The church didn't replace Israel, Christ did.

On second thought, this is precicely what you are doing - NOT ME!

"You don't cite those who disagree and you don't answer their reasoning. That is weak on your part."

You have not provided ONE Greek scholar or commentary that based the translation on the Greek of the text to provide support for Darby's new doctrinal interpretation whatsoever!

You totally dismiss everyone that successfully disputes dispensationalism as if their lifes work were irrelevant. Scholars published works are scruitinized rigorously by other scholars. Those whom I have cited for support surpass the test of time and scuitiny of their peers.

Now, I'm finished.

 

Nice personal attack on teh way out. Surely you know that was inappropriate. There is not one reason to call me intellectually dishonest and you know that. Why did you have to go and get ugly and personal? Why not simply address the issues or bow out rather than stooping to personal attacks?

The truth is that I have not dismissed everyone who "successfully refutes dispensationalism." Point 1, I have yet to run across someone who does that; Point 2, I simply disagree with the presuppositions and exegesis of those who you believe have done that. THat does not make me dishonest. It simply means we disagree.

I have cited scholars of the utmost reputation both here and other places. They have passed scrutiny and time as well. But you have managed to dismiss them just as you have accused me of dismissing your favored scholars. Just because they are "post-Darby" means nothing. I have cited pre-Darby theologians who saw the distinction and held to a dispensational scheme. As I have often pointed out, Darby simply systematized what many before him already believed in some form or another.

In the end, you took the low road and that is disappointing. The fact remains that Scripture does not clearly indicate that church has replaced Israel. The arguments made for that position involve a number of presuppositions about the text and revelation that I and many other dispensationalists are not willing to make and with good reason: we think it does irreparable harm to the inspired text of Scripture. You are welcome to disagree. No one's salvation is riding on this. You should not feel welcome to make personal attacks just because someone disagrees with you.

 

Nice personal attack on teh way out. Surely you know that was inappropriate. There is not one reason to call me intellectually dishonest and you know that. Why did you have to go and get ugly and personal? Why not simply address the issues or bow out rather than stooping to personal attacks?

The truth is that I have not dismissed everyone who "successfully refutes dispensationalism." Point 1, I have yet to run across someone who does that; Point 2, I simply disagree with the presuppositions and exegesis of those who you believe have done that. THat does not make me dishonest. It simply means we disagree.

I have cited scholars of the utmost reputation both here and other places. They have passed scrutiny and time as well. But you have managed to dismiss them just as you have accused me of dismissing your favored scholars. Just because they are "post-Darby" means nothing. I have cited pre-Darby theologians who saw the distinction and held to a dispensational scheme. As I have often pointed out, Darby simply systematized what many before him already believed in some form or another.

In the end, you took the low road and that is disappointing. The fact remains that Scripture does not clearly indicate that church has replaced Israel. The arguments made for that position involve a number of presuppositions about the text and revelation that I and many other dispensationalists are not willing to make and with good reason: we think it does irreparable harm to the inspired text of Scripture. You are welcome to disagree. No one's salvation is riding on this. You should not feel welcome to make personal attacks just because someone disagrees with you.

It is interesting though to read your conclusion about Vincent. I don't have Vincent so I can't comment but your appraisal seems suspect.

You say that Vincent says the explicative is doubtful prefers the connective. The connective, according to your citation of Vincent, is the one that makes hte distinction. He says that "it is different than "as many as walk" and may be truly converted Jews." In other words your last paragraph appears contradictory. I would be curious to see what Vincent actually said.

 

OldReg, (12/20/04 - 9:30 post, I may be outdated based on all the discussion in the past 24 hours, but will post anyway, since I have written all this!)

As I understand your argument, you are suggesting that the covenant promises to national Israel are now applied to the Church and that there is no longer a distinction between Israel and the Church, since they are the now the same.

If this contention is true, there will be no distinctions in the NT between Jews and Gentiles of the Church and Israel. If there are distinctions between Jews and Gentiles and the Church and Israel, your argument falls.

