The Jerusalem Post started it. First, they reported that evangelical leader John Hagee had convinced Jerry Falwell that religious Jews can be saved without conversion to Jesus Read about it here.

Then, the Jerusalem Posted reported that both Hagee and Falwell deny that they believe Jews can be saved without Jesus Read about it here.

My first question is, if it's wrong, where did the first story come from? The Jerusalem Post is usually trustworthy -- at least I thought so. My second question is, if the Jerusalem Post was wrong the first time, could it also be wrong the second?

I did some research. It turns out the Jerusalem Post may have been both right and wrong. When it comes to Falwell, I believe the last article was right -- Falwell does believe Jews need Jesus to be saved. I've never seen anything to indicate different and his statements in the article reinforces this position. When it comes to Hagee, the last article may be wrong -- Hagee does appear to not believe Jews need Jesus -- at least in regards to salvation Read about it here.

Now, what does all this mean. My first thought was it could have been a setup -- at least in regard to Falwell. You see, the accusation was made publically in an Israeli publication, so Falwell was forced to respond in same. And, I can't help but wonder if that's what somebody wanted -- Falwell to state his position on salvation publicly, in an Israeli publication.

Something else may have been stirred up in the dust -- the issues of "dual covenant" theology. What this theology means is, the Jewish people can still be saved under their first, old covenant. The rest of us can't -- we need Jesus. And, it looks like two very big wheels of Christianity, Hagee and Falwell, may be on opposite sides of this issue. Hagee's a dually and Falwell's not.

For the most part, we Christians reject the dual idea. After all, if there's two ways to get to heaven, why did Jesus have to die in the first place -- not to mention all the multitude of martyrs that followed. But, when I was seriously studying dispensationalism, this dual theology issue jumped up and hit me in the face. And, dispensationalism is the doctrinal foundation to today's most popular views on Bible prophecy -- such as the Left Behind books.

You see, dispensationalism correctly teaches that God has two separate purposes for the church and for Israel. However, it doesn't stop there. It also adds that God doesn't work with both at the same time. So, according to their view, the church has to first be removed from earth before God can proceed with His final plans with Israel. In other words, the church and Israel are under different dispensations. If I have it right, when the church is removed, Israel will either remain in, or fall back to, the dispensation of the old covenant for the last seven-years of prophecy. And, in my mind, this is a form of dual covenant theology -- whether they admit it or not.

Let's go back to our first questions. Why would the Jerusalem Post be reporting false information about Falwell? Did they want him to make a public statement about his views on salvation? Or, could the Post have wanted more? Could it have wanted to exposed the doctrinal difference on salvation between these two mega-evangelicals? In other words, was it a setup or what?

There is, of course, another possibility. It was just poor reporting.

From the Jerusalem Post?