Week five: 3.1-12 Paul contrasts salvation by faith and condemnation by law

Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.

COPYRIGHT 2004

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.

Deffinbaugh illustrates the former and coming passage by telling of two men that made mistakes.

He relates, in much more detail if you are interested, the accounts of Mr. Roy Riegels a football star and Mr. "wrong way Corrigan" a pilot. Riegels ended up with the ball and in all of his zigging and zagging across the field became disoriented and headed for the wrong goal line. He was finally tackled by one of his own team one yard from the wrong goal line. This mistake cost his team the game ultimately.

"Wrong way Corrigan" on the other hand attempted to fly from the east to the west coast, but ended up in Ireland. He had filed a flight plan for Ireland but it had been denied. His coast to coast attempt, some say, due to the extra fuel tanks on his plane, was actually an east coast to Ireland attempt in his class of air craft.

Deffinbaugh goes on to apply this with the thought that Peter, in the previous chapter had a mix up of direction and inadvertently done wrong as Mr. Riegel. The Judaizers on the other hand, and the Galatians as well, had made a deliberate mistake of adding to the Gospel that Paul had taught them. (Galatians: The Gospel of God's Grace; Robert L. Deffinbaugh, Th.M.; Biblical Studies Press; 1998)

Constable in his commentary suggests that Paul argues on three levels in this passage. From experience in 3.1-5 and then from the Word in 3.6-14 and finally from a logical view 3.15-29. This division is quite accurate and clear.

1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown suggest that this could be paraphrased as follows "fascinated you so that you have lost your wits" He mentions that one commentator thought that they were highly intellectual, which would make this phrase even more stinging to them.

Wow, "foolish" "bewitched" disobeying the truth - what strong language, yet it is the language that Paul used to get the peoples attention. Imagine sitting in the meeting when the elder rose and began reading this letter from the man that had founded their church.

First, to just hear such language from someone you most likely loved deeply in the Lord, and second to know that you had been duped and thirdly you had been caught in your foolishness by the one person you wouldn't want to find out that you had erred.

Who? As if Paul didn't know the one that had misled his sheep. He most likely knew not only the group but the particular person that was leading the group.

The term "foolish" not only has the thought of a fool but also the thought of not understanding. We tend to view foolishness as just the fooling around and not being serious, but this word relates to "not getting it" and acting in a foolish or misguided manner. Actually this word is the antonym for the normal word for wisdom. Some use the word gullible to describe the actions of the Galatians.

The term "bewitched" relates to the idea of casting a spell or to charm. The construction here indicates that this is done, they have been tricked, they have been bewitched, and they have been led off the proper path; it is a done deal, they have bought it, they have assimilated it, and they are living it - this error, or disobedience to the truth.

Barclay translates this as follows “Above all I pray that you may be in health unharmed by the evil eye and faring prosperously."

Deffinbaugh says that there is a word contrast here that the Galatians would have picked up on. Paul contrasts the gospel presented by way of the evil eye to his gospel presented before their eyes - Christ crucified.

Some translations leave out part of what the King James and Young include. (KJV, "who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth,” Young states, "who did bewitch you, not to obey the truth") Not only had they been tricked to accept this false "truth," they had been tricked into leaving the truth.

There is a lot of "persuasion" indicated in this passage - someone went to great lengths to bring the people to absolute rejection of the truth.

In today's church the people have been persuaded to leave what they believed to be true worship, AND they have been convinced to accept another way, which is now supposed to the "true worship."

Kind of a double negative Paul sets forth in my mind. Reject truth and then accept falsehood as truth.

Now, we know why Paul has taken two chapters to lay foundation to the gospel that he had given them in the beginning. He is attempting to overcome all this persuasion and charming and foolish teaching to gain their trust once again, for if they have rejected truth so completely, they surely have rejected Paul as a truth bearer.

He goes on to remind them that they had heard or been shown all that was needed of the crucifixion of Christ - by the way the term translated crucified is in a perfect tense - something that happened in the past, which is carrying through the present and which will continue on into the future to an ultimate and sure end. Think of the ramifications of that for awhile.

In short, Paul requires of them to consider who it was that bewitched them into rejecting the simple gospel and taking on this new false, untruthful gospel that in essence diminishes the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ. If they must add obedience then his death was not sufficient.

