Am I a Dispy??

Seems like I remember forgetting that?! Must have been RC who said he would eat it...

Been 4-5 years since I read all those guys on the other side -- Sproul, Gerstner, Chilton, Gentry, et al.

Been 2-3 years since I've been around here as well...

 

Now that is a new one!:BangHead: :BangHead:

 

Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ]. Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will

I believe you need to read more about those who hold a Covenant Theology. The above statement is incorrect. Covenant Theology [At least one.] believes that there is a continuity between Spiritual Israel of The Old Testament and the Church of the New Testament. This is consistent with Paul's parable of the olive tree in Romans 11 and the Southern Baptist definition of the Church.

The Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 writes of the Church in Section VI as follows:

The New Testament speaks also of the Church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

 

OldReg, thanks for the clarification. Drop "(at least after the Tribulation)" and put "consistent" in the sentence as the second word to read: "The consistent distinction between Israel and the Church is a foundational sine-qua-non of dispensationalism." That would be better. OR, you obviously took more time with your post that I did with mine...
Chafer’s statement was published in his work "Dispensationalism" in 1951. Not sure that you would more recent dispensationalist making the same statement as regards the earthly and heavenly purposes. Personally, I would not subscribe to Chafer’s second sentence.

On the other hand, I would completely agree with Ryrie. My error in relegating the most significant part of this distinction to events that are yet future was an attempt to KISS (Keep It Short and Simple). My apologies, I erred.

As far as continuity between Israel and Church several comments: First, Israel is consistently portrayed as the unfaithful wife of Yahweh, the Church is consistently portrayed as the pure and spotless bride of Christ. Secondly, if the parable of the olive tree teaches a continuity rather that a contrast why does Paul then go on to specifically address Israel in verses 25-27?

If the church is a continuation of Israel, none of the above makes sense. To get a better idea of the absurdity of such a conclusion, substitute the word "church" for Israel in the above passage. What makes sense is that at some future point, Israel will recognize her Messiah and be saved in mass. Of course this also fits well with Zech 12:10 and chapters 13-14. Israel will recognize her Messiah and trust in the one who’s hands, feet, and side they pierced (13:6). He will return in power and glory and DELIVER a literal national Israel in the literal land of Israel (note the geographic references in 12:1; 13:1-2; 14:2-4).
As far as the common CT view, I may have stated it a bit imprecisely, but I do not believe that I was that far off base in my characterization of the CT position. Most CT’s do equate Israel and the church. Sorry if I am a bit rusty it has been a few years since I have worked on any of this.

In re the SBC statement of Faith, not being SBC, I had not noticed that portion of the BFM. But I would respectfully disagree with their inclusion of "all the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation". The references they cite, do not support their conclusion in this regard, I will list them all so you can check (Matthew 16:15-19; 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-42,47; 5:11-14; 6:3-6; 13:1-3; 14:23,27; 15:1-30; 16:5; 20:28; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 3:16; 5:4-5; 7:17; 9:13-14; 12; Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-11,21; 5:22-32; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-14; 3:1-15; 4:14; Hebrews 11:39-40; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Revelation 2-3; 21:2-3).

 

As opposed to spiritualizing many of the OT prophecies that speak of a future kingdom for Israel?

Taking an acceptable but less common interpretation of tachos and eggus is far more consistent with the text than spiritualizing so many detailed and specific prophecies...

 

Though none of the references listed to support this statement in the BFM support this conclusion, the phrase "from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation" seems to come from Rev 5:9...

However in context, (AH HAH! That’s the word I used to use along with "literal grammatical historical..." - CONTEXTUAL!) the verse makes absolutely no reference to the "redeemed of all ages". Nothing in the context gives any indication that OT saints are included in this song.

...

 

rjprince

Two quick points on post 24.

