Okay, I'd like to invite you to take your Bibles and open them with me to 1 Corinthians Chapter 1. 1 Corinthians Chapter 1. Now we have spent many hours searching the scriptures, studying them, interacting with them regarding dispensational truth. Now, the next two sessions will be devoted to showing that which wrongly divides the Word of Truth. We've already hit upon, again, covenantal replacement theology. But this one's more in our own camp, called hyper-dispensationalism. Now again, our understanding of God's dispensational plan of the ages involves seven dispensations. Dispensations are not ways of salvation. They are different divine economies over certain periods of time in which God has provided new revelation with that responsibility, with that attest, with that God wants people to obey his word. And it always begins with blessing, the dispensation ends with judgment. In doing so, it is showing that God is gracious, God is faithful. It is man who is a spiritual flop and a failure apart from the grace of God. We recognize we presently live in the dispensation of grace. As members of the Church, this will be culminated with the rapture of the Church that then introduces with the signing of the Peace Treaty in Daniel 9, The Tribulational Period, which will then be concluded with Jesus Christ returning to the earth, to the Mount of Olives, defeating the armies of the world, setting up his kingdom, which lasts forever. That involves the first phase, a thousand years, followed by the Great White Throne, judgment, and then eternity future, the new heavens and new earth. Now, you should know this by the back of your hand at this point. You've seen this time and time and time again. But let's look now at hyper-dispensational teaching. And in an effort to rightly divide the word of truth, hyper-dispensationalists take dispensational teaching to an unscriptural extreme. Now, that's our viewpoint. Their viewpoint would be, we don't take it far enough. It's kind of like ISIS thinks the United States are terrorists. Depends on your point of view. Our understanding of scripture would cause us to say that they take something good, dispensational truth, but they take it to an unbiblical position, to an extreme. Someone has said heresy is taking God's truth to an unbiblical extreme. Sometimes this is, it's usually today called hyper-dispensationalism. Sometimes it's been called ultra-dispensationalism. One of the terms they like, actually, is they don't usually call themselves hyper, they call themselves mid-axe dispensationalism. And you'll understand what that means a little while. A number of years ago, Harry Ironsides wrote a book called Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, which was about this whole issue of hyper- or ultra-dispensationalism. Now, who are some of the teachers? Well, as it relates to this side of the big pond, namely the Atlantic, the name J.C. O'Hare is a very important name that you need to know. He was the pastor of the North Shore Church in Chicago. A lot of hyper-dispensationalism has to deal with the Midwest, and Chicago and Milwaukee in particular. He was the pastor of the North Shore Church in Chicago. He founded what was called Grace Ministries International today. He's published over 200 booklets. He had a radio ministry. And what he did was, if I remember right, O'Hare went to Dallas Seminary. I think he was even heard Louis Barry Chafer. And so he was grounded in some dispensational truth, but he didn't think Chafer took it far enough. And as he studied the scriptures, he took things farther than the classic dispensational view on things. As a result, he also, the next leader you need to be aware of that came along was C.R. Stam. Now, he was in existence while O'Hare was alive. They knew each other, obviously. And when O'Hare died, or was dying, he asked Stam to become the next pastor of this North Shore church in Chicago upon O'Hare's death. And he prayed about it and he was challenged because he had already started what was called the Berean Bible Society. And had a publication called the Berean Searchlight, which is still available today. And he also became the first dean of what was called the Milwaukee Bible Institute. Again, he was a very prolific writer in some ways. I have some of his books that I collected. I have two of them right here. In fact, the two that are up here. I have Things That Differ, that was given to me years ago, and Our Great Commission, What Is It? And again, Things That Differ, The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism. Now, in their view, their dispensational were not enough. Our view is they're extreme. So C.R. Stam. The third person that you need to be aware of is Charles Baker. Charles Baker, again, lived 1905-1994. He grew up in Schofield Memorial Church in Dallas, Texas. So he was introduced to dispensational teaching even as a child. He later attended Dallas Seminary and attended Wheaton College. He moved to Milwaukee as the pastor of what was called the Fundamental Bible Church. In fact, you know, Tom Stegall was telling me, when he pastored down at Word of Grace Bible Church, that not too far from there, West Allis, there's a church called, I think it's called Grace Bible Church. And he said, when you walk in the door, you see this big picture of, I think it was Charles Baker, if I remember right. He was the first president of the Milwaukee Bible Institute, and then in 1962, the school moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, and today it's called the Grace Bible College in Grand Rapids. Now, I just want you to notice something. What year did it move? 62. What year did O'Hare die? 58. So what do you think happened? After O'Hare died, there was a split. Split one group headed up by Stan, stayed in the Chicago area. Baker took the group and they headed to Grand Rapids, Michigan. So to this very day Grand Rapids has hyper-dispensational churches in that area. Chicago has some hypers. Milwaukee has some hypers. But there's