What is Hyper Dispensationalism?

Dispensationalism is a religious interpretive system for the Bible. It considers Biblical history as divided by God into dispensations, defined periods or ages to which God has allotted distinctive administrative principles. According to dispensationalist theology, each age of God’s plan is thus administered in a certain way, and humanity is held responsible as a steward during that time.

Wikipedia – Dispensationalsim

Classic Dispensationalism


First of all, let me say that we at Discerning the World are classic-dispensationalist. We believe that Biblical history is divided by God into dispensations to which God has allotted distinctive administrative principles. Throughout time circumstances change, and therefore, God’s instructions change. I believe in a consistent literal and plain interpretation of scripture; the distinctiveness of Israel and the Church; and that the underlying purpose of God in the world is the glory of God. You could certainly expand on that further, but I think that captures dispensationalism succinctly.

The question then becomes, what is meant by hyper-dispensationalism?

The term is not new or made up. Hyper-dispensationalist make a very sharp distinction between the ministry of Christ and the Apostles, with a further sharp dividing between Paul’s teaching and that of Peter and the other Apostles. Here are some (but not all inclusive) characteristics of hyper-dispensationalism:

1. Hyper-dispensationalist believe that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and contain no direct teaching for the Church. However, Hebrews 2:3-4 says that the same gospel of salvation preached by the Apostles was preached by Christ. In addition, 1 Timothy 6:3 shows that Christ spoke directly to the Church age.

2. Hyper-dispensationalist also believe that the Book of Acts was also largely Jewish. Hyper-dispensationalist believe that Jews were given a second chance to receive the Gospel in Acts. They teach two different Churches are viewed in the Book of Acts and the true Pauline church started in either Acts Chapter 9, 13, or 28 (depending on who you talk to.) But at the end of Acts, Paul is still preaching about the Kingdom as seen in Acts 28:23. Paul also preached the Kingdom in the Epistles in 2 Thessalonians 1:5 and 2 Timothy 4:1.

3. Hyper-dispensationalist believe that the mysteries given to Paul are a different revelation from that give to Peter and the other Apostles. Only Paul’s writings are for the Church today (and not all of Hebrews, James, Peter, and John’s epistles.) However, Paul said that the church is built on the foundation of the Apostles (plural!) and not just himself in Ephesians 2:20. Paul also said the mysteries were revealed to the Apostles (plural!) and prophets in Ephesians 3:5. Peter saw no distinction 2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-16. Paul certainly had unique revelations about the Church, but it didn’t contradict the general epistles.

4. Hyper-dispensationalists believe the Gospel preached by Paul is different that the one taught by Peter. Peter preached salvation through the blood of Christ, by God’s free mercy, the new birth, and eternal security 1 Peter 1:2-4. Acts Chapter 15 plainly states that all the Apostles agreed on the Gospel. Paul said they all preached the same Gospel 1 Corinthians 15:11-14.

5. Some (not all) Hyper-dispensationalist believe that baptism and the Lord’s Supper were given before Paul received the Church Age mysteries and thus are not for today. Certainly, baptism and receiving the Lord’s Supper are not necessary for salvation. Salvation is by grace alone apart from any works. And yet, Paul did baptize some (1 Cor 1:13-17) and Philip and Peter baptized two Gentiles (Acts Chapters 8 and 10). So why be baptized? Baptism is supposedly an outward action based on an inward reality. Baptism is a testimony that the participant has trusted in Christ as Savior and they are identifying himself/herself by submitting themselves to baptism. Baptism is not necessary. I think it is a matter for the individual to decide if they want to be baptized or not. I don’t think one should actively preach/teach AGAINST baptism.

6. Finally, some Hyper-dispensationalist believe that there are different ways of salvation based on faith plus works, in the Old Testament and for Tribulation saints.

Well, that’s enough for now. I could go into more detail but that adequately covers what hyper-dispensationalist believe for our purposes here. I guess the biggest problem I have with hyper-dispensationalism is the implication that Jesus’ own teachings in the Gospels are not binding or applicable to the Church. I cannot imagine calling myself a Christian and in the next breath saying the words of my Savior are not applicable to me. That is “wrongly dividing” the word of truth.

Thanks to John for allowing us to use his comment as an article.