1. I said there was continuity between Spiritual Israel and the Church, not the nation Israel and the Church.

2. Hasn't the Deliverer already come out of Zion? I believe His name was Jesus Christ and he came about 2000 years ago. Scripture states:

1. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. John 1:11

2. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24

3. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: Romans 15:8

4. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Galations 4:4, 5

 

I understood that. My focus was on NATIONAL ISRAEL as yet having a future in God’s plan and your stopping with your interpretation of Rom 11:17-24 and failing to address the fact that the continuing verses speak of national Israel, NOT any kind of continuity between Spiritual Israel and the Church (may address “Spiritual Israel” idea later). How does “all Israel shall be saved” Rom 11:26 not apply to NATIONAL ISRAEL?

So? That in no way fulfills Zech 12-14! Or perhaps I should say in no way completely fulfills Zech. And if that was the fulfillment, why does Paul yet speak of ALL ISRAEL being saved AFTER the fulness of the Gentiles has come in?


Back to —

Regarding subpoints 1-5 –
Israel mourns as one who has lost an only son. Did that happen? No. They rejected Him. This was your subpoint 1, under 2.


Not sure how sub 2 relates, but while we are at it, let me give you another reference, Matt 10:5-7 “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. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Jesus preached to the Jews first and commanded the 12 to do the same. Paul did the same thing in Acts, till the Jews rejected. Read the Zech passage, it speaks of a future repentance for Israel, that did not happen at His first advent.


Sub 3-5 – good points all, but do not relate to “All Israel shall be saved” and certainly not to Jer 31:31 (did I mention that one yet?).

How was that fulfilled at His first advent? The deliverance of Israel is yet future and fully in accord with a literal understanding of God’s promises to Abraham and David regarding a literal kingdom and a literal reign. How can one just disregard all of this and call it a “spiritual” interpretation?

 

I don't believe I have spiritualized any Old Testament prophecies. If so show me where.

 

I believe that the bible teaches these principles

1. As man has lived, and progressed (I aint sure progressed is the correct word, but you get my meaning I am sure), God has dealt with him differently. God hasnt changed one iota, but man has, thus, the different "ages" we live in. Paul even alludes to different ages several times in his writings.

2. God made promises to Abraham about Isreal, and I believe God will keep those promises. I also believe that we, the gentile church, have inherited the promises of isreal by faith, but we havent replaced Isreal. Jews can become part of the "church" by believing in Christ, but that has nothing to do with the seperate promises God made to isreal as a whole.

3. I do believe that God will restore Isreal as a world power, and that anyone that opposes isreal will face the wrath of God.

4. I do believe in the 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth. I dont believe man or the earth will ever be destroyed, I do believe it will be restored like unto the "garden of Eden".

5. God does have different covenants with the church than with isreal. Individaul Jews can accept Christ and be a part of the church, and eventually, the nation of Isreal as a whole will accept Christ, but in the meantime, God is dealing with the Gentile church in a seperate, but equal covenant, brought to us by Jesus. We didnt replace the Jews in the Abramic covenant, but we were granted Grace aside from it.

6. I do believe the literal words of the Bible as the absolute Word of God. Too many folks try to 'spiritualize' the actual intent and historic wording, and changing it to fit their individual beliefs. I believe that we are to adapt to the teachings of the bible, and not adapt the bible to fit our beliefs. There is only one doctrine that is right.

If this makes me a "dispy" then I plead guilty.

AJ

 

I think this is a crucial point. To hold your view you must believe the New Covenant of Jer. 31 has NOT been fulfilled. Is this a fair statement?

 

Not you specifically, CTs in general. A response to your comment re my statement about following a consistent literal grammatical historical (contextual) hermeneutic.

 

Would agree pretty much with 1-3. There will be a new heaven and a new earth as the first are destroyed. Will have to give ref later.

The Church is not Gentile. The church contains both Jew and Gentile as one in one body. The disctinctions among believers in the church do not exist. We are in the "times of the Gentiles" in that God is focusing on the Church in this age, not the nation of Israel. The dry bones have assembled, sinew, flesh, skin, but no life yet, at least not as a nation.

