Calvinistic Baptists should be Dispensatdional.

Having looked briefly through those verses, I cannot seriously take them as proof. They all assume the position you are trying to prove. They do not involve accurate exegesis. And that is the problem. I am not going to take the time to answer them all. It simply isn't worth my time. Perhaps someone else will. But the bottom now, as always, is that the text of Scripture has to be given a higher place than this. We cannot force a position on teh text.

Just glancing through them indicates that you have not dealt accurately with the context in many cases, and in others have not dealt accurately with their NT usage. If you can live with that, then so be it. I simply cannot. I can agree to disagree with you on this. I simply personally cannoot stomach the idea that those verses can be handled in such a manner.

 

Larry

So it all comes down to your eschatological view. You believe the end times are future, therefore you MUST push all end-time events to the future. But what does scripture say about the last days and end of the age/

Acts2:16 but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel:17 And it shall be in the last days , saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams:

The Last Days are there at Pentecost.

Hebrews 11 God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners,2 hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;

Jesus showed up at the end of days.

Heb 9 26 else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Jesus dies at the end of the ages.

1 Cor 10:11 Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come .

1st century

1 Pet. 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore of sound mind, and be sober unto prayer:

What are all things? What does "at hand" mean?

Here is an interesting verse:

John 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

Why does He refer to him as an Israelite indeed? Here is what Dan Norcini says about this verse:

The Lord Jesus calls Nathaniel an Israelite indeed or in truth. In contrast to the vast majority of the nation, Nathaniel was a true son of Jacob whom had seen the heavens opened centuries before with the angels of God ascending and descending upon a ladder. In the same manner in which God had changed this man of guile and duplicity into a true child of God and renamed him Israel, so too would Nathaniel be counted among those who had been recipients of the same work of divine grace in their heart? Clearly then it is no stretching of the Scriptures to categorically state that among the vast numbers of those who make up national Israel and call themselves Jews, there are those who belong to God and those who do not but are rather children of the devil. What else does the term, "synagogue" of Satan refer to?

He continues in his article:

It is a sad commentary on the state of the church these days that so few professing Christians are knowledgeable of the high and lofty calling that the church occupies in the eternal purpose of God. One cannot read the letters of the apostles and but be struck by the eminency that they attached to it and the esteem in which they held it. The glowing terms they employed to describe it were calculated to instill in the minds of their readers its exalted position as the spouse of Christ and the very temple in which He will display the majesty of His glory throughout all ages.
Yet tragically, there are untold thousands of Christians who are blind to this wondrous truth about themselves and instead are obsessively preoccupied with national Israel and the Jewish race. They speak in ravishing terms of this Israel and incessantly search the headlines coming out of that part of the world feverishly anticipating the fulfillment of Biblical "end-times" prophecies. Indeed to listen to them speak, one gets the distinct impression that many of them would gladly trade their physical birth-parents if they could so that they might be born of the stock of Abraham and become Jews themselves! Such is the obsequious attitude that is fostered among many of this persuasion that they display an almost god-like reverence for those Jews whom they deem as "completed", i.e., Jews who have become converts to Christianity and now own Jesus of Nazareth as their true Messiah. In their minds, these completed Jews can do no wrong, can never err in their understanding of the Scriptures nor be misguided in any way. Somehow, they are more "spiritual" than those poor Gentiles such as themselves who were not so highly favored as to be born of the "chosen race".
In the words of the apostle Paul, "This ought not to be", and this is putting it mildly, for in reality, it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on their part of God’s redemptive purpose in Christ. Failing to grasp the significance of the New Covenant and its consummation of all the promises made to the patriarchs, they continually confound the types, figures and shadows of the Old Testament with their fulfillment in the New. They insist that there must be a "literal, earthly" fulfillment of all these promises and prophecies if one is to believe the Word of God. To do otherwise in their minds is to handle the Scriptures deceitfully and to fall into the plague of "modernism" which has so infected the present day church scene.

He goes on to speak on types and "spiritualizing":

For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and that rock was Christ…Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." (1Cor 10: 1-4, 11).

When one considers what Paul has just stated here, it is simply astounding. Spiritual food, spiritual drink, spiritual rock, Christ; where are any of these things mentioned specifically in that story out of Exodus? We see manna from heaven and we see water flowing from a physical rock; we see passing through the Red Sea and a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night; but where is this baptism that Paul describes? The point is that the apostle is showing us is the proper method to interpret the Old Testament. Not only did the story literally and really happen to national Israel, but it also holds a higher, spiritual meaning which the Holy Spirit intended it for it to have.