See all articles on Kingdom Now Theology / Dominionism

Please share:

Deborah (Discerning the World)

Deborah Ellish is the author of the above article. Discerning the World is an internet Christian Ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa. Tom Lessing and Deborah Ellish both own Discerning the World. For more information see the About this Website page below the comments section.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bobby Faulkner

AUDIENCE and CONTEXT. Let me say it again, AUDIENCE and CONTEXT. Is CRUCIAL for understanding God’s DIFFERENT dispensations. Which by the way you probably know is simply instructions, house rules if you will.
AND, I need to address this is this way, John mentions again with the word hyper Disp. HD’S Find that word in the Bible. That is a man made word and definition. I believe the word dispensation ( a dispensing of instructions) is mentioned 4 times. 1 Cor., twice in Ephesians and once in Colossians. So to categorize someone based on what they believe to be God’s instructions as hyper or ultra to me seems derogatory. John’s quote: I cannot imagine calling myself a Christian and in the next breath saying the words of my Savior are not applicable to me. That is “wrongly dividing” the word of truth. I say that Misses the mark GREATLY since Jesus’ words are Paul’s 13 epistles.
1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD.
How about 1 Timothy 1:16
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, THAT IN ME FIRST Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, FOR A PATTERN to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting
What were Jesus and the 12 not capable or sufficient enough? Why was Paul needed to dispense NEW information? The canon could have been closed and no need for Paul’s being saved and writing 13 epistles. It WAS necessary to God who BEFORE THE WORLD had this master plan to put in action. 1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained BEFORE THE WORLD unto our glory: 2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN, Which he kept secret until Paul, 1 Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Also Luke 18:32-34 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. The 12 didn’t understand the cross!

part 3 of my comments

Bobby Faulkner

To me, you cannot call yourself as John does a dispensationalist and say” I believe that Biblical history is divided by God into dispensations to which God has allotted distinctive administrative principles.” then turn around and NOT see the dispensation, that IS DIFFERENT given to Paul. Comparing scripture shows us that.

How about Jesus himself stating, Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. or John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. or Matthew 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel
Different instructions. Different dispensation. ALL had to go through Israel to be saved either by becoming a Jew or blessing them before the cross. Israel had commands to believe IN HIS NAME, be baptized (water), and sell everything they owned. Again, audience and context is important.

No longer are WE under any type of system that Israel was. They were temporarily BLINDED Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall SALVATION is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. They and their program was set aside until ‘ages to come’. AFTER we are caught up. 1 Thessalonians 4:17
The fact that Paul for a time preached to Hebrews is not a standard to set that he wasn’t given a different gospel.
MANY unfortunately like to use this as a reason Paul had the same gospel as the 12.

“Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.” – Acts 28:31

This verse is used as popular objection to mid-Acts right division, but it is not a very good one.

Remember Paul was a Roman citizen and the Hebrew of Hebrews he new the law better than most!
If you get a new job, does that mean you have forgotten everything you learned at your old job?

In your new job, do you fail to read, write, and do math, because you learned those skills in primary school, and not at your new job?

If your new job is in the same company, and under the same supervision as your old job, does that mean your new job is not new at all?

A new dispensation was given to Paul, but it does not mean everything Paul spoke or taught was new.
He uses the word “kingdom” throughout his epistles both during Acts and in his post-Acts epistles (to the dismay of the Acts 28ers). He mentions the word “kingdom” in his epistles more often than Peter, James, and John do in their epistles combined (13 vs 11, excluding Acts).
The mystery of God’s will revealed to Paul how all things would be gathered together in one in Christ (Ephesians 1:10). This was a mystery before Paul, but describes how God will reign in the fullness of times. God had revealed his purpose for the earth, but had never spoken about the things or positions in heavenly places belonging to the church.

When Paul mentions the kingdom, it is always in the future tense. This means the idea of a present kingdom of God come on earth is false. The kingdom of God is waiting for God to establish it in heaven and earth.

The gospel of the kingdom is the proclamation that the kingdom of God is at hand, or is here. Paul did not teach this gospel, knowing that the revelation of the mystery delays the coming of this kingdom to the future. He taught the reign of grace and the gospel of the grace of God. The gospel of the kingdom, and preaching the postponement of the kingdom is different.

Paul explained this delay causing interruption in the gospel of the kingdom. Peter acknowledges Paul’s explanation of the postponement of the kingdom, and that Christ is no longer sending the twelve to preach the gospel of the kingdom (2 Pet 3:15).
Paul taught the kingdom of God, but he did not teach the kingdom now.