Regarding Gal 3:29 - it is certainly true that we are the spiritual seed of Abraham, I do not deny this. It is also true that we are benefactors of the promise that Abraham would be a source of blessing for “all families of the earth” (Gen 12:3; 28:14). It is NOT true that the Church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile, will inherit the covenant promises related to national Israel! No more so than it is true that there is no distinction whatsoever between male and female in the body of Christ, the Church (Gal 3:28). We are all equal in our standing before the Lord on the basis of faith, but there is clearly a distinction in service and function between men and women in the church. There is no distinction between slave and free as far as our standing in Christ is concerned, but the institution of slavery did not cease by the fact that a slave became a believer. Please note that I am defending neither chauvinism nor slavery. The passage simply indicates that within the church, there is no difference in standing for the Jew, the Greek, bond or free, or male or female. Your reasoning that ALL distinctions between Jew and Gentile are removed by the cross is flawed.

Re Rom 2:28-29 - The whole point of the context deals with the Jews who thought that it did not matter if they broke the Mosaic Law, as long as they were of the physical seed of Abraham. They believed that their physical circumcision made their transgression of the Law irrelevant (v. 27). Paul’s point is that Gentile righteousness without physical circumcision was of greater value than Jewish circumcision without submission to the Law. In chapter 3, Paul asks, “What advantage does the Jew have? God gave them His Word!” THIS ALONE INDICATES THAT PAUL STILL SEES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES, BUT WAIT, THERE WILL BE MORE... This passage most certainly does NOT teach the removal of the distinction between Jew and Gentile!

The statement by Newport is very nice, but it is not supported by the context. It is like a one size fits all rubber glove, if you stretch it enough it will fit! Look at the 77 occurrences of the word “Israel” in the NT and substitute the word “Church” to get a good idea of the incredible inconsistency of this position. Don’t even have to go to the OT for that!

Re Gal 3:8-9 – We (Gentiles and the Church made up of both Jews and Gentiles) are blessed through the seed of Abraham. That is not the question at hand. The question at hand is whether or not this blessing means that the Church has now replaced Israel and assumed her covenant promises! The text in no way indicates that such is the case.

 

Trailblazer, (1/2/05 - 21:28 post, I may be outdated based on all the discussion in the past 24 hours, but will post anyway, since I have written all this!)

A general response on the use of kai in the GNT.

Dana Mantey - A Manual Grammar of the Greek N.T., pgs 249-250

kai

“This conjunction is by far the most common in the New Testament. Five pages selected at random from the WH text gives us an average use of fourteen times to the page. It should be observed, however, that this average is raised especially by the fact that one of the pages was taken from Mark, where kai is uncommonly frequent, occurring on an average of more than once to a line. The casual Greek student has difficulty understanding kai because it has so many diversified uses. For it is often used as a mere mechanical connective (a copulative), and it is left for the read to determine which possible translation best suits the context. The ordinary Hellenist, as the papyrus records reveal, had but few conjunctions in his vocabulary, and kai was the main one; but like, the average American, knew how to make those few serve him in numerous ways.

(1) Three generally accepted classifications and meanings for kai are: as transitional or continuative – and; as adjunctive – also; and as ascensive – even. Since these translations are unquestioned we shall not stop to cite examples and references. But in our opinion these translations do not cover all its uses in the New Testament...”


Specifically, kai as used in Gal 6:16 - the following direct quotes:

From John F. Walvoord, “Millennial Series Part 14: The Abrahamic Covenant and Premillennialism,” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 109 . Dallas Theological Seminary, April 1952, pgs 146-147

