A Different Gospel - God’s "Plan B"?
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9).
When I was a young Christian I was throughly
indoctrinated in dispensational theology and the teachings of the
Scofield Bible. In spite of that I always maintained the
understanding that Jesus brought us
(Mk 1:14-15), and that there was only one Gospel (Gal 1:6).
Unfortunately many think that is not true based on their
distortion of certain Bible teachings.
reading posts on theologyweb.com and found postings by an ‘ardent
dispensationalist’ who quite clearly shows the true nature of
theology. Most casual readers of the Bible and evangelical literature
accept the pretrib rapture and dispensational theories are quite
unaware of the
implications of this erroneous teaching. Dispensationalism, taken to
logical conclusion, requires two peoples of God, two plans of God, and two
Gospels, ie. the Gospel that Jesus and his 12 Apostles preached
(Gospel of the Kingdom) and a
different gospel that Paul taught (Gospel of Grace)! But if you
the verses cited above
others could be given) it is quite clear that Paul clearly rejected any
different Gospel other than the one Jesus taught!
Dispensationalism also ‘wrongly divides’ the Word
Of God by
making Jesus teachings in the Gospels, and the writings of the apostles
than Paul, only for the Jews – not the Church. This is the fundamental
of Dispensational theology, ie. Israel vs. the Church. It is quite
inconceivable to me that anyone could teach that the Gospels and many
of the other NT books are written for the Jews and not the Church but
that is exactly what many leading Dispensational theologians have
or implied (L.S. Chafer, J. Dwight Pentecost, C. I. Scofield, Miles
Stanford, Clarence Larkin, E. W.Bullinger,
Read the following statements that are typical of
have followed Dispensational theology to its unavoidable conclusions. I
it is too kind to say it is erroneous, to me it is borderline heresy!
“…….God's original plan was for Israel to accept her election. But she failed. So God used Plan B -- Paul went to the Gentiles with a different gospel that didn't include God's covenant with Israel. After all, by definition, Gentiles didn't have this covenant. And when this happened, it changed eschatological matters as well. The Tribulation (which as any praeterist can tell you) began back then. But (and this is where a praeterist and I part company), when Israel failed her election, God cut her off, and consequently, the Tribulation was cut short after only a year or so. Therefore, the "End Times" plan was rewritten to take into account the age of the Mystery of the Gentiles, which would end upon the fulfillment of the "fullness of the Gentiles," whatever that means.”
”The Tribulation has or nothing to do with the Gentiles, directly. So there's no reason for the Gentile "Body of Christ" to be around when it occurs. Hence the (pretrib) Rapture, which removes the Body from the situation, at which point God returns to working with Israel on a corporate level again.”
“…….The reason the Rapture is relevant only to Paul is because the Rapture is only for the Gentiles, and Paul is the only person in the entire Bible (with the possible exception of Luke, who worked for Paul) who wrote specifically to us -- the Gentiles. The gospels were written for the Jews. The epistles of Peter, James, John and Jude, and the book of Revelation, are written to the Jews. Their authors said they would only minister to the Jews, and I take them at their word. I'm not a Jew. So, while ALL of the Bible is useful for study, for correction... is beneficial to study... one should always go to Paul first for teaching”.
“……….We believe Paul when he says he brought a different gospel than that of Peter and the Twelve. We believe Luke when he says in Acts that the believers under Peter were "zealous for the Law," and this being mentioned in a good light, not a bad one. We believe Peter when he said he had a hard time understanding Paul's teachings. And most of all, we believe Paul, Peter, James and John when they all agree that Paul will go ONLY to the Gentiles, and Peter and the Twelve will go ONLY to the Jews”.
“……..Jesus taught a particular gospel message in His earthly ministry, and He passed that on to His apostles “the Twelve”, who continued to teach what they learned from Him. But Jesus' message in His earthly ministry was meant only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not for the Gentiles. In fact, Jesus forbade the disciples from going to the Gentiles. Kind of goes against the principle of the Great Commission, doesn't it? Of course, the Great Commission came later”.5
John Gerstner has put the issue in strong terms:
If you are one of those who have bought into the hyper-dispensational “Left Behind” two-gospel theology you might want to reconsider in view of the serious implications of this teaching (Gal 1:6-9)!
(1) This article is
mainly addressed to "hyper" or "ultra" dispensationalism theology,
"Pauline" dispensationalism. Most progressive dispensationalists and
all reformed theologians reject their views and many consider it
borderline heresy! Also see the articles: Paul's Reply To
Dispensational Error and Hyperdispensationalism.
(2) Quotations from the ESV unless noted. The KJV translates 'another Gospel'. The Greek word is 'heteros' meaning "pertaining to that which is different in kind or class from all other entities - different, differently, other than" (Louw & Nida: NT Greek-English Lexicon)
(3) See the interesting essay on Ultradispensationalism
by Harry Ironside who is himself an avowed Dispensationalist!
Ultradispensationalism is merely Dispensationalism taken to it's
logical conclusions. Some Dispensationalists attempt to
soften or explain away the implications of their theology but merely
confound the issue. Dispensationalism is in error as long
as the position of two separate peoples, plans, and Gospels are held.
(4) ie. the "Jewish" dispensation of Law. (Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, p. 26).
(5) Quotes from postings on theologyweb.com
(6) Quotes from article Danger -
Another Gospel! by David Rowley
(7) John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), 150.