Paul taught the kingdom of God, but he did not teach that the church usurps Israel’s covenants and promises.

Paul taught the kingdom of God, but he did not preach the gospel of the kingdom. He preached the gospel of the grace of God. They are different.

Paul taught the kingdom of God, but he did not preach the same message as Peter and the twelve. The difference is not found in what is the same.
Paul taught the kingdom of God, but he did not offer David’s earthly kingdom to Israel, nor to Gentiles. The kingdom of God can refer to dominions in heavenly places (Col 1:16).
Paul taught the kingdom of God in the context of the revelation of the mystery of Jesus Christ (Rom 16:25).
We know this because Paul did not only write about the kingdom of God, but also about a mystery of Christ (Eph 3:2-6).

If ANYONE cannot see through scripture the stark differences between Jesus’ teaching BEFORE the cross and Jesus’ teaching AFTER the cross through Paul, they do not want to.

So, I’ve said a LOT here. Bottom line for me is, MY OPINIONS, or MY BELIEFS do not matter unless they are based on SCRIPTURE rightly divided, studied and spoken in CONTEXT that where the eternal value is. We MUST know who is speaking, to whom, and what are the circumstances, otherwise we remain lost, confused and most likely frustrated by denominations, popular beliefs, traditions etc. Again, DEBORAH (got it right) 🙂 thank you for the voice here. and John, just as you said about YOUR comments, my statements according to scripture here are not an indictment against anyone personally. That said, I will NEVER compromise the 2 Timothy 2:7 understanding the Lord has given me and my wife and my brethren who may be considered hyper dispensationalists, that our apostle Paul, was given DIFFERENT instructions, and we are saved a different way than BEFORE the cross.
That’s why it’s called being a WORKMAN. This takes work to understand correctly!
Last of my comments. Sorry maybe too many words???


Bobby F. From what I see, your understanding of the new testament writers seem to be contradicting each other, right? I would have to disagree in that you are simply misappropriating the context of what is truly being said. What Paul was teaching is exactly the same as the other writers. The error usually comes when the writers, who ever they are, are given greater authority than Yeshua. Everything Yeshua taught is the same before and after His death and resurrection. The Law(Torah-instructions) didn’t change because Yeshua died. The keeping of the Law was never about Salvation, but obedience out of love. So the whole law is done away with its been fulfilled doctrine is very dangerous and it cause us to assert things in the context and by so doing we twist the Scriptures to our own destruction. Once we see clearly and understand the players involved -the whos who and the whats what – we see that they are all in agreement.

And to Tom: Abraham was never a Jew but Yes he was of the nations when called out by Yehovah. But because he believed: that is his cross-over moment(salvation). He became a Hebrew. If you belong to the Kingdom your not a gentile anymore. If you consider yourself a gentile you need to repent and believe and join team Israel.

Hope you don’t mind me jumping in the conversation, Shalom

Tom (Discerning the World)

Hi Jason,

I often ask questions to see where paople are REALLY comning from. Jesus did the same. Of course Abraham was a Gentile befdore he became a Hebrew.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
(Gal 3:15-18).

Bobby believes that Abraham never had a clue how to be saved, or rather, that Jesus would be crucified for his sins.

He wrote:

In Genesis 15:6 God declared a man righteous without any evidence, proof, law, work, obedience, or sign that he would indeed be righteous.

“[Abraham] believed in the LORD; and [God] counted it to him for righteousness.” – Genesis 15:6

Abraham was ignorant about how God would do this. There was no law to obey, no work to perform, nothing for him to glory in. God intentionally left him ignorant about it (1 Cor 2:8-9).

If we are all children of Abraham (Galatians 3:7) then we all must have the same Gospel (including Peter, James, John and trhe rest of the apostlers AND Paul of Tarsus).

I must say, I am very concerned about Bobby.

