Dispensationalism - Sine Qua Non 1 of 3, a Israel and Church Distinction

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by rjprince, Mar 31, 2006.

  1. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the first of a planned three posts on what Ryrie calls the sine qua non (absolutely indispensable part/without which it would not be) of Dispensationalism (D). This addresses the first sine qua non, a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church.

    C.C. Ryrie writes:

    A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct. This is stated in different ways by both friends and foes of dispensationalism. Fuller says that ‘the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity’ [Daniel P. Fuller, “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism” (Th.D. diss, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, 1957), p. 20]. A.C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God [Arno C. Gaebelein, “The Gospel of Matthew” (New York: Our Hope, 1910), 1:4]. Chafer summarized it as follows:

    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... Over against this, the partial dispensationalist, though dimly observing a few obvious distinctions, bases his interpretation on the supposition that God is doing but one thing, namely, the general separation of the good from the bad, and, in spite of all the confusion this limited theory creates, contends that the earthly people merge into the heavenly people; that the earthly program must be given a spiritual interpretation or disregarded altogether. [L.S. Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas Seminary Press, 1936), 8-9].

    This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and the one who does will (C.E.B. Cranfield is a rare exception).

    QUOTED from Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995) p. 39.


    So, what think ye? Is there a distinction between Israel and the church in this age? In the future?

    PLEASE NOTE: Involved in this is the issue of premil v. postmil v. amil. Also involved is the issue of one general judgement for all men v. multiple judgements for different groups. PLEASE try to avoid these and stay within the narrow confines of the topic of Israel and the Church as much as possible. Otherwise the thread will get so broad as to cause it to loose some value as a topic for discussion and debate. If you feel a need to branch of into these other areas, please start new threads... as I have done.

    Also note: I plan to start threads on the 2nd and 3rd areas that Ryrie includes under the sine qua non of D as well – the literal hermeneutic (literal/grammatical/historical) and the underlying purpose of God in the World. Please work on this one till I get the other two posted.

    Also note: I am citing Ryrie because in my estimation he is the preeminent writer from the classic (normative) Dispensational perspective in our current day. If I were posting a link on the merits of paedobaptism, I would cite the writer most widely accepted from within that school of thought. The issue would not be whether or not I agreed with him, it would be, "Does his work best represent those who hold the position he is presenting?" It would be grossly unfair to paedobaptists to define their position solely from the writings of those who attack the concept. Obviously I am not a big fan of paedobaptism. Unfortunately, some of those who reject D have come to do so on the basis of the presentation of D mainly within the writings of those who attack D. For these reasons, I will be citing Ryrie to begin these three threads.

    One final caveat, please do not deal with this issue by using this thread to attack Darby, or anyone else connected with D. If you feel you must attack Darby or someone else, by all means start your own thread. While on this one, please let’s try to deal with the relevant Scriptures and limit our discussions to these. AND, I do realize that in dealing with these passages we may not be able to keep from the 2nd aspect, the issue of literal historical grammatical (to which I add contextual) interpretation which I plan to develop in the second thread.
     
  2. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    According to Ryrie, the New Covenant of Jer. 31 has not been established, so what "New Covenant" did Jesus establish? Are there two New Covenants?
     
  3. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    GH,

    This is a side issue, relevant, but side none-the-less. Start a new thread. I will answer you there. Did this before, but well over a year ago, before my son Matthew got sick...
     
  4. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Hardly a side issue. Goes directly to the question of does God have one dealing with the Church and another with Israel:

    C.C. Ryrie writes:

    “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct. This is stated in different ways by both friends and foes of dispensationalism. Fuller says that ‘the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity’ [Daniel P. Fuller, “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism” (Th.D. diss, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, 1957), p. 20]. A.C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God [Arno C. Gaebelein, “The Gospel of Matthew” (New York: Our Hope, 1910), 1:4]. Chafer summarized it as follows:

    If the New Covenant of Jer.31 was made by Christ and is in force today then Ryrie and other dispies who claim it is still future and for national Israel have major problems.

    Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,
    Jer 31:32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;
    Jer 31:33 but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
    Jer 31:34 And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says Jehovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

    Not sure where you wish to take this thread if Jer 31 is a side issue.
     
  5. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a distinction between the two at the present time. There will not be a distinction in the future.
     
  6. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's pretty clear. distinction, Israel, church, this age, future.

    I guess I would add that if the Rapture occurs soon, then the Trib and 1,000 year reign are not that distant. The distinction between "this age" and "future" may get pretty blurred.
     
  7. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grasshopper,

    OK. You are right. The NC is crucial here. Could debate it for pages and pages, in fact, if I recall, about 15-16 mos ago, we did. So be it.

    Jer 31 clearly says that the NC is between God and the houses of Israel and Judah, the same as the Mosaic Covenant referenced in the same passage. When it is in effect, God says, “I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know Me”.

    If the NC is in effect now, why do not ALL know Him? If the NC is in effect now, why do we need to continue to teach the Word of God?

    The NC was ratified on the cross, just as the Abrahamic Covenant was ratified in Genesis 15, even though it is not fully in effect yet. The provisions of the AC included blessings for “all families of the earth” but the covenant was not with all families of the earth, it was with Abraham and his descendants, through Isaac and Jacob. Hebrews affirms that the NC is with Israel and Judah.

    On the Cross, Jesus ratified the NC , but it is not yet in effect. It will not come into effect until the house of Israel looks upon the One they pierced and mourns for Him as one mourns for their only son. In that day, all Israel shall be saved and the times of the Gentiles shall come to an end. Jesus will return and stand on the Mount of Olives which shall cleave in two. Then the NC will go into effect, but not till then. The blood which ratified the NC also provides for salvation for all who believe. Paul preached that Jesus was the Messiah. He preached to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles. All who believed had eternal life through faith in His Name through His blood, but the NC is still not in effect, though all believers are experiencing the benefits of the NC though not specifically parties of the covenant.

    Yep. I know there is a lot in there and I know that I did not give references to back it all up yet. All in due time, I am sure.

    Just one more thought that I recall from the last discussion of this. Scripture is the final authority here. Not your perceptions, not my perceptions, not the majority opinion of commentators, not how the bulk of Christendom has understood it through the ages. Until the reformation, the bulk of professing Christendom thought that salvation was through “the church”.

    That’s all for now. Probably won’t get to write much more this weekend. Lot going on...
     
  8. Mel Miller

    Mel Miller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Friends,

    My post on the Rom.9-11 question applies here:

    Calvibaptist,

    Still very well put as we do agree to this point:

    "The Deliverer will come out of Zion and all Israel will be saved. This is what Romans 11 says in plain English. Plain, normative, literal interpretation".

    I do not know if the Israel's remnant "saved"
    AFTER
    Christ appears will belong to the Body/Bride
    of Christ, or not.

    The answer would determine when these saved
    Jews receive their glorified bodies and whether
    they will be part of the Bride that inhabits
    the New Jerusalem OR part of the eternal
    kingdom which the sheep nations inherit at the
    END of the Millennium.

    But who will populate the Kingdom?

    This is the heart of my question as to "what
    is God's overall purpose" during the Millennium?

    The answer to this question is what separates
    Calvinism and Progressive Dispensationalism.

    Mel www.lastday.net
     
  9. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Answering would lead to yet another Calvinist debate.

    Is that not the work of the Holy Spirit?

    1Jo 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.
    1Jo 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth.

    Jo 2:27 But the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true and no lie, and as He has taught you, abide in Him.

    Joh 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.
    Joh 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a lance, and instantly there came out blood and water.
    Joh 19:35 And he who saw bore record, and his record is true. And he knows that he speaks true, so that you might believe.
    Joh 19:36 For these things were done so that the Scripture might be fulfilled , "Not a bone of Him shall be broken."
    Joh 19:37 And again another Scripture says, "They shall look upon Him whom they pierced."