If it can be sustained that in this passage the church is called Israel, it would, of course, be an argument for the identification of the church with Israel in the present age - though by no means conclusive, in the face of constant use of the term Israel in the Scriptures in reference to unbelieving Jews. An examination of Galatians 6:15-16, however, instead of proving any such identification is rather a specific instance where Jewish believers are distinguished from Gentile believers, and this by the very term Israel of God. In Galatians 6:15 the contrast is brought out between “circumcision” and “uncircumcision,” i.e., between Jew and Gentile. This contrast is declared to avail not in Christ Jesus, but that rather the issue is a new creation when either Jew or Gentile becomes a believer. God’s blessing is declared on those who walk according to this rule (among the Galatians who were Gentiles), and also “upon the Israel of God.” The use of kai is difficult to explain apart from the intention of the writer to set off the “Israel of God” from those considered in the first half of the verse . It is rather another indication that Gentile and Jewish believers are on the same level, as kai is used principally to link co-ordinate parts of a sentence. In any case, the argument of those who would destroy Israel’s national hope based upon this verse is not founded on sound exegesis. The passage does not state explicitly, even if strained to accommodate their view, that the “Israel of God” and the “new creation” are identical. It is safe to say that if these key passages which are claimed as special proof of the identification of Israel and the church do not teach this doctrine then there is no passage in the New Testament in which the term Israel is used as synonymous with the church. In every case the term is used either of the nation Israel as such, still in unbelief, or of that believing remnant which is incorporated into the church without destroying the national promises to Israel in the least.


Howard Ferrin, “All Israel Shall be Saved”, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 112 . Dallas Theological Seminary, July 1955, pgs 238-239 (NOTE: This article was read as a paper at the 1954 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.)

Perhaps at this point we might consider Galatians 6:16: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy and upon the Israel of God.” This text is confidently advanced as being firm proof that the church, during this age is “the Israel of God.” In reply we say that Paul”s use of the expression “the Israel of God” in this passage must be considered first in the light of his teaching in the 11th chapter of Romans ; and second, more particularly in the light of the immediate context. At this point, therefore, we raise a question: “Is it sound exegesis to hold that the “Israel of God” in this Scripture is composed of believing Jews and believing Gentiles” Or does this application apply only to the believing Jews of Paul”s day who constituted “the remnant according to the election of grace”“” The saintly Bengel believed that the latter was true.

Consider also the following extract from Lectures on the Galatians by William Kelley: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. In the first expression “As many as walk according to this rule” he (Paul) especially looks, I think, at the Gentile believers, such as the Galatians were. “This rule” is the rule of the new creation”Christ Himself. He adds: “Peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” The only part of Israel acknowledged consists of the real believing Jews. “Israel of God” seems to be used here not as a general phrase for every saint, but for the believing ones in Israel”those Jews who had repudiated their own works and found shelter only in Christ Jesus. Two parties are spoken of, and not one only. “As many as walk according to this rule” are rather the Gentile believers; and the “Israel of God” are the Jewish saints, not the mere literal Israel, but the “Israel of God”; the Israelites indeed, whom grace made willing to receive the Saviour.” Now let us consider the immediate context. Paul has referred to two classes of people; the circumcision and the uncircumcision. It is of course recognizable at once that the circumcision refers to the Jews, and the uncircumcision to the Gentiles. What Paul teaches in verse 15 is that it does not make any difference whether one is a circumcised Jew, or an uncircumcised Gentile; the essential is that he be “a new creature in Christ Jesus.”

So from among the Jews there were those who believed on Christ and they in turn became the “Israel of God.” But there were also those who turned to God from among the uncircumcised Gentiles, and they in turn became “new creatures.” The Apostle then says that upon these two groups peace and mercy shall come if they walk according to the rule of the new creation. This is further substantiated by the use of the conjunction and. First he pronounces blessing upon the many who walk according to this rule; then he writes “and,” following which he mentions another group. According to dictionary definition and is “a conjunction, a word connecting a word, phrase, clause or sentence with one of like kind and equal rank.” The believing Gentiles and the believing Jews are of equal rank as “new creatures”; they are thereby not Israel, but “new creatures.” But the believing Jews, since they were of Israel after the flesh, become the true Israel after the Spirit because they did not trust in their circumcision, but rather in Christ, and in Christ only.


John F. Walvoord, “Does the Church Fulfill Israel’s Program?”, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 137 . Dallas Theological Seminary, July 1980, pgs, 212-213

While amillenarians often use the argument that it is not necessary for Israel to be explicitly identified with the church just as it is not necessary for the doctrine of the Trinity to be supported by the word Trinity in the Bible, many of them point to Galatians 6:15:16 as the one explicit reference. Accordingly it bears careful scrutiny.