Bobby Faulkner

First off I am not mad, angry or anything else to get that out of the way. NO my feathers are not ruffled John.
So, after I spent HOURS and HOURS of research and citing scripture that after years I understand now after DEEP STUDY ( rightly divided whether YOU like that term or not) I get reduced to coming out of ( key words CAME OUT OF YEARS AGO) the charismatic, word of faith movements to I went completely overboard and swim back? WOW Talk about judging INCORRECTLY!!! Then I have Tom’s kudos about articles I sent ( just for him to later say for him he’s worried about me because of what SCRIPTURE says about Abraham and that Peter and the 12 had the SAME gospel as Paul which is false) then, to have this guy John send an article that DIFFERS from what I offered from scripture RIGHTLY DIVIDED and you make HIS commentary the end all be all, and the fact you claimed you were trying to understand rather than argue but it actually appears you already had your mind made up ( which I’m not surprised NOW that I see YOU think we are the bride of Christ among a few other wrong scriptural understandings) you didn’t even bother to dig in and compare the scriptures I offered that are painfully, obviously different from before and after the cross, that, tells me a lot. The truth isn’t for everyone. Most just want to be right and/or get people to co sign with them on THEIR agendas so they can feel good about their beliefs. I said it before, WE TOO were stuck in law teaching, wrong doctrine and believing that Matthew-John was for US, so i get it that people don’t understand. WE did not. BUT, once you REALLY STUDY and know who is speaking, to whom, and what are the circumstances, THEN our eyes get opened to the DIFFERENCES between what was REQUIRED before the cross, and AFTER. My wife said, you appeared to be curious about finding truth so I rolled with it. Looks like it fell on deaf ears. We have seen MANY who get that the Kim Clements, Joel Osteens, Rick Warrens etc. are wrong and out of the very same mind and mouth reject Paul as the apostle to the gentiles with a DIFFERENT gospel ( Romans 16:25 as an EX) Romans 2:16 1 Timothy 1:16 1 Corinthians 14:37 How anyone rejects Paul and his instructions that ARE different, is beyond me when they are presented with SCRIPTURE FACTS! I feel I was baited all along which doesn’t phase me. I press on with the TRUTH. Just because people sound good, look good, are great orators, are masters of writing words and conveying things to get people to think they are so educated and versed in a subject doesn’t make it so. ( JOHN) Let GOD be true! Romans 3:4 RIGHTLY DIVIDED. Actually I don’t know why I’m even stating all this as I’m sure you’ll squash it or maybe find another way to insult this HD. This isn’t my first rodeo. Also, lastly, as an observation, in ALL these articles I have been involved with here, all the arguments and contentions about water baptism, tongues etc. NOT ONCE have I seen it mentioned as I HAVE stated, how people are saved 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and Ephesians 1:13 seals us!! NO other way period this side of the cross. So, just so you realize I am NOT swimming back to where I once was. I didn’t go overboard, I GOT ONBOARD with Paul’s gospel! Which men WILL be judged by! Romans 2:16. Maybe YOU should consider to KEEP SWIMMING until the TRUTH registers RIGHTLY DIVIDED! I’ve BEEN where you are. I’ve BEEN where so many are BUT kept searching and my eyes were opened! Hopefully that day will come for you.


I’m 7 hours behind the rest of you (Alabama, USA) and I end up coming late to the party each day! A lot has transpired since the last time I looked with several new comments. One thing I would like to address again for Bobby: my comments were not meant to be pejorative or condescending. You were correct in one of your earlier posts when you said that sometimes in emails, texts, message boards, etc., comments come across as harsh when that was not the authors intent. When you are with someone in person, you get a better feel for what they’re saying by their expressions, voice inflection and tone. All of those are absent in written correspondence. When I used the term “hyper-dispensationalism” I did not mean for it to be disparaging. So, if you are insulted by that term I apologize. We all want to get to the truth and be good “Bereans” and sometimes that means we are challenged, just as the Bereans challenged Paul. I try to look at it more as “iron sharpening iron.”

Your friend in Christ,

Tom (Discerning the World)


Would you say that the doctrine of the blood and faith in God’s Gospel can be applied to before and after the cross – the one being a faith in foresight and the other in hindsight? I ask this against the backdrop of what Paul writes in Hebrews 9:22: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Hebrews 9:22)

If Abraham’s sins were remitted (cancelled out) by the blood of the cross, and also Peter’s James’s John’s, Paul’s and the rest of the apostles’ did they all have the same Gospel? Of coarse God revealed his truth in different dispensations but there is one vital truth that runs through all of them, and that is the blood of the cross.