Matthew Henry relates the thought of Christ being envisioned to them in some manner to the idea that Paul had taught them the clear meaning of the Lord's Supper observance, the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Christ. They had full knowledge along with the clear gospel from him of what they must do to be saved. Belief and faith alone.

Deffinbaugh concludes his thoughts well on this verse. "I believe that by the use of these two expressions ("bewitched" and "publicly portrayed") Paul is contrasting his methodology with that of the Judaizers. Their method is underhanded, secretive, and subtle. Paul's method is direct, open, and public. I sense the same contrast that we find in the book of Proverbs. Wisdom is portrayed as publicly calling forth, speaking forthrightly, inviting all to gain knowledge. Folly is more secretive and seductive; her appeal is to that which is either forbidden or unavailable to the masses. Error is sneaky while truth is straightforward. Error is offered to the elite-truth, to the all." (Galatians: The Gospel of God's Grace; Robert L. Deffinbaugh, Th.M.; deffinbaugh@bible.org; Biblical Studies Press; 1998)

2 This only I would learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?

He calls them to remembrance of that first act of faith in which they accepted Christ and His work on the cross - that step of faith, rather than any works of the law. It should have pulled them up short to recall that they were saved by an act of faith, in simply taking God at His word. They did not have to follow any set of rules for ten days before they were acceptable, they didn't have to be baptized five times before they were born again, and they didn't have to follow some teacher before they were heaven-bound, they simply trusted God and His word.

This only will tell the real tail of what brings them salvation - Christ or works.

He isn't even going to tell them, they are to tell him - they are to instruct the apostle of their salvation. Almost an affront to them, in my mind - I told you the gospel, you received it, now you say I was wrong by adding to it, so now you tell me how you were saved. In essence he is saying, you tell me cuz I must not have been there - how were you saved?

3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, do you now perfect yourself in the flesh?

Some further logic; if you started in the Spirit do you, can you, must you now perfect yourself by your own works? The construction here is of note. They began at a point in time, but have to perfect themselves on a continual basis. You were saved - fact - done deal - now you are saving yourselves by works of the flesh - how so is the implication.

How can you be saved by Christ, then you, by your works do it again? This should scream out to anyone that doubts their salvation and security in it. It was done once, how can you add to it? That is impossible.

This should also scream at the charismatic that was saved, but now seeks to finish the work by seeking some special unction from on high that allows them to do things that make them even more spiritual.

There is something deeply wrong in any thought that seeks by works to add to the salvation God has given, be it works relating to gifts, to the works of doing of good, or works of making oneself spiritual.

For further on this concept see Phil. 1:6 and Col. 2:6.

4 Did you suffer so many things in vain, if indeed it is even in vain?

It seems Paul refers their minds back to the persecution they suffered by the hands of the Jews when they were first saved - the persecution of rejection etc. when they converted from Judaism to Christianity. (You might find Acts 14:1-7 of use, as it depicts the Jew’s reaction to Christians.)

Some logical conclusions might be derived here: Did you suffer all that in vain, if it is in vain then it was. All that they had gone through was in vain, including accepting Christ by faith would be in vain if indeed their suffering was in vain.

Actually, Paul is saying, did you suffer all these things in vain, even if it wasn't in vain - again calling their logical minds to reality. Was it in vain? No, certainly not. Why would they then take on the works of those that persecuted them to become spiritual?

One might wonder if the persecution had softened their resolve and they had somewhere started wondering if their lost persecutors were right - then along came the Judaizers and they decided they had been wrong somehow.

5 Then He supplying the Spirit to you and working powerful works in you, is it by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?

If God supplied the Holy Spirit and great and powerful works in you (when you were saved) did you do it by works of the law or did it occur because you responded in faith to the gospel that you had heard and the working of the Spirit of God?

Now, I'm not going to jump up and down here but don't you think Paul is putting it out just about as simply as he could - can you ask a clearer, concise, and considered question to get to the point? I doubt it - simple - faith or works but not both.

Personally I think I will opt for the faith that Paul sets forth, because he doesn't seem to have too good an opinion of working for salvation.

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.

This is from Gen. 15.6 "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

Now, he goes clear back to Abraham, to the one all would call their father most likely, and says, look - even Abraham responded to what he heard by faith - this was before the law so works of the law do not relate. He heard God and he responded to God, the Galatians heard the gospel and responded to the gospel - both in faith in what God was saying.

Some in the reformed camp and others in other camps declare that dispensationalists believe in two gospels. They view the Old Testament people as keeping the law for salvation and in the church age they see the people accepting the gospel - two different methods of reaching God for salvation.