Paul in Galatians is attempting to deal with the question of grace versus law, both as a way of salvation and as a way of sanctification. He concludes in Galatians 6:15, “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” He then says in verse 16 , “And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” The question raised by this passage is whether the expression “the Israel of God” is identical to the “new creation” described earlier in the verse , applying to the entire church.

Appeal is made to the fact that the Greek preposition kai is sometimes used in an explicative sense1 and is equivalent to namely. Or it could be used in an ascensive sense and translated even. But the normal meaning of kai is that of a simple connective as indicated by the translation “and.” Burton has a complete discussion on this matter.

Though Rom 9:6 &1 Cor 10:18 show that Paul distinguished between Israel according to the flesh and the Israel according to election or promise, and Rom 2:29 & Phil 3:3 suggest that he might use ton israhl tou theou of all believers in Christ, regardless of nationality, there is, in fact, no instance of his using israhl except of the Jewish nation or a part thereof. These facts favour the interpretation of the expression as applying not to the Christian community, but to Jews; yet, in view of tou theou, not to the whole Jewish nation, but to the pious Israel, the remnant according to the election of grace (Rom 115), including even those who had not seen the truth as Paul saw it”. In view of the apostle”s previous strong anti-judaistic expressions, he feels impelled, by the insertion of kai, to emphasise this expression of his true attitude towards his people. It can scarcely be translated into English without overtranslating. (Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians: International Critical Commentary, Edinburg: T & T Clark, 1921, p. 358)

The burden of proof is on the expositor to show that the word is used in the sense of “namely” or “even.” Such proof is completely lacking. It is significant that Arndt and Gingrich avoid listing Galatians 6:16 in their study of unusual uses of kai.(A & G, p. 394) Robertson has no reference to it in either his Grammar or his Word Pictures. It is also interesting that commentators who do not have a particular burden to prove that Israel is the church usually do not comment on the problem.

Under the circumstances the simplest explanation is the best, that is, that what Paul is saying is that those who walk by the rule of grace as a new creation in Christ are worthy recipients of His benediction of peace and mercy, but that from his standpoint this is especially true of the Israel of God, by which Paul means Israelites who in the church age trust Jesus Christ. This is a natural and biblical explanation. In any case this verse is not an explicit statement that the Israel of God equals the church composed of both Jews and Gentiles. If those who contend for this point of view had a better verse, they obviously would not use this text. Allis, for instance merely cites it as a proof text without discussion. (Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, Philadelphia: Pres & Reformed Pub Co., 1945, pp 109, 152)


There is an interesting book review published in the Winter 2000 issue of the Emmaus Journal - the review is John H. Fish III of the book, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought, by Ronald Diprose. Here are some key excerpts from the review. (Emmaus Bible College. 2000;2002. Emmaus Journal Volume 9)

Dr. Diprose examines the development of this ?replacement theology? by considering ?Israel? in the Bible and in the history of Christian thought. He shows that neglect of the biblical teaching on Israel has resulted in serious theological problems in the areas of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology and has led to the scandalous and shameful treatment of the Jews through the centuries by those who call themselves Christians.
Dispensationalists have recognized the importance of Israel in the Scriptures. The term Israel is found 2565 times in the AV, 2569 times in the NASB, 2507 times in the Old Testament Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, and 68 times in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. The place of Israel in Scripture and the teaching on Israel in the Bible occupy a major place. The importance of Israel is not reflected in many works on systematic theology which barely mention Israel in their index or exclude it altogether (p. 2). This ignoring of Israel has a long history in the church. Yet Israel in Scripture is the unique people of God...

“Replacement theology” says that God is finished with Israel and that she has been replaced by the church. Professor Diprose does admit that there are some passages which are compatible with this type of theology. Galatians 6:16 and 1 Peter 2:4"10 are two such portions of Scripture. But this falls far short of a demonstration of this position. More is needed to support “replacement theology.” The exponents need to show somewhere in Scripture where this doctrine is actually taught. Dr. Diprose examines many suggested Scriptures and concludes that they all fail to teach what is desired. Further, there must be no Scriptures which exclude replacement theology. But here is a decisive failure, for there are a number of passages which envision a distinct future for natural Israel...