Unlike John, and many others on this sight who don’t mean to be disparaging when they proclaim the truth, I never aim to please men just because they feel offended or angry. For instance, Deborah asked John when he wrote “I don’t think one should actively preach/teach AGAINST baptism” that we should rather set the topic aside. I assume he was referring to the two or more articles I had written on baptism and feels that I am preaching AGAINST baptism. I notice that this clause was removed from the article. What happened to EARNESTLY contend for the faith? If we are going to whine, feel offended and be like little children who are forever “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians 4:14), we may as well pack up and go. Yes , I am angry because I hate it when God’s sheep, and especially the little lambs are deceived by wolves in sheep’s clothing. John and Bobby, before you feel offended. I am not calling you wolves in sheep’s clothing. I am talking in general.

This verse appears in the Gospel of John, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Joh 3:16). Is in NOT for you and your wife? By trrhe way, as you know Jesus spoke these words. Just a thought!


Tom: I do not look to please men, either. My intent in writing was/is to challenge ideas and to do so in a manner that people do not think I am attacking them personally. I believe in civil discourse, even if the other side turns ugly. Unfortunately, a lot of people DO take it personally when you challenge them on their beliefs (as you and Deborah well know!) And no, my comment about “preach/teach AGAINST baptism” is not referring to your articles on the subject. I haven’t read them yet.

Your friend in Christ,

Bobby Faulkner

I’m not sure who you are speaking to about whining but I for one am FAR from whining!! Ephesians 4:14 BACK AT YA MAN! You are extremely deceived and unwilling to see scripture for what it says RIGHTLY DIVIDED! YOU are all over the place. YOU are VERY deceived mixing doctrines, etc. John 3:16 did ya happen to notice Jesus had NOT gone to the cross yet. There is NOTHING in that statement about OUR salvation doctrine. AND Paul did NOT write Hebrews. How do we know? By Paul’s OWN words, 2 Thessalonians 3:17 The salutation of Paul with MINE OWN HAND, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.
That is scripture! AND as you keep speaking about Jesus’ words you refuse to see apparently PAUL’S gospel ARE Jesus’ words!

So, I guess it’s a surprise to you that John 3:16 does NOT contain the gospel that saves today!

So, lets talk about John 3:16 since you made it an issue.

Paul calls the preaching of the cross the power of God unto salvation (1 Cor 1:18-21). Without the cross the gospel is vain, but a trained bloodhound could not find the cross in John 3.
Jesus is talking about his origin from heaven in John 3:13 and shows that God sent his Son from heaven into the world in John 3:16. When God “gave his only begotten Son” in John 3:16, he was not speaking about his crucifixion.
Speaking of the cross, there is no mention of the blood of Jesus or the forgiveness of sins in John 3 either. Forgiveness of sins is spoken about at other times in Jesus ministry, but John 3 contains neither.
If the gospel is to be preached ought we not at some point speak about forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ?

All this for you to consider that John 3:16 may be too succinct as a gospel verse. Without the blood, propitiation, or substitionary atonement then John 3:16 is incomplete regarding the gospel that saves.

John 3:16 is not speaking about resurrection of Christ or anyone else. If John 3:16 can stand alone as the gospel, are we to neglect this important event? Paul says that if Christ did not raise from the dead then our preaching is vain (1 Cor 15:14).

It is no coincidence that John 3 is one of only two chapters that speak of being “born again”, and no where in the vicinity is the death, blood, or resurrection of Christ.

Both John 3:16 and being “born again” were messages to Israel before the mystery was revealed.

John 3:16 is a wonderful verse… if you are Israel looking for your Messiah. It speaks of God’s love, Jesus as the prophesied Christ, and the necessity of belief in Him for everlasting life. It says everything John (and Jesus) intended to identify for Israel who was their Messiah (John 20:31).

It is a tremendous verse to communicate the person of Jesus being Christ, but reducing the gospel we preach today to merely the person of Christ, removes the most important aspect of His finished work. This work had not yet been done, and would not be explained until revealed later to the church.

The church of today, the gospel for today, and our preaching of Jesus Christ for today was a mystery that had not yet been revealed in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. We now know the gospel of Christ that saves through the writings of the apostle Paul in such passages as Romans 3, or succinctly stated in 1 Cor 15:1-4:

“I declare unto you the gospel… by which also ye are saved… how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” – 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

John 3:16 is a good verse unless you are trying to preach the cross of Christ, the power of God unto salvation. Then, you might consider something in Paul’s epistles like Romans 5:8.