other hyper-churches that are around the country. A fourth name is Paul Sadler. He was the pastor of Falls Bible Church in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, which is just outside of Milwaukee there. And upon Stam's death, he became the director of the Berean Bible Society. He resigned from his pastorate. He became the director until his death in 2016. So he just died last year. Paul Sadler did. I don't know if he's been replaced at this point or not. I think the most influential of the hyper-dispensational teachers for the last many years is a guy named Les Feldig. Les is almost 90 years old. Les is an Oklahoma guy. He's got a kind of homie style. He's on TV, early morning TV, appeals to a lot of the senior citizens who get up, drink some coffee, have an open Bible. They have time. They've never heard anyone teach through the Bible before a lot of times. I see, I looked at his website today. He has 82 different courses, books, classes, or whatever. online that's available for people to listen to. And again, he uses a chalkboard. He doesn't use a... Yeah, he uses a chalkboard. It's right outside of Tulsa that he lived. In fact, he did a lot of his TV ministry actually in a building of a local church of a pastor who came to our Bible conference last fall, which was kind of interesting. through the Bible with Les Feldick. A guy from the other side of the pond, though, from England, from yesteryear, you can see he died in 1913, was a guy called E.W. Bullinger. Bullinger. Now, Bullinger actually has a Bible that he put together by way of his notes that have some interesting things in it. He's also noted for a few books he's written, but he would be what I would call a hyper-hyper. dispensationalist. He's not a mid-Acts. He is a Acts 29. How many chapters are in Acts? 28, right? In other words, he would say that the church didn't begin until after all of that, and that only Paul's prison epistles are to the church. Not all of Paul's epistles, only his prison epistles. Which one are his prison epistles? Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. No? Well, yeah. Later on, yeah, the Timothys and Titus as well. But it depends on what imprisonment we're talking about. But Galatians is not. So he took a hyper-hyper view. I don't know if there's hardly anyone that follows that view today. I think there may be some, but they're so minor I've never heard of them. Okay. Number two, hyper-dispensationalists believe, since the Apostle Paul alone received the mystery truth of the church, that A, only his writings are directly written to us. Okay, now you've heard me say before, all scripture is for us, but not all scripture is to us. You've heard that? Hypers like to say that too. The only difference though is, they think only Paul's letters are written to us. Only Paul's. Not Peter, not James, not John, not Jude, and not even the Book of Revelation, okay? Secondly, the Church could not begin until Saul or Paul's conversion, thus some, they say mid-Acts, why do they say mid-Acts? Because some think it started in Acts 9 with Paul's conversion, some don't think the Church began until these missionary trips, okay? You see why they call it mid-Acts then? Now, why do they say the church couldn't begin until Saul, Paul's conversion? Because if he is the dispenser of church truth, how can you have a church until you've got the dispenser of it? That's how they think. Thirdly, they believe there are various ways of salvation and various dispensations. Now, this is why we get rapped for this. This is why we get criticized. Because the covenants, covenantal theologians, the covenant theologians, they don't distinguish hypers versus classic. They just say, well, dismissationalists believe in different ways of salvation. And there were times when even the old timers and classic at times may have given that impression. But that's really cleaned up over the years. Number four, they also believe Paul and Peter preach different gospels. And that's a really, really big thing. Now let me ask you a question. Do we distinguish the gospel of the kingdom versus the gospel of grace? Yes, we do. We've taught that, you've heard that in dispensations, you've heard that in biblical distinctions, and so forth. But they carry it much farther. They say that Peter's gospel was the kingdom message way into Acts as well. Where we believe the gospel of the kingdom, that offer was taken off the table, right? The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. They don't. In fact, they believe that the kingdom is being re-offered in the early chapters of the Book of Acts. We don't personally believe that. Here's the problem. When you look at all of this, who's the focus? Paul. In fact, you know, it struck me one day in 1 Corinthians 1, that's where you are, right? Chapter 1, verse 10. I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing. There be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment. For it's been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, of those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now, I say that each of you says, I am of Paul. I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ. And you know, as I think of hyper-dispensation, they wouldn't say they are of Paul, but that's what they are, in the sense that they talk about Paul all the time. Now, do we love Paul's teachings? Yeah. We like James, and we like Peter, and we like Jude, and we like John. But even then, it all points us to Christ. Christ. Now the results of these beliefs are several. First of all, they would believe the church did not begin at Pentecost. Thus the alleged Jewish church existed from Acts 2 to Acts 8. Through Acts 8. Because when did they begin to believe the church began? Acts 9 or 13, right? So these people getting saved from the day of Pentecost on, who are they? They would call them the Jewish church. That's what they called them. Secondly, they would say water baptism is not for today. Water baptism is not for