I don't know how many times on the internet I have confronted people that declare this falsehood. I have challenged all to share with the boards a quote from a real dispensationalist that taught this heresy. None has even attempted to supply the proof of their accusation, and I might add, none has offered a retraction.

If you disagree with some teaching, just attach it, lie about it, and disparage the person that believes in it - it don't matter about the truth, don't matter about the veracity of the speaker, and it certainly don't matter if you are wrong, cuz you believe in what is true and that makes you right is the attitude.

I will admit that Scofield in his first Study Bible made a comment that was very poorly constructed and could be read to see two ways of salvation, however he clarified that statement a number of times and it was corrected in the next edition of his notes Bible. (I will insert here the mistaken comment and some other information as a footnote to this lesson if you are interested in further information.)

7 Therefore know that those of faith, these are the sons of Abraham.

Simple statement, those of faith, those that believe are sons of Abraham as opposed to those that keep the law that aren't sons of Abraham is the clear implication.

8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations through faith, preached the gospel before to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all nations be blessed." (Gen. 12.3 "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.")

Here we see the Scripture living and personified. The Scripture foresaw, the Scripture preached and the Scripture said. Now, some would suggest, and rightly so, that the Scripture was not set down in Abraham's time and it could not preach nor say anything.

We know that the Scriptures were coming via the method of transmission of the day - word of mouth. Abraham told his kids, and they theirs, etc. until Moses sat down at his laptop and started pounding out the Pentateuch.

No, the Scripture did not literally foresee, no the Scripture did not preach nor say anything, but Paul uses this method of illustrating his point.

It is a significant truth however that Scripture was always in God's plan and was always an integrated part of His working with mankind.

9 So then those of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Constable suggests that the line of thought of the Judaizers might have been, that the Galatians were justified by faith as was Abraham, but that they must undergo circumcision at a later point as did Abraham to complete the process of coming to God. Circumcision was also required of the gentile coming into the Jewish nation in the Old Testament. This may well be the reasoning of the false teachers. They were trying to draw the Galatians into their line of thinking that was based on their Jewish bent of thought.

Those of faith are truly blessed, with salvation while those under the law are cursed according to the next verse.

10 For as many as are out of works of the Law, these are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them."

Once obedient to the law for salvation, one has rejected Christ and thus is under the complete law - one hundred percent obedience to the law if they really want to be saved - of course no one (except Christ Himself) can obey the law perfectly, thus the curse.

11 But that no one is justified by the Law in the sight of God is clear, for, "The just shall live by faith."

Paul just won't let it drop - he adds another nail to the coffin of the gospel of the law - the Scripture’s requirement for salvation is faith and faith alone.

12 But the Law is not of faith; but, "The man who does these things shall live in them."

A further statement of fact - if you are going to obey the law, you must live in it completely.

So, we have three quotes here - just where do they come from?

1. "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them." Deut. 27.26 "Cursed [be] he that confirmeth not [all] the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen."

2. "The just shall live by faith." Hab. 2.4 "... but the just shall live by his faith."

3. "The man who does these things shall live in them." Lev. 18.5 A bit of a paraphrase by Paul, "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I [am] the LORD."

There is a very interesting study that any Bible school student should be required to do - not that I was, it is something I should, yet do before I am with the Lord. A study of how the New Testament writers used and quoted the Old Testament.

APPLICATION:

1. And so, how do we apply this particular passage? Be very careful what you accept from a new pastor. Be very careful of what you accepted from your old pastor. Be careful what you accept from any source for all sources must be suspect or you are in danger of being duped.

Many are the sound Bible churches that have called pastors that have an agenda counter to the churches and have seen their churches slip into the reform camp or into some other groups clutches.

This calls to question those that accept a call to a church where they know they are in doctrinal disagreement. How does this happen? Seminaries that are not teaching their men ethics or at least real honest ethics.

It is never ethical to step into a position in a church where you know you disagree in the basic doctrines. That is dishonest and is the symptom of an underlying agenda to take that church into waters where it ought not to be.

The ethics of these men run along this line. They are the purveyors of truth, they hold and know the truth, and they must spread truth to the world no matter what the method. Thus if a "doctrinally incorrect" church calls them, they are by moral ethic required to go and teach them the truth that they alone hold.