IF you continue this journey of deception friend, you have fun TRYING to endure to the end and HOPE your name is written in the Lambs book of life (Israel) while WE KNOW our sins are already forgiven, paid for, not imputed and WE will enjoy an eternity in heaven!! You had better wake up man. Seriously. Stop plucking, cherry picking or reading articles and dig in to SCRIPTURE before it’s too late!

Tom (Discerning the World)

Thanks, John, I appreciate your comment. I was just amazed to see that your sentence “I don’t think one should actively preach/teach AGAINST baptism” was edited out in the article. Civil discourses can often be hot, believe it or not.

And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; (Acts 15:36-39)

The word for contention is “paroxusmos” and means “as hot as an acetylene torch.”

Most people who are in error view word for word quotes from Scripture as a personal attack on them. That’s one of the signs of a false teacher. Read Bobby’s latest comment and you will see what I mean.

We (the apostles of God) are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us (the apostles); he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
(1Jn 4:6)

Now, this guy says Peter, John, and James had a different Gospel than Paul? Really! He’s not listening to the apostles. What does that make him and his wife?

By the way, you may find it interesting to read my articles on baptism.

Your brother in Christ

Tom (Discerning the World)

Bobby wrote:

IF you continue this journey of deception friend, you have fun TRYING to endure to the end and HOPE your name is written in the Lambs book of life (Israel) while WE KNOW our sins are already forgiven, paid for, not imputed and WE will enjoy an eternity in heaven!! You had better wake up man. Seriously. Stop plucking, cherry picking or reading articles and dig into SCRIPTURE before it’s too late!

I really think you and your wife are deceived in thinking that John 3:16 does not contain the Gospel (Good News). Do you really think God would issue such a stern warning in verse 36 if it did not present the Gospel, only 20 verses onward?

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

Tom (Discerning the World)

Hi Debs, As you know I am not an IT fundi. I never thought of the possibility of the Gutenberg block problem. Anyway, no sweat and thank you. I haven’t used the Gutenberg myself thus far and am terrified that I may not be able to climb the new mountain.

Tom (Discerning the World)

AMEN and AMEN  :hat:

Laurens le Roux

Wat ñ voorreg om sulke swaargewigte in debat met mekaar te ervaar.
Sou ñ mens ñ onskriftuurlike afleiding maak as jy sou praat van ñ AANGEPASTE EVANGLIE?
Die Evangelieverkondiging in die Evangelies [Mat-Joh.] was gerig op die Huis van Israel [Jode] en die Jode was ingestel op ñ teken [1 Kor. 1:22 want die Jode vra ‘n teken en die Grieke soek wysheid,] daarom is die waterdoop aan hulle as teken gegee ter vergifnis van sondes. Toe Johannes die Doper die waterdoop “ingestel” het, het hy dit gedoen om Jesus Christus aan ISRAEL te openbaar.[ Joh. 1:31 En ek het Hom nie geken nie; maar dat Hy aan Israel openbaar sou word, daarom het ek gekom en met water gedoop.]
Met die evangelie verkondiging aan die heidene, deur Paulus, was ñ teken irrelevant en slegs geloof was genoeg ter vergewing van sondes.
Om kognitiewe dissonansie te voorkom [by my] sal die aanvaarding van die begrip van AANGEPASTE EVANGELIE by my rus bring. Dit beteken dan nie dat ons van ñ ander evangelie praat nie. Of wat praat ek alles?!
Hoe dit ookal sy baie dankie vir al die leerstof wat so mildelik uitgedra word.

Tom (Discerning the World)

Hallo Laurens.

Dit sou beslis onskriftuurlik wees om te praat van ’n AANGEPASTE EVANGELIE?

“Aanpas (“adapt”) beteken om iets gepas te maak vir ’ nuwe doel; vir nuwe toestande of omstandighede. Die mens het nog altyd vanaf die begin gebonde gegaan onder sonde en verlorenheid. Watter deel van hierdie waarheid sal ons moet verander om aan te pas by ’n nuwe doel of toestande en omstandighede van die mens – die werklikheid van sonde of van verlorenheid, of albei? Sou ons ’n AANGEPASTE EVANGELIE as skriftuurlik aanvaar, dan moet ons Jesus se doel na die aarde ook verander, wat, soos jy behoort te weet, was om sondaars ter soek en te red. (Lukas 10:19). Op sy beurt sou dit noodwendig moes uitloop op ’n veranderde evangelie.