Take another example from the writings of the same apostle in the letter to the Galatians.

"Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking: for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For it is written, ‘Rejoice, Barren woman who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; for more are the children of the desolate than of the one who has a husband.’ And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say? ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.’ So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman." (Gal 4: 21-31).

Notice once again how Paul does not hesitate to "spiritualize" the entire incident recorded in the book of Genesis. Where does it say there in Genesis that Hagar is a covenant much less Mount Sinai? For that matter, where does it say that Sarah is the new covenant and is Mt. Zion? The truth is that it does not. However, the apostle Paul tells us plainly that it does. Since the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus being the cornerstone (Eph 2:20), we do not have the "luxury" of so easily dismissing his manner of interpretation.
One can clearly see a pattern developing here in which the actual incidents recorded in the Old Testament have a two-fold meaning. There is the obvious, literal, natural meaning and then there is the hidden, higher, spiritual meaning. The first can be readily gleaned from anyone who takes the time to simply read the accounts and accepts at face value the story and/or ordinances recorded there. The latter can only be discerned through the insight provided by the Holy Spirit who clearly revealed to the apostles the manner in which He intended the Old Testament to be rightly understood.


So what about this verse:

For they are not all Israel who are who are of Israel" (Romans 9: 6 NKJV).

This seems to indicate 2 Israels. 1 physical(old covenant) 1 spiritual(new covenant).

 

RKPHD,

Just because people didn't understand the typology of the OT in their time, does not make God a deceiver any more than Jesus was a deceiver for using obscure parables which the disciples usually misunderstood.

My consistent hermenuetic is that the New Testament explains the Old. Sometimes scriptures are literal, sometimes typological. The New Testament clarifies how we should understand these things when the OT is quoted--as Dave has so thouroughly pointed out in his previous post.

Why should I limit myself to an OT understanding of the OT? especially when I can take advantage of further revelation in the NT?

In Christ,

Tim

 

Actually, it all comes down to your hermeneutic.

[]/qb]No, I believe we are living in the last days and have been for 2000 years. But the end of the last days is not here yet. Certainly we should be able to agree on that.

But notice how many things in Joel 2 did not take place at Pentecost. That tells us that there is more to come.

I am not going to comment on all your verses or your article. Suffice it to say I have been down that road many times and still maintain that sound exegesis is the only solution. So long as exegesis is carried out in view of a position then results will be tainted. Exegesis must be carried out to see what the text says, not to support a previously held position.

No one denies that. But you misinterpret it. The first Israel is a subset of the second Israel. The first Israel does not include anyone who is not in ethnic Israel.

 

I love this argument. If the Last Days are entering their 2004th year then the term is meaningless. According to you all the futurist preachers out their who say we are now living in the Last Days is doing nothing but saying the obvious. Since everyone from Jesus to Calvin to Jack Van Impe have all lived in the Last Days. Do we also live in the "last hour" that John spoke about?

Of course your not, you rarely do. You challenge people to prove things from scripture and when they do you say you don't have time to deal with them.

So true!

 

Covenant theology ususally does equate Israel with the church, but that's really not what we're contending here. Rather we're saying that the newborn church contained the faithful remnant of Israel. So we agree with the conclusion of the apostle Paul--since the church is joined to that faithful remnant--we all together inherit the promises given to Abraham (Rom. 4:12-16, Eph. 2:11-19).

Tim

 

ou

I was going to mention Galatians 6:16 but someone beat me to it. As I read scripture I don't see the NT writers having much problem using OT terms to refer to the current day church. There was mention of a consistent interpretations needing to be used and that got me to thinking, what is stop someone from ending up at ultra-dispensationalism if applying the framework of dispensational thought? Seems to me that is the logical conclusion of dispensational thinking. At what point do you stop dividing up scripture?

 

Dave,

AMEN!!

To all: Let you know, that I am NOT a Replacement Theology. I do not agree that defines, Church replace Israel. No, Church does not replace Israel. Israel is Church, Church is Israel.

I suggest you, to read Galatians, Ephesians and Hebrews in the New Testament did explain about the covenant and the sacrifice. Christ already a new covenant with many through His blood by Calvary.

Old covenant already fade away, now we are under the new covenant - Heb. 8:13.

God's covenant is not just for the Jews of Israel only. God's covenant is for all nations - Gen. 17:4-7.

God's covenant does not limited to the Jews of Israel only.

