any means). I think for the most part we have all tried to avoid the division this can create, while still allowing for some discussion. It is safe to say we ALL have disagreed with each other on SOME issues, at SOME time. But to me that is not a bad thing as long as it doesn't get out of control. I think God's people should be able to disagree on things without attacking each other personally.

Sometimes dispensationalism can be a divisive issue for Christians. But all of this in no way impacts our full support for the authority of the King James Bible, and even though we all may squabble from time to time on some issues, the heart of the forum is the inerrancy of the King James Bible and I can tell you that we all rally together as brothers (and sisters) to defend it when needed. My personal suggestion is that you search past threads here for a while on this issue until you get the lay of the land. In the end, each believer will have to search the scriptures and make up their own mind.

[peopleoftheway]

Brother If you aren't practising animal sacrifices for sin covering and relying on the shed blood of a risen and glorified Saviour then your a dispensationalist.

[chette777]

While their statement does Justice to defining the NT dispensations by book division. it looks similar to Doug Stoufer's outline of NT book divisions.

But those dispensations cannot be so cut and dry either. and because of that as was mentioned earlier could morph into over division or hyper-dispensationalism.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by pneuby

I'm concerned about 'some' of the doctrine I've found on this site, and I wondered if anyone of you were familiar with them. Since there is more than a few hourse of reading here, I'll point you to this page, specifically....

http://www.av-1611.com/Key_Understanding_Bible.htm

Since Pastor Jordan is a personal friend of mine and we agree on about 99 percent of Biblical doctrine, what are your "concerns" Pneuby?

Thanks for the link, BTW.

Grace and peace

Tony

the site in question is definitely hyper-dispensational and dry-cleaning! be careful!

[Luke]

Every single one of us on here are "dry cleaners" unless you think Baptism does some kind of spiritual cleaning ala Campbellites, aka Water dogs. When you were saved, you were made clean without water, by the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by Luke

Every single one of us on here are "dry cleaners" unless you think Baptism does some kind of spiritual cleaning ala Campbellites, aka Water dogs. When you were saved, you were made clean without water, by the Holy Spirit.

Not exactly how I have seen the term used before. I meant dry-cleaners in the sense that they don't administer the NT ordinance of baptism AT ALL. Baptism is an ORDINANCE not a sacrament. It is something we do out of obedience to the scripture for no other reason than to obey the Scripture. It has nothing to do with salvation.
But if you know your church history, you know that the Baptists were persecuted heavily by the protestants for insisting on baptism AFTER salvation, and not in connection with salvation. Our position implicated their doctrine as false, since by default, baby-sprinklers are forced to admit that baptism is connected to salvation, and that it is not necessary after salvation. WE have lost our sense of history because of our political freedoms.