Sandy G wrote:
How can I teach someone who subscribes to Richard Jordan’s “Grace School of the Bible” that his entire framework for interpreting the Bible is wrong? He put out a pamphlet called “The Key to Understanding the Bible” that is astonishing, really. He insists on the King James version of the Bible being the only correct one and then uses 2 Tim 2:15 and a really strange interpretation of the word “divide” to claim that the Bible is divided into three parts: time past, but now, and the ages to come. He claims that time past was speaking to the Jews and covers from Genesis through the beginning of Acts. He claims the gospels speak to non-Gentiles and not to us. That does away with a lot of pesky contradictions to common Protestant beliefs, right? He says Romans through Philemon speaks to us and Hebrews through Revelations are written for the people that are left after the so-called rapture. I did manage to have discussion with her on purgatory, baptism and solo fida, but it was an odd discussion as I'm not used to the GOSPELS being off-limits to teach what Jesus wanted to teach us! I want to back up and discuss Jordan's framework for the Bible as I think that will make all other discussion flow much more smoothly. Any ideas? Links to already posted information would also be appreciated. Probably anything addressed to Dispensationalism in general would be good. Thank you so much for your help!!!
So only Paul's letters are addressed to the Church now? 1 John isn't 1 Peter isn't?
Anyway, I wouldn't spend much time on this individual, personally. I'm a very hard-core dispensationalist. I teach at a firmly dispensational school. I got two degrees from a different dispensational school. I have presented papers at dispensational conferences. I've read most of the dispensational systematic theologies out there. I've never heard that position. I mean, maybe he's right and everyone else is wrong. But he's got a serious burden of proof on his shoulders. Why in the world would he think that 1 John does not apply to the Church, but will all the sudden start applying after the Rapture? Or James! that was likely the first NT book written, and yet it was written to people after
the Rapture? What? That's just silly. I'd also ask if he knows why the books of the NT are placed in the order that they are . . . they aren't exactly placed in the order they were written.
In other words, if I were to take time with that person (and I wouldn't), I would basically say, "Really? And how did you come to that
conclusion?" a lot.