We believe in a doctrine called dispensationalism.
In other words, we believe in dividing verses to the right group of people and the right time period.
Because if you don't divide the verses, then you're going to combine them all together
and come up with a bunch of major wrong doctrine.
You see, the most damnable heresy of dispensationalism
is this teaching that people were saved differently throughout the Bible,
that there are different gospels.
So there are several different gospels in the Bible.
There's at least five different gospels in the Bible.
So that's why it's so important to understand dispensationalism
to see where are we in the Bible and which gospel is to us.
But the problem with that is that in the New Testament in Acts chapter 10 verse 43,
the Bible says that to Him, speaking of Christ,
give all the prophets witness,
that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.
That's talking about the prophets of the Old Testament
where the dispensationalists will say,
well, they had a different gospel. It was by faith and by works.
But the Bible tells us that their message was
that whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.
The Bible is very clear that a man is not justified by the deeds of the law
and that it's not by works of righteousness, which we have done,
but according to His mercy, He saved us.
And Romans chapter 4 flat out destroys this dispensational argument.
So it says here that if Abraham were justified by works,
he hath whereof the glory, but not before God.
For what sayeth the scripture? Abraham believed God,
and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,
his faith is counted for righteousness.
And then David, he was in the Old Testament,
and David said that he spake of the blessedness of the man
unto him God imputed the righteousness without works.
How in the world could we use David as an illustration of being saved without works
if they were saved by works in the Old Testament?
Can you explain that to me?
And then Jesus, who brought in the New Testament,
and He was coming at the tail end of the Old Testament,
said that 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.
See how this dispensational salvation is the most foolish, unbiblical garbage
that just completely contradicts what we're reading in scripture.
And they say ridiculous things like,
people are saved the same in the Old Testament as the New Testament,
or people in the Old Testament are saved by looking forward to the cross,
and people in the New Testament are saved by looking backwards to the cross.
Just ridiculous things.
And so from before the Old Testament, during the order of Melchizedek,
it was by faith, not by works.
During the Old Testament, David said it was by faith, not by works.
And right even before the New Testament even started at the death of Christ,
Jesus is saying it's faith, not by works.
Specifically, Robert Breaker will say salvation was different in the Old Testament.
In fact, with Adam and Eve, it was by works.
Because they did not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
But here's the problem with that.
Before Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,
they weren't sinners.
They were innocent, meaning they were not in need of salvation.
It wasn't after they ate of the tree.
The Bible says,
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.
And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.
So how can it be that they were saved by not eating of the tree,
when they didn't need salvation until after they ate of the tree.
They weren't sinners until after they ate of the tree.
You go to 1 Corinthians 15, 1 through 4,
it tells us the only way to be saved is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
How could someone have been saved back here that way,
if Jesus hadn't died yet, wasn't buried, and rose again?
And he says, see, the prophets had a different message.
They didn't preach the death, burial, and resurrection.
They didn't talk about Christ.
They said they had to be saved by works.
Well, let's see if that's true.
Go to Acts chapter 26.
Having therefore obtained help of God,
I continue into this day,
witnessing both the small and great,
saying none other things,
than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.
Now, what do they say?
Look at verse 23,
that Christ should suffer,
and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead,
and should show light unto the people, unto the Gentiles.
That's the prophets.
That's Moses in the Old Testament.
So Moses was preaching that,
the prophets were preaching that,
John the Baptist preached that,
and the Apostle Paul preached that.
He says, I'm not saying anything different.
But you know what Robert Breaker says?
No, these guys are liars.
The prophets didn't talk about Jesus.
They're liars.
So if this is the same message that the prophets spoke and Moses spoke,
why didn't he insert works as well?
Because they say, no, it's by believing and by works as well.
But what was the witness that threw his name?
Threw his name?
Well, they didn't know the name of Jesus.
He was called the Lord.
Amen.