today. Why is water baptism not for today? Pardon? they would say, Paul said, Christ sent me not to baptize. Furthermore, they would say baptism is Jewish. It's not part for the church. Thirdly, the hyper-hypers, and I want to just be clear about this, don't criticize the hypers, but the hyper-hypers would say the Lord's Supper is not for today. Now why would they conclude that? Where is the Lord's Supper found? First Corinthians, is that a prison epistle? No, so therefore they find no justification for it for today. Fourthly, and this is tied to B as well, they would say the Great Commission is not for today. And what does the Great Commission involve? Going, baptizing, and teaching, right? And if it's not for today, what do you do with baptism? Throw it out. You say it isn't for this dispensation. Okay? So what is their commission? And if you read their writings, they would say the commission is found in 2 Corinthians 5. They were ambassadors for Christ, therefore, da-da-da-da. Now, my first response to that is, you don't find a commission in 2 Corinthians 5. There's no command, no commission. There's just the statement that we're ambassadors for Christ. And again, how we understand the Great Commission, I'll touch on this later, is we think 2 Corinthians 5, 2 Timothy 2, 1 and 2 harmonize with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts, if you understand it correctly. Okay, let's look at how does this, how do these beliefs line up with scripture? Okay, because that's the bottom line, right? Number one, the church had to begin at Pentecost in Acts 2. The church had to begin at Pentecost in Acts 2. Now why is that? Can you reason that through? Okay, tell me why it had to begin in Pentecost. You know? Okay, you want to grab a mic there? That's when they were starting to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Okay, and what does that have to do with it? It's part of like the, they're included in the body of Christ. Okay. Okay, so the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit places you into the body of Christ, right? So if we can determine when that began, we can determine when the church began. Because how can you have a church without the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit? You follow that chain of thought? Now, Matthew 16, 18, Jesus said what? I will build my church." So it's very clear that wasn't going on during his earthly ministry. In fact, the church would be built upon the blood of Christ, his resurrection. How can you have an ascended head over the church unless he's ascended? So he says, I will build my church. Now, we know from 1 Corinthians 12, 13, for by one spirit, we were all baptized into one body. Now, the hyper-dispensation was, what kind of baptism would they say this is? Would they say water? No, because they don't believe water baptism is even for today, right? So they're definitely going to interpret this to mean spirit baptism, and we fully agree. Then in Acts chapter 1, in being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which He said, you have heard from Me, for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit, not many days from now. Now they will try to make a difference between by and with sometime. See, this one says it's by the Spirit, and this one says it's with the Spirit. The fact is, you will see in the Greek text, a lot of times it's the same word. It's a bogus argument. But here we have, you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. And as we read Acts 1, he ascends into heaven. And 10 days later, what happens? What happens 10 days later? Acts 2. When the day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place, and suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues as a fire, and one sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. So we clearly see that the Spirit of God descends upon them. Now, here's one of the arguments. But it doesn't say the Spirit baptized them. It says He filled them. Now, do you think He's going to say He regenerated, He refilled the seven or eight things? No, He's just going to state one. But how do we know for sure that when the Holy Spirit descended, he also baptized them? Well, if you remember in Acts 11, when Peter is explaining about the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10, he says, and as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them as upon us at the beginning. When's the beginning here? Acts 2, right? then I remember the Word of the Lord how he said, John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. So in Acts 2, you've got the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit. No doubt. And so if it's the spirit that baptizes believers into the body, and the spirit began baptizing on the day of Pentecost, then the birthday of the church has to be the day of Pentecost. Everyone follow the logic to that? OK. Now, question, is there evidence following Pentecost that the church is now in existence? Now, you wanna just jot these references down, okay? As you start reading through the book of Acts, what do you read? You read Acts 2, verse 47, Acts 5.11, Acts 8.1, 8.3, 11.22, 11.26, 12-1, 12-5, 13-1 and following give proof of its existence. I'll give you a moment to jot those down. 2-47, 5-11, 8-1, 8-3, 11-22, 11-26, 12-1, 12-5, and 13-1 and following. OK? Now, I have them up here, so you don't even have to turn there. Remember, on the day of Pentecost happens in what chapter? Acts 2. And how does Acts 2? Oh, I skipped one. Acts 2.47. I'm going to go there. Why don't we all turn there? Thought I had it on the PowerPoint. So at the end of the day, we read, verse 47, they were praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. Now, some would argue and understand, oh, that's a textual variant. Some manuscripts, the word church is not there. Let's go to Acts 5. Acts chapter 5, we have the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5, verse 11, so great fear came upon all the church and upon all who have heard