Professor Diprose shows that God has hardened Israel in their unbelief during this present age but that this hardening is temporary. It is only “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25). In the following verse Paul says that “all Israel will be saved.” The time is given as when “the Deliverer will come out of Zion.” This is referring to the time of the second coming of Christ. It is a reference to ethnic Israel as it has been throughout the passage. Israel is now rejected because of unbelief, but this rejection is only “in part” (Rom. 11:25). “All Israel will be saved.” This shows that the church has not replaced Israel in God”s program and that He still has an important place for Israel in the future. But neglect of the biblical teaching on Israel led to the development of a replacement theology early in the history of the Christian church. Dr. Diprose traces the history of this development. In the Epistle of Barnabas Israel is disinherited by God. In Justin Martyr the church becomes the “true Israel.” In Irenaeus God”s promises to Israel are transferred to the church. In Origen the corporal and physical Israel is distinguished from the spiritual Israel. It is particularly in Origen that the hermeneutical method of allegory is developed in a sophisticated way which enabled Christians to ignore so much of the plain teaching of the Bible and to read their own “replacement theology” into Scripture. With allegory the literal meaning is not the real meaning of a passage. The promises of God were not given to the physical Israel but to the spiritual Israel which is the church. Ethnic Israel was unworthy of them. The church is the true recipient of the promises. The disaster of allegorical interpretation is that what God has said in Scripture no longer becomes the authoritative word. Rather the theology, philosophy, or simply the prejudices of the interpreter are read into a passage and then accepted as the Word of God.

A further important theological consequence of “replacement theology” is seen in the area of eschatology. A fundamental change in the concept of the kingdom of God resulted in a dramatic change in the doctrine of eschatology. Christ and His apostles did not see the universal kingdom of peace as established during this present age. Rather it would be set up at His second coming. This future kingdom of Scripture was abandoned for a present kingdom embodied in the church. Israel”s kingdom was transferred to the church. It is interesting that some of the early writers of the first three centuries did not abandon the premillennial hope of the New Testament even though they reflected “replacement theology” in their own thinking. But with the allegorizing of Origen and the realized eschatology of Augustine there was a fundamental shift which affected the church for the next millennium. The kingdom of God is now. Christ is presently reigning as the messianic king over believers in the church.

The Old Testament presented the Messiah as one day reigning over the entire earth in righteousness and peace. His kingdom will be triumphant, a kingdom of God and not a kingdom of man. “Replacement theology” saw this kingdom as fulfilled in the church...


I wish I could have found John Eadie’s commentary on Galatians, been a while since I used it, it is boxed somewhere waiting for the completion of my new office. In any case, he is usually pretty thorough. I cannot recall the specifics of his millennial stance though, and as has been noted, too often one’s theology determines one’s interpretation of a passage.

Bottom line is this – It is not enough to find just one passage that seems to support a position. That position must withstand the scrutiny of ALL the Word of God. An unclear passage must be interpreted on the basis of the many clear statements in the Word regarding Israel and the kingdom.

This addressed the specified post. Will go back to the earlier one tomorrow if all goes according to schedule.

 

Trailblazer, (1/3/05 - 8:57 post)

Note the quote from Howard Ferrin above. He holds that “The Israel of God” refers to believing Jews.

 

Trailblazer, (to 1/3/05 - 10:02)

Perhaps I and Larry should insist that you cite pre-Origen or pre-Augustine sources since allegorical interpretation and amillennialism start then? Better yet, why don’t we all just focus on a CLGH interpretation of the Bible itself? Can you go along with that? Or, do you have to reject CLGH in favor of allegorical or “spiritual” interpretation?

It is certainly possible to “name call” and discount your sources on the basis that they are amillennial or in some cases postmillennial. I have not dealt with the arguments in a pejorative manner in order to directly address the issues and the interpretations they present. Are we going to drop to the level of ignoring the weight of an argument or lack thereof based on whether or not someone has covenant or dispensational leanings? I hope not.