I am a dispy, but don't usually tout the label without being asked, and even then I usually qualify. I would not classify myself as a "leaky dispensationalist" as J. MacArthur has done. Not that I am ashamed or unsure of my position, but I prefer to specifically state the points to which I adhere since there is a great deal of misunderstanding about dispensationalism. To even use the word really sets some people on edge (to put it mildly). If they are going to be upset with me, I would rather it be about a specific point or position that I have clearly enumerated rather that a perception that is based on the use of a term that they may or may not understand.

As far as guilty, I am guilty of standing on the truth of God's Word and sometimes guilty of misunderstanding God's Word, but always committed to working to learn it better!

 

Hi Grasshopper! Wondered if you were still around! Glad to see you!

Yes. That is a fair statement. The NC is with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. When it has been fulfilled ALL ISRAEL will be saved and they shall no man teach his neighbor for they shall ALL know HIM from the least to the greatest.

Could accept a partial fulfillment view to the degree that Jews believe and are present in the church, a remnant, firstfruits, etc. But numerous details of Jer 31 remain to be fulfilled in the future theocratic kindgom (Theocratic, I think that was the word Alva McClain used?).

The NC has been ratified by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus on the cross, and the church benefits from the effects/results of His death, but NONE of the Covenants were for the CHURCH. All of the Covenants pertained to Israel (Rom 9). Answered this here, but should probably start a new thread or maybe a poll. Hey, that is how we can find out what the Word really teaches! Vote on it to see what is most popular, then we can know the will of God for certain!??? Or maybe we should just stick with the TEXT, not that a poll might not be interesting. Seems like we did one 3-4 years ago, a mind is a terrible thing to waste (and the corollary is also true that a waist is a terrible thing to mind).

Sorry, this is just a quick one. All I have time for now. Oh BTW do not hold to a two part view of the NC. It is all pertaining to Israel with benefits and blessings for the Gentiles as well.

RJP

 

I did word that wrong. i dont mean that the church is only for the gentiles, what I do mean is that the church includes gentiles, while the covenant with Isreal does not. We are children of Isreal in a spiritual sense, but not in the actual physical sense.

And I do agree with you 100% that we have to stand on what we believe is God's Word, even if we misunderstand some of it, we have to stand on that misunderstanding until we learn different.

As far as identifying myself with dispensationalism, I probably fall into the older traditional group and not with the progressive dispensationalists.


AJ

 

I am DEFINITELY NOT PROGRESSIVE D.

RJP

 

Thought about this a bit and want to add a thought...


I try not to take a strong stand unless I have spent a fair amount of time on an issue. Sometimes the more boldly we have proclaimed something, the less willing we are to go back and look at it more extensively. And I have also boldly proclaimed things that I was taught and then had to go back and reverse my position after a thorough personal study. If I am paying attention, now I tend to say, "I think this is what Scripture teaches on the matter, but I probably need to spend a bit more time on it before being too dogmatic".


I am reminded of one preachers sermon notes that were found after the sermon one Sunday morning -- at one point in the margin was this note: "Point weak, YELL LOUD!"

RJP

 

Dispensationalists make a big deal of following a consistent literal grammatical historical hermeneutic, even though Ryrie uses the term "face value" whatever that is. Tell me. How do you interpret the following in a consistent literal grammatical historical hermeneutic?

John 6:48-58
48. I am that bread of life.
49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

 

rjprince

regarding the fulfillment of the New Covenant [Jeremiah 31] you are disputing Scripture [Hebrews 8]. Now apply that consistent literal grammatical historical hermeneutic to Hebrews 8: 6-13:

6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediatorof a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Verse 6. is the mediator, present tense.
Verse 10. I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, Holy Spirit.
Verse 13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away., destruction of temple in 70 AD.

 

Same old same old...

A consistent literal grammatical historical hermeneutic does not deny the use of figures of speech or illustrations

That Jesus was using figures is without question. To charge Ryrie with failing to recognize this is either ignorant or unethical.

RJP