these things. So how does the hyper answer this? Well, the church is the ekklesia. Ekklesia can be used in various ways. It's speaking of a group, a kaldah group, or assembly of people. This is not the church of God, they would say. Church in Christ, this is just a Jewish assembly. This is how they try to deal with it. Now, what is this called? Fear came upon all the church. Now, let's go to Acts 8 and verse 1. Acts 8 and verse 1. Now Saul was consenting to his death. Whose death? Stephen's. At that time a great persecution arose against the church, which was at Jerusalem. And they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the apostles. Now keep in mind, who was scattered to Judea and Samaria? the church, okay? I want you to freeze that thought, because that's going to come into play in Galatians 1, okay? But notice again he was persecuting the church. How can you persecute something that doesn't exist? Obviously a death, so therefore they try to say, well that's the Jewish church. That's what they're going to try to say. Verse 3 asks, for Paul he made havoc of the church, entering every house and dragging up men and women, committing them to prison. Okay, now let's go to Acts 11, okay? Acts 11, verse 22. Verse 19. Now those who were scattered after the persecution that rose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord. Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem. and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. Now when he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all that they should pursue, excuse me, that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord. So we see again the word church used there. Now again, what are the hypers gonna say? This is who? Jewish church. Their problem is this is after Paul's conversion. And what is it being described as? It's just called the church, right? The church. So do we have the Jewish church over here, and then we've got the rest of the church over here, even after Paul's conversion? We're gonna have some problems with that, aren't we? Okay, Acts 12, verse 1. Now about that time, Herod the king stretched forth his hand to Vexurtna of the church. The same phrase the church has used before Paul's conversion as after Paul's conversion. Acts 12.5, Peter therefore was kept in prison, but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him. Acts 13.1. Now there was in the church that was at Antioch. And you know what they will say there? That church is what? No, they won't say it's Jewish. Not this one. This one has Paul in it. Now, this is the real church, the mystery. So they interpret this as mystery, and they don't interpret this as mystery, or that, or others' phrases where it's following. It's the same phrase. But now in Galatians 1, for you heard of my conversation or conduct in times past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God. That's what Paul called it. Not just the church now, the Church of God. Well, what do you think of that? 1 Corinthians 15.9, for I'm the least of the apostles, I'm not meet to be called an apostle because I persecuted the Church of God. Is that the Jewish Church? Well, look at how 1 Corinthians 10.32, give no offense either to the Jews or to the Greek or to the Church of God. Now this is written to the Corinthians. Is this Jewish Church? Clearly not. How about 1 Timothy 3.15? But if I'm delayed I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the Living God. The Church of God modified by living. Everyone will say, well that's the Church That's not the Jewish church, but the same terminology, the same things are used. We'll say, well, context makes the difference. Well, it does, but you've got to prove from the context it's different. And it's not proven. I would add, number two, there is no Jewish church for the church. It consists of saved Jews and Gentiles in Christ. I mean, that's the very nature of the Church. There is no Jewish Church. There is no Gentile Church. For the Church is made up of Jews and Gentiles who have become one in the body of Christ. Isn't that what Ephesians teaches? for he himself is our peace who has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of partition of separation having abolished in his flesh the enmity that is the law of commandment contained in ordinances so as to create in himself one new man from the two thus making peace and that he might reconcile them who's them Jews and Gentiles both to God in one body how did he do it? through the cross So it has to be, based on the cross, it has to be after the cross that this happened. Why would we have a Jewish church after the cross when the purpose of the cross was to unite these two into one body? That's why, what does Ephesians 3 say? And this is the crucial passage. And this is one I forgot to note something on your hand notes, but I'll point it out. For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles, if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you." Now this is what they like, see they camp on this. The dispensation of God which was given to me. See, that's what they're gonna say. It was given to me, Paul. How that by revelation he made known to me the mystery. What is the mystery? Jew and Gentile, one in the body of Christ, right? As I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge of the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to his, now watch this, holy apostles and prophets. What does Paul say? Was he the only one who got mystery truth? He acknowledges other Apostles and Prophets in this dispensation. It's been now revealed by His Spirit, these very truths. So Paul himself denies that he is the only dispenser of mystery truth. And what is the mystery? That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs of the same body and partakers of His promise. Now notice this phrase, in Christ through the gospel. Now they love this passage. For some reason they don't notice plurals here. They don't notice the phrase in Christ. Now why do I say that? Because