Many dispensationalists believe that. But not what the Bible really teaching it.

Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 3:8 that the God's covenant is for all nations both Jew and Gentile nations.

Gal. 3:14 tells us, that we(Gentiles ) are already receiving the blessing through God's covenant by our faith in Jesus Christ.

Gal. 3:16 tells us, that the seeds are many from Old Testament saints to New Testament saints, but many are ONE - Jesus Christ. We are belong to Christ's seed.

Gal. 3:22 tells us, it promises that we are blong to God's covenant through Jesus Christ by believe and faith upon Him.

Gal. 3:26-29 tells us, No matter which Jew or Gentile, yet, both are all children of God through the faith in Jesus Christ. Both Jews and Gentiles whosoever believe on Jesus Christ, both are ONE together into God's family through the covenant.

Romans chapter 11 tells us, that God does not forsake Jews, but, God removed unbelief Jews from the tree, and added Gentiles unto the tree to join with Jews together through the faith in Jesus Christ. It is happening right now. SO..... all Israel shall be saved - Romans 11:26, that will be completed at the second advent oof Christ. The builting of the Church(Matt. 16:18) will be finished at the second advent.

I hope that you understand what the Bible teaching us about the covenant and salvation.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

The reason why you think it fails to have meaning is because you don't understand what it means to begin with. The last days were here in the first century and the end of teh last days is marked by Christ's coming and the destruction of sin.

In my close to 8000 posts on this board and I have dealt with Scripture ad nauseum. To go through a laundry list of Scriptures for people who are not interested in reading what I have to say is not productive for me. If you have one or two of your best texts you want me to deal with, I will do so. I have dealt with this stuff time and time again. But as I said in the other thread, neither you nor I are prepared to be convinced of the other's position. I can't speak for your reason for that; I can say that my reason is the lack of evidence that your side presents. I could spend all day going through those passages and it will not make any difference to you, will it?

I have shown in every text I have dealt with that your side's reading of it involves things that are not in the text, or in many cases contradict the text (as I just did with Dan 9). I have dealt with the text. You can say a lot of things about me, but you can't say I haven't dealt with the text. You might not agree with my conclusions, but I have drawn them and have shown them from the text.

 

ou

I was going to mention Galatians 6:16 but someone beat me to it.</font>[/QUOTE]Gal 6:16 is a verse that shows a clear distinction between the church and Israel, which supports the conclusion that Israel is not the church.

The text always stops us at the place we need to stopped if we listen to it. The problem comes, on both sides, from failig to listen to the limits of the text.

 

Paul described God's covenant people by using the figure of the olive tree. Some of the branches were broken off because of unbelief, but believing Gentiles were grafted in among the remnant of Israel, the remnant according to the election of grace. The believing remnant of Israel didn't constitute a new "olive tree," but simply retained their position as God's covenant people. The Gentiles, then, were grafted into the same olive tree off of which disobedient Israel was cut. The church, then, far from being a new institution, is but a continuance of the faithful remnant of Israelites along with believing Gentiles. Dispensationalism seems to overlook the important fact that those Israelites who did not receive Jesus as the Messiah were actually cut off from the believing remnant and replaced by believing Gentiles. Instead, Dispensationalism brings in a new institution, the church, consisting of the elect remnant of Israel and elect Gentiles. According to Dispensationalism, then, the believing remnant of Israel was cut off and pushed into a whole new program with the Gentiles. In that scenario, the only ones who retain their original position are those Jews who cried, "Let Him be crucified!"

 

I agree.

I disagree.

It does not saying which verses of the covenant speak to one tiny nation - Israel. God told Abraham, that he is the father of many nations, that mean he is the father of faith world. That means, it include Church as well.

The coonext of Galatians chapter 3 telling us about the covenant(promise) is include both Jew and Gentile whosever believe on Jesus Christ, both are ONE - God's family. So, therefore, God's covenant is include Church very obivously.

'Church' is the body of Christ of every nations include Israel, whosever believed in Him, they are God's family through the covenant.

That is so simple.

Dispensationalism teaching makes look so complex and confusion. The Bible does not support dispensationalism doctrine. Because men's teaching is much conflict with the Bible, not what it saying.

God only have ONE plan of salvation for all ages over the world by the faith through Jesus Christ by Calvary, that's simple.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

p.s. russkellyphd, probably, I misunderstand what you talk about the covenant. I think, in your mind, that several verses of the covenant apply to the 'national blessings' is Israel, bot the church. Am I correct according what you talking about?