You may say that is quite harsh - yes it is, but I have seen this over and over in life and I have seen this mindset on the internet many times.

The person that holds to a reform position views it as truth and as a result all other teaching is heresy and false teaching. No matter if the other person is a believer, he teaches other than reform doctrine, thus is in error. Many of them would not hold to the person being a "true" believer, because they do not conform to a creed or confession.

Heaven forbid we hold to the Scriptures for truth. Many of them teach their families confessions rather than Scripture in devotional times. They would counter that they are teaching Scripture for the confession is based entirely on Scripture. Then, I would wonder, why you don't teach the Scripture and use the confession to show that the church has taught this truth before - not that I think those churches that taught reform theology were correct.

2. I do not believe that I can ever know the mind of God, but I wonder if He isn't hurt to the core when a person, saved by faith, determines that what He has been freely given is not good enough to satisfy God, but that he must add works to the mix to make it to heaven.

Problems with that thinking:

a. God's decrees were inadequate.

b. God's word is incorrect.

c. God's works are imperfect.

d. God's planning is deficient.

e. God's law was better than His grace.

f. God is really not up to the job of saving us.

And there are probably other points - the main point being, we are better at saving ourselves than God - what supreme arrogance the creature has to question and put himself above his Creator - uh oh, I guess that is what Satan did isn't it.

3. This passage brings up a pet point of mine. Just how are we saved? Are we saved by the act of accepting Christ? Are we saved by the believing in His death, burial and resurrection? Are we saved by knowing he was God?

This text is quite clear that none of those things are mentioned, but what is mentioned is that Abraham believed, and had faith in God's promise - in short Abraham believed God and what He said and trusted in that and that alone.

Some would counter with the Acts passage that states that there is no other name under heaven whereby we might be saved -- the name of Christ. I would suggest that this is so very true, but it is not that name that saves us, it is not believing in that name that saves us, it is the work of that one named Jesus Christ that saves us, as God said in His word. We are saved by faith in God, and that salvation is provided by Christ.

This doesn't directly bring up the next point, but I will.

4. If Christ's death is the provision of salvation, then just when were the Old Testament saints saved. Were they saved at the moment of belief? I personally do not believe they were. I believe that at the moment of their belief all was done to carry them through to heaven. I do, however, believe that they were not born again or regenerated at that moment of faith. How could they be? Christ had not died yet, there was no provision for them, and there was no way for them to enter into God's presence.

Indeed, that is the very reason for Sheol, that two compartment holding area for departed Old Testament saints. They were not entirely prepared to meet with God, so they were ushered into Abraham's bosom to await that work of the cross completed.

I don't expect you to accept this as Gospel, so would refer you to my book on regeneration on my website for the "REST OF THE STORY" as Paul Harvey would say it. This has a complete look at this thought of regeneration and when it occurred.

I might add that this is another area where reformed people "have the truth" and reject all other teaching. They have it in their head that regeneration is something other than being born again and so reject any thought of mine concerning regeneration - it is automatically wrong.

I discussed this at length one time and there were seldom Scriptures given to disprove what I had to say, only "statements of fact" that were not backed up by fact. (They view regeneration as a process whereby lost man is made a little spiritual so that he can understand the gospel. It is not actual rebirth, only preparation for the possibility of rebirth. They suggest that John the Baptist was regenerated when he moved in his mother’s womb - thus anyone can be regenerated at anytime, prior to believing faith.)

5. Many preachers today tip toe around their congregations as though they can't stir up anyone lest the giving drop and the salary be cut for the preacher. Paul tells them they are foolish, that they have been bewitched. He told them the truth. He told them they were fools. He told them they were tricked. How much clearer could he make the truth?

A preacher that made things that clear today in most churches would be replaced quite quickly. Thus we have little clarity of teaching in our churches today - few there are that will chance unemployment to assist their congregations into a true spiritual life.

We attended a church where the pastor was wearing khaki pants and a sport shirt. He said that he did not feel comfortable dressing that way for ministering - he blamed it on his elder board that told him to dress more casually. What happened to back bone, what happened to courage, what happened to right? Guess it is out and "get along with the paycheck writers" is in.

I suspect that is one reason I opted to be a tent maker all my life - I knew that boards would not like the truth and a stand for it.

6. Verse seven and eight bring up a question that we need to consider. "Therefore know that those of faith, these are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations through faith, preached the gospel before to Abraham, saying , "In you shall all nations be blessed."