Ek is seker jy sal saamstem dat Jesus nog nooit verander het nie. HY was, is en sal ook altyd dieselfde wees (Hebreërs 13:8; Jakobus 1”17). Netsoos Jesus self, het sy evangelie nog nooit verander nie.

Broeders, ek spreek menslikerwys: selfs ‘n mens se testament wat bekragtig is, maak niemand tot niet of voeg daaraan toe nie. Nou is aan Abraham die beloftes toegesê en aan sy saad. Hy sê nie: En aan die sade, asof dit op baie sien nie, maar op een: En aan jou saad, dit is Christus. Maar ek sê dít: die wet wat vier honderd en dertig jaar later gekom het, maak die verbond wat deur God in Christus vantevore bekragtig is, nie kragteloos om die belofte tot niet te maak nie. Want as die erfenis uit die wet is, dan is dit nie meer uit die belofte nie. Maar God het dit aan Abraham deur ‘n belofte genadiglik geskenk. Wat beteken die wet dan? Dit is bygevoeg weens die oortredinge, totdat die saad aan wie die belofte gedoen is, sou kom; en dit is deur engele beskik deur tussenkoms van ‘n middelaar. En die middelaar is nie net vir een nie; maar God is een. Is die wet dan teen die beloftes van God? Nee, stellig nie! Want as daar ‘n wet gegee was wat krag het om lewend te maak, dan sou die geregtigheid werklik uit die wet wees. Maar die Skrif het alles ingesluit onder die sonde, sodat die belofte uit die geloof in Jesus Christus aan die gelowiges gegee kon word. (Galasiërs 3:15-22)

Hy wat julle dan die Gees verleen en kragte onder julle werk, doen Hy dit uit die werke van die wet of uit die prediking van die geloof? Net soos Abraham in God geglo het, en dit is hom tot geregtigheid gereken. Julle verstaan dan dat die wat uit die geloof is, hulle is kinders van Abraham. En die Skrif wat vooruit gesien het dat God die heidene uit die geloof sou regverdig, het vooraf aan Abraham die evangelie verkondig met die woorde: In jou sal al die volke geseën word. Sodat die wat uit die geloof is, geseën word saam met die gelowige Abraham. .(Gal 3:5-9).

Die waterdoop is nie ingestel om Jesus Christus aan Israel te openbaar nie. Jesus Christus is gedoop sodat alles met betrekking tot die Wet vervul mag word. Jesus

Toe het Jesus van Galiléa na die Jordaan, na Johannes gekom om deur hom gedoop te word. Maar Johannes het Hom ernstig teëgegaan en gesê: Ek het nodig om deur U gedoop te word, en kom U na my toe? Maar Jesus het geantwoord en vir hom gesê: Laat dit nou toe, want só pas dit ons om alle geregtigheid te vervul. Daarna het hy Hom toegelaat. (Mattheus 3:13-15).

Christus word/is op baie plekke in die Ou Testament aan Israel geopenbaar. Hulle het geglo in die pre-bestaan (pre-existence) van Jesus Christus as die Seun van God en ook dat Hy sou kom om as Koning oor hulle in Jerusalem te regeer (Lukas 1:31-33). So-ook het Johannes die Doper van die pre-bestaan van Jesus geweet. Daarom sê hy in vers 30 van Johannes 1, “Dit is Hy van wie ek gesê het: Ná my kom ‘n man wat voor my geword het, want Hy was eerder as ek.” Hiermee het hy bely dat Jesus “EK IS” (YHWH) van die Ou Testament is wat Homself so aan Moses geopenbaar het (Eksodus 3:14). Maar, waarom sê hy in die volgende vers (31) “En ek het Hom nie geken nie?” Hoewel Johannes en Jesus familie was (Maria en Elizabeth was verwante – Lukas 1:36), het hy Hom nog nooit in die vlees ontmoet nie. Eers toe die Vader Hom aan Johannes geopenbaar het, het hy geweet wie Hy is (Johannes 1:29). Daarom sê die Skrif: “Dit is Hy wat deur water en bloed gekom het, Jesus die Christus; nie deur die water alleen nie, maar deur die water en die bloed; en dit is die Gees wat getuig, want die Gees is die waarheid.” (1 Johannes 5:6). Jesus het dus albei die ou Testamentiese vereistes vir reiniging vervul. In die Ou testament was dit fisiese skoon water en die bloed van diere (waarvan die toepassing deur geloof vooruitgesien het na die koms van die Lam van God – Genesis 22:8), en in die Nuwe Testament is dit die water (die Woord – Johannes 15:3; Romeine 10:17) en Sy eie bloed.