    So the New Covenant is not yet in effect yet the writer of Hebrews quotes from Jer. 31:

    Heb 10:15 The Holy Spirit also is a witness to us; for after He had said before,
    Heb 10:16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord; I will put My Laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"
    Heb 10:17 also He adds, "their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more."
    Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


    Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been without fault, then no place would have been sought for the second.
    Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be,
    Heb 8:9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt," because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord.
    Heb 8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
    Heb 8:11 And they shall not each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest.
    Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more."
    Heb 8:13 In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away.

    Paul didn't hint that the NC was not in effect yet:

    2Co 3:3 it having been made plain that you are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, not having been written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not on tablets of stone, but in fleshly tablets of the heart.

    We are ministers to a new covenant that has not gone into effect yet?

    Co 3:6 who also has made us able ministers of the new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive.

    Lets be honest, I have never heard a dispie Preacher/teacher/theologian in all my years ever say the New Covenant is not in effect except when it comes to dealing with eschatology. When it comes to salvation, we are under the NC, when taking the Lord’s Supper, it is because we are in the NC. But when we switch to eschatology all of the sudden dispies are quick to point out that the NC really isn’t here yet.

    So why in the Millennium do dispies teach a return to animal sacrifices and all the other OC rituals? Isn’t this supposedly the time the NC is finally in effect? I believe one has to be taught that the NC is not yet in effect, because you won’t find it in scripture. But if one wants to hold to a separation between Israel and the Church then the NC of Jer. 31 presents an unsolvable problem. If Jer. 31 was fulfilled then so would Ezekiel 37:19 which would then lead one to believe that the entire chapter of Eze. 37 was fulfilled. So dispies such as Ryrie invent the “NC is here and established and ratified, just not in effect” theory. It seems to me it is ones eschatology biases that would lead one to believe the NC is not in effect and clearly not scripture.
     
  10. GraceAlone

    GraceAlone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you can believe what Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia. This will no longer be a problem.
     
  11. Mel Miller

    Mel Miller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grasshopper,

    The problem of the Millennial Kingdom that you
    fail to address is "who populates the kingdom"?

    Your following remark even questions whether
    the Millennial Kingdom will ever exist at all:

    "Paul didn't hint that the NC was not in effect yet"

    Then you provided the verses that reveal only
    the restoration of Israel as a nation of God's
    people can fulfill the New Covenant described
    by Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Hebrews.

    The texts you give are quotes of Jer.31 in
    Hebrews 8 and 10. The prophecies of Jer.33
    and Ezek.37 and 40-48 even go beyond that
    of Jer.31. The Davidic Kingdom is still future.

    The reason there is "no further need for an
    offering for sin" is that God will remember
    their sins no longer. There will be no
    further keeping of the Day of Atonement.

    But the evidence that men accept forgiveness will be tested by their obedience of faith
    in keeping the sacrifices and worshiping God
    at the Feast of Tabernacles each year to
    fulfill Zech.14:16-21 ... from the Day Christ
    returns as King of all the earth. Zech.14:9.

    Mel www.lastday.net
     
  12. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    109
    I think, Nope. :D

    I would submit that “Israel” refers to the faithful. I would further suggest that the idea of the “Jew” in the NT and OT be abandoned because it is only applicable to (lets see if I got this right) “the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin (with the Levites), it excludes all the prophets to the northern kingdom such as Samuel, Elijah, and so on.”

    Back to the better term “Israel” which I contend means “faithful” throughout history as the secular ethnic application is different than the redemptive context in scripture. John the Baptist rebuffed the Pharisees in this matter as to who their father was:

    (Mat 3:9) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

    (Mat 3:10) And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

    Israel refers to faithful believers only, Jew and Gentile alike in one body in Christ. (Gal 3:28-29) Further, how can all of Israel be saved? (Rom 11:26) How do dispensationalists hold to that truth? And how many of the Jews of the tribulation will be saved???