What relationship is there between the Old Testament saint, via Abraham and the New Testament saint via Christ? This passage declares that we are sons of Abraham, that we will be "blessed with faithful Abraham." What does this mean for the believer today?

We know that we are all God's people whether Old or New Testament, but are we equals? We are equals in the spiritual sense of our relationship to God, though there will be some differences in how we will be treated in the end times. The Jews will occupy the land promised, and we will be in some other relationship to God and the Jews.

Are we equal in the respect that we will be given the promises of Israel? No, the above point in the end times proves that we will not receive the promises of Abraham and the Jews, only that we are blessed in the thought of being allowed salvation with the Jews.

If you look to the New Testament and notice how the Jews and gentiles and believers are spoken of, you will soon notice that there is a difference between the Jew and the Church age believer. This is the crux of dispensational teaching. If there is no difference between Israel and the Church then dispensations makes little difference.

The reform camp ignores the differences in the New Testament, ignores the literal promises to the Jews, and mixes Jewish and Church believer into one mess. Circumcision for all males becomes baptism for all, both male and female. Baptism becomes a rite for all ages, including infants, etc. The mixing of Israel and the church changes all sorts of things in ones belief system.

7. It seems to me that the Galatians had received the gospel and had settled into their new life and like many even today felt that there must be more. They may have found themselves in the boredom of the day to day world and felt that there had to be something more to this Christianity. They may have been open and looking for something new and exciting. Something to excite and stir the flesh seems to be the goal of most, even today.

Many today do the same thing. They may even get into daily Bible study and prayer, but become bored and seek more. This is the basis for much of the charismatic movement - excitement, lots of new stuff, lots to do, lots to seek.

Others find excitement in all the Bible studies and seminars and cruises etc. that the worldly church offers. Why not, everybody is doing it? The hand waving, the beat, the stirring of the mind rather than the spirit seems to be the thrill of our day. No matter what the Scripture teaches, if it feels good, then do it is the assumed command that they seek to fulfill.

The Christian life is what God wants it to be - Him and the individual and nothing more, why would any believer think they could add to that relationship anything of worth?

8. Abraham was saved by faith. Gen. 15.6 "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." and Rom. 4.3 "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." clearly show this.

The Life Application Bible notes suggest that the Judaizers were saying you must first become Jews, and then become Christians. This most likely is a true statement of the facts. How like some in our own day, that require you to jump through hoops of their own to be a part of their church. We have attended, briefly, several churches that required you to become part of their group before you could be part of the Church. They required that you be baptized by one of their group before you could join "THEIR" church. This in essence says that their church is the only true church and that all others are defective in some manner. Not unlike the Judaizers.

9. A little off the subject, but related to this thought is the fact that we believers today are not unlike those that were scattered at the tower of Babel. We have divided ourselves into so many splinters and splatters of Christianity that it takes volumes to list the groups, the splinters, and the sub splinters of groups of Christians today.

I am not making a case for denominationalism; I am saying that within orthodox, basic Bible believing people we are so splintered that we can't get along. The case of the group in point eight. I agree with them in almost every doctrine except the doctrine of the Universal church, which in my mind they would agree with me if they would understand the doctrine. They believe, due to their rejection of the universal church that only their church is valid to baptize. As a result of my not being baptized by one of their pastors, I a believer in every way, I a believer of 95% of their doctrine, I a believer in the same gospel as they, cannot partake of the Lord's table and celebrate what Christ did for all of us, in their church because I have not been "properly baptized" by one of their own.

Based on my inadequate baptism, I cannot be a member of their church, I cannot partake of the Lord's Table, and I cannot manifest my spiritual gifts in their midst. There just has to be something wrong in our thinking as believers today. Babel must have been an inherent part of man, or we certainly have not learned anything about ourselves since.

10. The keeping of law as rule for life is called "nomism" - does that trigger any thoughts? Antinomianism is the rule of life that there is no law for life - kind of like America today - live life any way you want, any old way will do it. There is no moral compass there is no truth, and there is no reason to follow any set of rules if we don't want to.

The two extent of the spectrum. We even see this in the church today. We have those that follow their prescribed laws and we have those that follow no law, not even God's guide, the Word.

11. In Verse five Paul mentions that the Spirit worked miracles in their midst. This is secondary to the Spirit himself. He made clear note that it was the Spirit that worked the miracles. This clarification may be due to the fact that miracles do not make something true. Miracles via the Spirit are true.