we know the mystery was not made known but it's now been revealed how Jew and Gentile become one in the body of Christ. Now keep in mind, the family of God consists of believers in all dispensations. They're all part of the family. But Paul said, Ephesians 3.14, For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, our Lord Jesus, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. And the body of Christ is a part of that family. So question. Were believers in the Old Testament redeemed? Yes. Were they in Christ? No. Redeemed? Yes. Justified? Yes. In Christ? No. Now I'll tell you this. Hypers camp on that point at times, but then they fudge on it. And I'll show you why they fudge in a moment. And that's number three. Identification with or in Christ is only true of church-age believers. And there were believers in Christ before Paul. There were believers in Christ positionally before Paul. Now, you can imagine for a moment, if you could prove there were people in Christ before Paul, this would have to prove the church began before Paul. If being in Christ means you're in the church. You understand the connection? So what does the scripture say? The usage of the phrase in Christ, which is a unique church-age term of identification with Christ due to the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit. Now, right here I have a little chart of the phrases in Christ, with Christ, and so forth. Okay? See any in Malachi? You see any in Matthew? See any in Mark? Any in Luke? No? Where's the first time you're going to see this? I don't have it on this chart, actually. But go to John 14, OK? Go to John 14. And this is the first time you're going to read about being in Christ, OK? John 14. What's the context of John 14? A Purim discourse. The night in which he was betrayed, he predicts he's going to suffer, die, be raised from the dead, go to heaven, prepare a place, send the Holy Spirit. Okay? Know the context? Look at 1 John 14 20. Here's the first time you're going to see it. At that day, what day? The day of Pentecost, you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you. First time it's mentioned. Right there. And it's Future. Future. In that day. Okay? And so, does it surprise us when we look at the epistles how it's loaded? Because it happened. And so in Galatians 3.22, what do we read? The scripture has confined all under sin that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith, which would afterward be revealed. Therefore, the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. We're all sons of God. How? Through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Question. What kind of baptism? Spiritual or water? Baptized into Christ. Spiritual. Gotta be spiritual, right? Now how would the high prison understand this? Spiritual. They're not gonna have Paul writing about water baptism, putting you into Christ, right? And they're right. Baptized into Christ and put on Christ, there's neither Jew nor Greek, either slave nor free, there's neither male or female, for you're all one in Christ Jesus. Being in Christ is the same as being baptized into Christ, right? So, that phrase is unique to church-age believers only. That's why in Romans 6 we see the same kind of things. Or do you not know that as many as who were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore, we're buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in the innocence of life. For if we've been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we should also be in the likeness of His resurrection. This baptism is, again, Spirit baptism, that which places you in union with Christ, and therefore as a member of His Church, and therefore in union with all other believers in Christ. Okay, everyone follow that? Now, go to Romans 16. You've got to see this yourself, okay? You know, it's funny. I'm sure I'm not the first person to see this. I just know 15 years ago or so, I'm reading Romans, and I come on this verse, and I go, wow. Wow. You know, a lot of times, at the end of the books, you skip over, right? You know, greet so-and-so, greet so-and-so, and you say, amen, let's start the next book, right? Look at this little thing, verse 7, OK? Greet Andronicus and Junia. my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." In Christ before me. Now, if being in Christ is being in the church, and you're in Christ before Paul, The church had to begin before Paul was converted. Now, I decided to see, so how do they answer this? So I looked up Charles Baker's Dispensational Theology, turned in there, and he says, this means that Paul was, or they were redeemed before Paul. That true? Yeah, that's true, but is that what it means to be in Christ, redeemed? Were people in the Old Testament redeemed? Were they in Christ? No, so the two are not synonymous. And so to be in Christ before Paul, I have brought this up to high priests, they don't know how to deal with it. This is only one. I have found about five key verses to deal with with them that just kind of stops And this is one of them, OK? Number four, fourth inconsistency. Water baptism was practiced after Acts 9 and 13, the alleged beginning of the church, mid-Acts, right? Remember, they're saying water baptism has no place for church-age believers. It was Jewish, OK? Now, this is significant because Peter baptized in Acts 10. Who did he baptize? He didn't baptize Jews. Now at first they'll say, well of course we would expect that out of Peter. That was part of Peter's Gospel. That's what he said in Acts 2.38. Misunderstood. But what's interesting about this is these are Gentiles getting baptized. But that's not as significant as the next. Paul baptized in Acts 18.8 and 19.5. So let's go there, okay? Let's go to Acts chapter 18. Now when you get to Acts 18, you're talking about several years into Paul's ministry, several years after he was converted in Acts 9, several years after he went on his first missionary journey. He's at least in missionary journey 2 or 3 when we read in