Die waterdoop is ook nie deur Johannes die Doper ingestel nie. Dit kom ’n lang pad en is reeds ingestel toe die volk Israel by die berg Sinai gereinig moes word met skoon water (Eksodus 19:10-11). Die “klere was” met water en die reiniging met die bloed van ’n onskuldige dier in die Ou Testament is die voorafskaduwing van die was van klere met die bloed van die Lam (Jesus Christus) in die Nuwe Testament (Openbaring 7:14). In albei gevalle was dit alleenlik geloof in die Lam van God wat red – die een in vooruitskouing na Sy koms en kruisiging en die ander in terugskouing op sy koms en kruisiging.

Laurens le Roux

Baie,baie dankie. Die Here se seën julle toegebid.


Hi Deborah/Tom/and others

Can I just say that I like your website very much and I like what you are doing here. I came across it only recently and I enjoyed what I read so far. I was actually reading up on Calvinism on the got questions website and some things did not really make sense to me, that is when I ended up here. I need some help with something I have been struggling with recently. It might sound silly to someone who already knows and understand it better but, I am going to ask anyway.

It is sort of with regards to God’s sovereignty. If we read in the book of Revelations (the whole bible actually), we see that God has an ultimate plan for us and the universe and His Kingdom now and in future time. So do our efforts here on earth (for example evangelism) make any difference to the outcome of God’s plan? Let’s say for example that we all decide to abandon our faith and become atheists or evangelism is so effective that we convert everyone on the planet to Christianity (perhaps highly unlikely), will that not interfere with the plans that God made before He even created us and everything? Or was God 100 % sure that people will never be able to accomplish that even before creating us, hence that will not bother His plans? I personally think that might be the case.

I do not have a Pastor or a Dominee at this stage to talk to because I am sort of “between churches” at the moment. Not sure where to go anymore. I was always in the NGK but left some time ago because it has become such a “people pleaser”church.

Your response will be highly appreciated,
Kind regards,
Kobus  :hat:

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

Hi Kobus and thanks for your comment. I personally believe it is a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of who God is (of his character) that causes so much confusion, particularly in the area of how to marry or reconcile God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. How do you bring the two together without running down or even totally excluding the one in favour of the other? I am busy writing (or shall I rather say, struggling) to write an article in response to someone’s views on Calvinism in the light of “God’s election in the context of the God-gene and heredity.” Hopefully, you will be patient and some of your questions may be answered as soon as I have finished it. Jesus said:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3).

We dare not misrepresent the character of God because it leads to error and away from salvation.


Thank you very much for your response, Tom. Appreciated.

Yes sometimes I think too deep into it. As if I am trying to get into God’s head and see what the plan is. Just the thought of that is so ridiculous and to me, even sounds sinful. But I should just put my full trust in Him and try to understand scripture better because what we need to know as humans is all in there.

I look forward to your article and I am pretty sure I will learn something from it.

Thanks again.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

Hi Kobus. I have finally written an article that might be of assistance to you in understanding the truth about Calvinism and the reformed doctrines better.


Mid-Acts is a bible fact in that there was no Gentile saved until Cornelius. Peter and the Jews that are with him are astonished because of this, that upon the Gentiles is poured out the Holy Ghost. When people get this right we can move on to greater discussions.

Tom (Discerning the World)

Greg wrote:

Mid-Acts is a bible fact in that there was no Gentile saved until Cornelius. Peter and the Jews that are with him are astonished because of this, that upon the Gentiles is poured out the Holy Ghost. When people get this right we can move on to greater discussions.

Really??? Ruth, who’s mentioned in the ancestral lineage of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5) was a Moabitess (Gentile). Wasn’t she saved? Rahab, an ex-Gentile whore, who is also mentioned in Christ’s lineage (verse 5) was also saved.


Nobody was saved to heaven until after the cross, they went to Abraham’s Bosom, or Hell. Until the shed blood, there is no New testament without the Testator death and shedding of blood=Jesus on the cross.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x