    I think you would agree that all were saved by faith both in the NT and the OT. What makes the (only) difference is the ministry that is written in our hearts; God required essentially the same thing through faith: (Mic 6:8) He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

    The OC - ministry of death, the NC- ministry of life, same salvation-main difference is here is the OT saints didn’t know the name of their redeemer. Seems dispys will argue OT saints didn’t have the indwelling of the HS…guess that’s another subject.

    Israel (the faithful) IS the church. The word “Jews” would not even extend to the saints from creation. The “seed of Abraham” was Paul’s term for ALL the saved and that term is consistent and applies from the OT also and is unrelated to the New and Old covenants.
     
  13. Mel Miller

    Mel Miller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Benjamin,

    Are you able, my friend, to support this theory:

    "The seed of Abraham ... is unrelated to the New and Old covenants" ??

    Mel Miller www.lastday.net
     
  14. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    109
    The term “Israel” unless referring to it in the meaning of a pedigreed “Jew” has no relationship to the meaning of the “seed of Abraham” as I contend Israel in this reference refers to a believer with faith, both NC and OC.

    The “seed of Abraham” is Paul’s term for ALL the saved:

    (Gal 3:16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

    (Gal 3:17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

    (Gal 3:18) For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

    (Gal 3:19) Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

    (Gal 3:20) Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

    (Gal 3:21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

    (Gal 3:22) But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

    (Gal 3:23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

    (Gal 3:24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

    (Gal 3:25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

    (Gal 3:26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

    (Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    (Gal 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    (Gal 3:29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


    The terminology (seed of Abraham) is consistent in the meaning both NC and OC:

    (Psa 105:6) O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.


    Note John the Baptist’s reply to the Pharisees who thought differently:

    (Mat 3:9) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

    The term “Israel” can not be separated in the meaning of “seed of Abraham” ALL the saved by faith, to mean only the OT people. It is unrelated to the meaning of being “Jew” in the sense of faith salvation.

    The "seeds of Abraham" are brought together in the promise:

    (Rom 11:16) For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

    (Rom 11:17) And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

    (Rom 11:18) Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

    (Rom 11:19) Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

    (Rom 11:20) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

    (Rom 11:21) For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

    (Rom 11:22) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

    (Rom 11:23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

    (Rom 11:24) For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

    (Rom 11:25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

    (Rom 11:26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

    (Rom 11:27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


    In relationship to salvation meaning by faith alone there is no fundamental difference between the NT and the OT; the fundamental difference between the New Covenant and the Old is it is written in our hearts.

    (Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    (Mic 6:8) He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
     
  15. Mel Miller

    Mel Miller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Benjamin,

    Are you able, my friend, to support this theory:

    "The seed of Abraham ... is unrelated to the New and Old covenants" ??
    ________________________________________________

    In your answer you quoted Rom.11:26-27:

    "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

    "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
    ________________________________________________

    Again, please tell me, if Israel is the "seed of
    Abraham" here, how is this seed "unrelated to
    the New and Old Covenants".

    What is this "covenant" by which the sins of
    Jacob will be taken a way? How is it "NOT related
    to either the New or Old Covenants"??

    Mel Miller www.lastday.net
     
  16. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    109
    Hope this is more clear of what I submitteed as a reason why there is no consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, but contrary wise Israel is the church.

    Israel used in the definition of a pedigreed Jew can be shown in scripture to be unrelated to the covenants in both the OT and the NT.

    In the Bible God gave the name Israel to Jacob for a specific purpose and the significance of the meaning of that name cannot be overlooked. The name is evidence of a line of “faith” already established in Abraham not of a father to son relationship of “pedigree”.

    (Heb 11:9) By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

    These guys were fellow heirs of the promise with Abraham by faith, not of blood. It seems more than significant that the promise was NOT that Abraham was to be the father of a bloodline but of a nation.

    The “seeds of Abraham” are what I spelled out in the preceding posts of whom Paul said they applied to in the NT (ALL the saved), who John the Baptist said they didn’t apply to (BLOOD), and a look into the Word as to who was included in the “seeds of Abraham”.
     
  17. Mel Miller

    Mel Miller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Benjamin,

    So it seems you see NO relationship of the
    OT covenant promise to restore Israel or
    Jacob as His people to the Millennium as
    the time when God "remembers their sins no
    more". Salvation is limited to the present
    age in your view.