Acts 18 about his ministry at Corinth. Verse 8, then Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized. Question, why in the world would Paul have them baptized if baptism isn't for the church? Now, I've not had a good answer. They must have some answer for this. But I do remember a conversation I had with a hyper-distanciationist maybe 10 years ago or less. And I brought up this verse to him. And I said, what is Paul baptizing years into his ministry? And he said to me, well, it took Paul a while to catch on to his commission. I'm thinking, wait a second. First of all, he's very smart. Number two, he has stuff revealed to him by Jesus Christ. And number three, years into his ministry, he hasn't caught on that water baptism doesn't have a place. That is a horrible explanation. Now, he did the same in Acts 19.5 with the disciples of John at Ephesus as well. Thirdly, we know church-age Gentile believers were baptized connected with Paul's ministry. Not just Jews, but Gentiles. I want you to go to First Corinthians because I want you to see a verse that is really twisted by most hypers. They're not only Beatles hermeneutics where you twist and shout, but Chubby Checker hermeneutics. Let's twist again. that's an old song when I was growing up. Now, this is what they like to do. They quote verse 14. I thank God that I baptized none of you. And that's what they say. And they say, see? He thanked God he didn't baptize. What does he go on to say? Except Crispus and Gaius. What are you doing baptizing Christmas in gas? Baptism isn't for church-age believers. And why did he say, I thank God that I baptized none of you? Because he didn't believe baptism was for today? No. Verse 15, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. See the name Stephanas? That's a Gentile name. The household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize. That's not what I focused on. I focused on but to preach the gospel. Now does that mean he never baptized? No, he said he did. He just said that wasn't his focus. Did he believe baptism was for today? Yes. Did he believe baptism was for church age believers? Yes. Did he believe baptism was for Gentile believers? Yes. Was that his focus? No. Just like it's not my focus. You know, I baptize twice a year. It's not my focus. My focus is on preaching the Gospel. You can baptize more than twice a year. We just happen to do it twice a year. I'd probably do it more often if someone asked me, I guess. It's not my focus. Number five, the Lord's Supper was commanded to be practiced until Jesus comes again, and that's why the hyper-hyper, again, this verse blows that away. But remember, they think only the prison epistles are to us, so that's how they reason through this. But we see this, for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till he comes. Why would you proclaim until he comes if you don't do this until he comes? Number six. Now here's a very, very, very important point. Paul and Peter preach the same gospel with a different people group emphasis. Now I want you to see this. I want you to turn to Galatians. Galatians chapter 2. Now this is one of my favorite passages when I'm dealing with hyper dispensations. And I kind of set them up, okay? You want to learn how to kind of set them up, okay? You look at verse 7. Chapter 2, verse 7. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter. Now I stop right there and I ask them, so are these two different gospels? And what are they going to say? Yes. They're going to say yes. I'm going to say, well, that's interesting. Let's go back to chapter 1. Take them back to chapter 1 and verse 8. Paul says, but even if we are an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so say I now again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. And I ask the question, so is Peter's ministry accursed? Because if he preached a different gospel than Paul preached, Paul said the anathema of God be upon that. So is Peter's message cursed? And what are they going to say? No. But now they're stuck a little, right? Now, to further it even further, you go to chapter 1. In verse 15, Paul's given his testimony here, right? But when it pleased God who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace to reveal His Son in me that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, that was his focus, remember, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went to Arabia and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter. remained there 15 days but I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. Now concerning the things which I write to you indeed before God I do not lie. Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia and I was unknown by face to the churches of what? Judea. Do you remember in Acts 8 that Paul was wreaking havoc on the church in Judea. Do you remember that? I remember the hyper would say that's the Jewish church. But what does it say here? I was unknown by the faces I faced to the church of Judea which were... Oh, look at that phrase. In Christ. But they were hearing only he who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy. Question. If the faith he tried to destroy was Peter's gospel, Because the Gospel of Grace hadn't begun yet, right, until Paul's conversion. Why was Paul preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy, then he wasn't preaching the Gospel of Grace? Or was he? And that's my point, he was. Now it is true that when Peter preached the Gospel of Grace, he put a lot more emphasis on who Jesus is, more than the fact that he died for our sins and rose again. Because when you're dealing with Jewish people, that is the primary issue first. But Paul did that at times too. If you read Acts 13 and 14. And they glorified God in me. Now are you following the train here? Now again, do we distinguish the Gospel of Kingdom versus the Gospel of Grace? Yes, we do. But here we see they interpret the Gospel for the uncircumcised as the Gospel of Grace, and the Gospel for the circumcised as the Gospel of the Kingdom. But if that's true, then again Peter's message is a curse because it's different than what Paul preached. But we read Paul's testimony where he says he persecuted the churches which were in Christ. He was now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy, and the message he was preaching was the gospel of grace, which means the message that must have been preached that he tried to destroy was the gospel of grace. So, now we look back at this passage. But on the contrary, when they saw the gospel for the uncircumcised, who's that? Jews, had been committed to me as the gospel for the circumcised. I'm sorry, these are Jews. These are Gentiles. Was to Peter, for he who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised, also worked effectively toward the Gentiles. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Notice the Gospel for the uncircumcised isn't a different message. It's simply a different That's all. That make sense to you? Now, question. If Paul's message was the gospel to the uncircumcised, why did he go to the synagogue in the first place? Which was the circumcised, right? And why did Peter go and preach to Cornelius, a Gentile? because it wasn't a different message, it was a primarily a different people group, but they were to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, Jew and Gentile, so they did. Everyone tracking so far? I know it's getting late. Number seven. Here's our last one. The Great Commission when properly understood is applicable for today. Now, I just want to show you Matthew's version. It's Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts. And there's different elements connected with each of them. But the Great Commission in Matthew's account, go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. The audience were the 11 disciples. The authority was Jesus Christ gave them the authority to do this. The assignment was to go and make disciples, keep that in mind. The activities involved going, baptizing, and teaching. According to Ron Merriman, all of those are participles of means, how you carry out the commission. Now watch this. The assuring promise of Christ in carrying this out is, Lo, I'm with you always, even to the end of the age. Question, why would he be with them to the end of the age if the message wasn't to be till the end of the age? Now, think of the timing of the Great Commission. It's after Christ's Resurrection and right before His Ascension and the birthday of the Church. Is He going to tell them, this is what I want you to preach, and 10 days later say, no. No, no, no, no. That's changed. Because now we've established that the Church began on the day of Pentecost, right? The scope of the Great Commission is to all nations. now go to Romans chapter 1 because again people here want to say well that's not what Paul did all nations by the way the word all nations is really all ethnos people groups okay go to Romans 1 verse 5 through him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among All nations, same words. You mean Paul's ministry was to all nations? Yeah, it was to all nations. Same words. All people. The promise to be with them till the end of the age indicates that it's to be applied for today. The clarification about the all things of verse 20 is very important. You see in verse 20, teaching them To obey all things I have commanded you is not to be qualified. Because this is where hypers will say, well, there's a lot of things Jesus taught that were kingdom teaching. Therefore, what do you mean? And Lewis Barry Chaffer says, the uproom discourse is the genesis of the epistles of the New Testament, for in it, in germ form, the great doctrines of grace are announced. The phrase, quote, my commandments is reserved until this grace revelation because this term refers to the teachings of grace rather than to the law. So that's qualified. When he said, for Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, Did Paul understand that to mean that baptism was in part, wasn't to be done? No, no, no. We already have established. In 2 Timothy 2, 1 and 2, we have the Pauline version, I like to call it, of the Great Commission. The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Now, I have a lot of quotes here, but we don't have time. of Bible teachers in the past regarding does the Great Commission apply for today? M. R. DeHaan will say yes. John Walvert, these are all classic dispensationalists, say yes. Briery says yes. Clearly, this command was not only for the apostles who heard it, but for his followers throughout the entire age, since he promised his presence to the end of the age. C.I. Schofield clearly says, the one commission to which we are invested is to proclaim that message to every creature, to baptize those who by receiving it become the disciples of Christ, and to instruct such baptized believers in all righteousness. But I want you to notice, Schofield, And to me, I find Schofield to be almost as balanced as anybody. Notice Matthew, Mark, with Acts, and he puts 2 Corinthians 5 right there too. Just like I have come to conclude. Schofield says the same thing. J. Vernon McGee, same thing. Warren Wiersbein, same thing. Harry Ironsides, same thing. D.A. Carson, who wrote a commentary on Matthew, same thing. Stanley Toussaint, who wrote one of the best commentaries on Matthew, same thing. How is this supported by a study of the Book of Acts? The disciples did go and preach the gospel. Peter, Philip, Paul, and Barnabas. Number two, the disciples baptized believers as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Christ. True of Jewish believers, true of Samaritan believers, true of Gentile believers, under Peter, Philip, and Paul's ministry. The disciples taught believers the truth of Scripture. We see, again, this mention in many passages. Here, I want you to go to one other passage tonight. Go to Acts 14 for a minute, okay? Acts 14. Now, who wrote the book of Acts? Luke. Was Luke a companion