The Devil can do miracles: II Thess. 2.9-10 " [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." Also you could refer to the wonders that were done by Pharaoh's men when God was doing great things through Moses.

The point here and now, just because someone is doing miracles, do not assume he is of God. Many of the miracles done in God's name today are just plain falsehood and trickery. There are wondrous things done in the name of Black magic as well, so don't assume God is in something that you are told about just because it was wondrous or a miracle.

12. In verse five he relates the receiving of the Spirit directly with the point of salvation. This is a prime text to show that the gift of the Spirit is near synonymous with the theological point of salvation - justification etc. This disturbs any thought that it is a second work of grace at some other point in time.

It also is a clear point of proof that they were saved without the law, that by faith they received Christ and received the Spirit. They were true believers without the law.

NOTE: Concerning Scofield and Dispensationalism.

These are just some footnotes from his reference Bibles. The first is the one most use to prove he believed in two ways of salvation, and the rest are quotes that show that he did not.

from the Old Scofield Reference Bible on John 1:17 note: "The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, (Joh 1:12,13 3:36 Mt 21:37 22:24 Joh 15:22,25 Heb 1:2 1Jo 5:10-12) The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile (Ac 4:27)"

From page 1124 (Note on Jn. 1:17) of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "Under the former dispensation, law was shown to be powerless to secure righteousness and life for a sinful race (Gal. 3:21-22); now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteousness are received by faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior (Jn. 11:12-13; 5 :24; I Jn. 5:11-13), with holiness of life and good works following as the fruit of salvation (Jn. 15:16; Rom. 8:2-4; Eph. 2:8-10; Ti. 2:11-14)."

From page vii of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "As a further aid to comprehending the divine economy of the ages, a recognition of the dispensations is of highest value, so long as it is clearly understood that throughout all the Scriptures there is only one basis of salvation, i.e. by grace through faith; and that strict limits cannot be placed upon the terminations of all the dispensations because (1) there is some overlapping, and (2) the divinely-given stewardship may continue after the time-era of special testing has ended."

From page 3 of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "Before the cross man was saved in prospect of Christ's atoning sacrifice, through believing the revelation thus far given him. Since the cross man has been saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ in whom revelation and redemption are consummated."

From page 19 of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "In the continuance through the centuries of this stewardship of truth, believers of the church age are called upon to trust god as Abram did (Rom. 4:11, 16, 23-25; Gal. 3:6-9), and thus enter into the blessings of the covenant which inaugurated the dispensation of Promise."

From page 94 of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "...the law is not here proposed as a means of salvation ...."

From page 1211 of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "The Hebrew and Greek words for salvation imply the ideas of deliverance, safety, preservation, healing, and soundness [wholeness]. Salvation is the great inclusive word of the gospel, gathering into itself all the redemptive acts and processes, as justification, redemption, grace, propitiation, imputation, forgiveness, sanctification, and glorification. Salvation is in three tenses: (1) The believer has been saved from the guilt and penalty of sin (Lu 7:50; 1 Co 1:18; 2 Co 2:15; Eph 2:5,8; 2 Ti 1:9) is safe. (2) the believer is being saved from the habit and dominion of sin (Ro 6:14; Php 1:19, 2:12,13; 2 Th 2:13; Ro 8:2; Ga 2:19,20; 2 Co 3:18) And (3) The believer is to be saved in the sense of entire conformity to Christ. (Ro 13:11; Heb 10:36; 1 Pe 1:5; 1 Jo 3:2) Salvation is by grace through faith, is a free gift, and wholly without works (Ro 3:27-28, 4:1-8, 6:23; Eph 2:8) The divine order is: first salvation, then works (Eph 2:9,10; Tit 3:5-8)."

Again last night this question came up on a board where I took great pains to clarify Scofield's comments less than a month before. The person decided because Scofield was in error in that one instance that they should reject all he taught and that since Dispensationalism hangs in the balance of what Scofield taught then Dispensationalism was completely discredited.

That is kind of like saying, because one of my college professors made a mistake in what he said that all he ever said was false and that since he was teaching Calvinism, all Calvinistic teaching is false doctrine and to be rejected.

I hate to say it, but many reformed people have this line of illogical progression anytime they engage their brains and fingers to type or tongues to talk. They are brothers in Christ, but they act as if they are God making declarations from His holy throne in the heavens.