    You seem to limit the fulfillment of Rom.
    11:26-27 to the Church of today. You wrote:
    _______________________________________________
    "There is no consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, but contrary wise Israel is the church".
    _______________________________________________

    Are you therefore an Amillennialist?

    Mel Miller www.lastday.net
     
  18. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    109
    Mel,

    I’m just practicing; haven’t given up on a millennium but don’t know if there’s even a view out there that fits with my personal thoughts. I have not been taught any complete system and at this point find it an advantage to be ignorant in that I don’t have any eschatological view to defend or any preconceived notions to force fit.

    I could be eschatologically challenged or possibly a “Panmillennialist” – waiting to see how it all pans out.
     
  19. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ben is correct.

    Dispensationalism teaches the distinction of Israel and Church is unbiblical.

    Remember, "Israel" deals with the Old Testament on physical prior Calvary. Yes, it was true that Israel is a truly physical nation.

    Now, 'Israel' deals with the New Testament, it is about spiritual post Calvary.

    Ephesians chapter 2 explains about Calvary more clear. It is conflict with dispensationalism doctrine.

    I suggest you to read whole Ephesians chapter 2 talks about reconciled or unity of Jews and Gentiles through Calvary.

    I better start with verse 12. Verse 12 says, "That at time time ye(Gentile) were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenents of promise(Genesis 12), having no hope, and without God in the world."

    This verse talks about Gentiles during in the Old Testament time, they were not ciztenship of Israel, they were strangers. They were lost and dark have no hope.

    But, now, Christ brought Gentiles join with Jews through calvary.

    Verse 13 - "But NOW in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ."

    Verse 14-16 - "For he(Christ) is our peace, who hath made BOTH ONE, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinaces; for to make in himself of twain ONE new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile BOTH unto God in ONE BODY by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

    This passage clear telling us, Christ brought both Jews and Gentiles together become ONE BODY, there is no more divided between Gentiles and Jews, now are reconciled together.

    Romans chapter 11 teaches us, God grafted Gentiles join with Jews on the same tree. So, therefore, both are the Church.

    Israel is Church, Church is Israel.

    There is nothing special comparing with Church and Israel in the end times. God only have one family.

    Dispensationalism believes Israel have a special blessing from God for millennial kingdom. Nothing find anywhere in the New Testament suggests that Israel shall have greater blessing in the millennial kingdom beyond second coming.

    There is not a single verse find anywhere in the New Testament saying that Jews shall possess their own land during millennial kingdom. Neither anywhere in N.T. saying that modern Jerusalem shall be the world's capitol during millennial kingdom.

    Also, the book of Hebrews telling us, that Calvary already abolished daily animal sacrifices or offerings. Christ said "It is finished". No more daily sacrifices or offerings again forever and ever. Because Christ is OUR sacrifice. We can ask Christ to forgive us our sins through his blood daily 24 hours.

    There is not a single verse find anywhere in the New Testament saying that animal sacrifices and offerings shall be restored again in the millennial kingdom.

    Calvary already reconciled both Jews and Gentiles become one in Christ's body. Simple we are God's family.

    Israel means God's people.
    Church means God's people.

    There is no difference between 'Israel' & 'Church', both are same meaning.

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
     
  20. Mel Miller

    Mel Miller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Benjamin and DeafPosttrib,

    I do not discuss Scripture with Amills since
    there is no hope of coming to an agreement.
    DeafPosttrib does not believe in a future
    reign of Christ over the nations of eart with the Jews fulfilling the mission that the Church
    is less and less able to fulfill because the number of non-Christians is accelerating at a far faster rate than the number of Christians.

    And Benjamin, I believe the only possible
    approach to the solution of Eschatology is
    to realize the Day of the Lord's wrath is limited to half the hours of a single 12-hour
    solar day.

    That fact is the primary premise of my website.
    Mel Miller www.lastday.net
     

Share This Page

Loading...