of Paul? Yes or no? Yes or no? Yeah, he was, yeah. He went on some missionary journeys with him. He's recording what's going on. You think Paul approved of what Luke wrote? Yeah, look at Acts 14.21. Luke says, and when they had preached the gospel to that city, who's they? Paul and Barnabas. They had preached the gospel. What gospel do you think that is? The gospel of the grace of God, right? to that city and made many disciples. Why did he say that? Why does he describe Paul's ministry of making many disciples? Made disciples. You heard that one before? They returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith and saying, we must, through many tribulations, enter the kingdom of God. So when they had appointed elders in every Church, Jewish church? No. Every local church, right? Made up of Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ. You see, the term disciples used throughout the Book of Acts to show that the Book of Acts records for us the early history of the carrying out of the Great Commission relative to the birthday of the church and its growth. As a result of this Lord-directed, Spirit-enabled ministry, we observe in the Book of Acts, the lost were saved, local churches were planted, believers were identified, disciples equipped, the Holy Spirit sent out via the local church, gifted and serving believers, evangelized planned churches, discipled believers, God was glorified through the building of Christ Church. And it ties directly in to the Great Commission. including Paul's missionary journeys fits right into it as well. Though he was given more grace, revelation, we understand that. We understand that there was a lot more truth to be understood after the day of Pentecost and that Paul was a major player in all of that. And so we see again all these things that happened because And so our personal conviction is that, my personal conviction is the Great Commission, when properly understood in a grace context, still is applicable for today and addresses one of the objections of the. See, what Stan does in this book is he tries to pit Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts as conflicting. and says, in essence, well, which one do we pick? Like, he will take Mark's account, you know, to go into all the world and preach the gospel. Later in that account, it does talk about picking up serpents. It talks about speaking in tongues, so forth, so forth, right? And so he says, is that our commission for today? Well, is it not true that the sign gifts did slowly dissipate away, and especially after 70 AD? So we just understand that. The way they deal with it is they'll just say, the sign gifts were associated with Peter's message or the kingdom message, not with Paul's. The problem with that is, did Paul get bit by a serpent? Yeah, in Acts 21, I think it is. Did he die? No. Just like Mark 16? Happened in Paul's ministry. Was Paul involved in speaking in tongues? I speak in tongues more than all of you. So it's not as simple as just saying that was with Peter's ministry, it wasn't with Paul, because Paul was involved in it too. So those are at least seven reasons why, or I think conflicting biblical truths that cause us to reject the extreme imbalance You say, now, so what's the practical fallout of it? Well, I think a number of things. One, you don't practice water baptism. Two, you may not practice the Lord's Supper. Number three, you pound Paul's epistles are only to us. I think that's problematic. In fact, I'll just show you how it's going to affect your interpretation. In Revelation 2 and 3, who does Jesus speak to and who does John write to? The seven churches of Asia Minor. you know I was interpret those are tribulation churches they were in existence you know how they do you with first John one you know how they do first on 513 one nine is kingdom was run by Paul Wow, if we say, if we say, if we say, if we confess, you see what happens? Because they have a pair of glasses on now in which they're going to interpret verse after verse from that hyper viewpoint. And they're going to do hermeneutical gymnastics by doing that. Several years ago, I was, in Grand Rapids, Michigan area, and I turned on the TV that morning, and I watched a hyper-dispensationalist spend a whole message trying to explain away 1 John 1. And it was ugly. His reasoning was bad, his exegesis was worse, but he was trying to make it fit because of his I am of Paul glasses on. That's what happens, students, when you just don't let scripture speak for itself. Okay, questions before we go? You feel like you understand hyperdispensationalism? You just kind of understand the thinking, how they get to where they get? They think Paul is the dispenser of the mystery truth, and everything comes off of that. No Great Commission, because it wasn't given to Paul. No water baptism, because that's connected with the Great Commission. No church at Pentecost, because Paul wasn't saved. So far, so good. It's all coming off of that one premise. Are we thankful for Paul's teaching? I preach from Paul's teaching more than any other teaching, even though I'm not How many times have you heard Romans 6, 7, and 8? Romans 12, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians? But we've also taught the other pieces, too. OK? Father, thank you for tonight and for the study of your word here. We pray that we would have understanding. We thank you for hyperdispensations from the standpoint that so many of them, I believe, truly are saved by your grace. We're thankful for that. And to have many things right and want to honor you, Father, it's the extremes that we want to discern and reject. And thank you. that if we just let your word speak for itself, it all reconciles. So we pray that we wouldn't be doing what we perceive others to be guilty of, for we know we could be doing that. We pray that we would be Bereans and search the scriptures to make sure these things are said. So thank you now, and give us safety as we travel home, in Jesus' name.