 

Trailblazer, (to 1/3/05 - 10:02)

I missed the Bruce quote. Which one F.F. or A.B.? Again, I appeal to the reasoning above. Let’s evaluate the argument based on it’s worth, not it’s source.

On the “kai” aspect of the issue, I will admit that we are in a stalemate as far as a clear determination that its use is either transitional, adjunctive, or ascensive. I am afraid that this issue will largely be a matter of where the interpreter stands on his eschatology.

 

Trailblazer, (to 1/3/05 - 12:41)

Sorry about your friend Nancy. It is very tough to get someone to leave a cult. I hope that you are not suggesting that I am cultic in my theology? I am quite happy to discuss it with at the level of the Greek, though I only consider myself a student, not a scholar (I have only had three years of Greek in college and seminary, and have only taught it at 1st year high school level).

I have a hard time accepting that the NWT changes every verse in Hebrews but one! I have little confidence in the NWT, it is a bad translation and is skewed to represent JW theology, but EVERY VERSE BUT ONE? Got a source for that? Would love to evaluate it. E-mail me, this thread is full enough.

 

rj,

It was 10 years ago. It was in Hebrews 13. It was not the entire verse. It was a word. I don't remember exactly the word or the exact verse it was in. I had an extensive collection of Watchtower books and their Interlinear Bible but threw them all away when I moved as I had essentially given up on them. I was too saddened by Nancy after seeing how difficult it was to get someone who "suddenly" was faced with accepting the truth of God's word in spite of the realization that her world would once again become upside down.

 

In additon,

No, I am not saying that you are "cultic" in your theology - only that dispensatinalism is in error.

And Larry, I apologize if you mistook what I was saying. I was not calling you personally intellectually dishonest either. I, at that point, was referring to any and all dispensationalists collectively who consistently use post-Darby resources and then dismiss 2,000 years of solid teaching that gets laid out before them with a mere "they were wrong" for 2,000 years and "we suddenly got right 150 years ago after Darby got enlightened by a woman who claimed to get "new revelation of prophecy." (to paraphrase the general dispy attitude)

PS. Dallas is the major proponet of Darbism as even they trace their roots to Scofield.

If you want the entire text of Vincent's quote, check back a page. It's at the top. It is possible in condensing his analysis that I did mix it up, however, the conclusion is still the same.

 

Trailblazer, (to 1/3/05 - 15:26)

Regarding your Vincent quote, go back and reread it. I do not have one handy, but if it is connective and not explicative then it does not fit with the conclusion your quote seems to support. Read the first paragraph of your Vincent quote. If he defers to the kai being connective, it disputes your point! Again, I do not have it, maybe Larry does.

Reference 5, Paul. WOW, this is my favorite! I have been wanting to get to Rom 9-11!

In order,

The saved are “elect”, yes. But, they are not Israel. My last name is Prince. My wife’s last name is Prince. The fact that we both have the same last name does not mean that I and my wife are the same person. Believers are elect. Israel is elect. The fact that both are elect does not make them the same. I hope I do not have to keep responding to this same flawed logic on every thread.

Regarding salvation there is no distinction. All who call upon Him for salvation will receive it, Jew, Gentile, male, female, bond or free. Paul Himself maintains a distinction between the church and Israel in Romans 9:3-5, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” This distinction continues throughout the section. Rom 11:25-27 – “...blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” Substitute “church” here and it makes absolutely NO SENSE AT ALL!!!


Saved Jews are part of the Church. I fully agree. They are “elect” as members of the Body of Christ, the Church.

Won’t deal with the no, since I said yes.

The Jews who believed upon Jesus were brought into the Church. NOT INTO THE NEW COVENANT!!! YOU CANNOT FIND ONE PASSAGE THAT SHOWS THE NC AS BEING BETWEEN GOD AND THE CHURCH!!! It is between God and the Nation of Israel. They are under temporary partial blindness (Rom 11:25). It is partial because some are saved by faith in Christ. It is temporary because God will one day bring them under the NC at which time the “fullness of the Gentiles” will end and “ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED” (Rom 11:26-27).

How can CT’s argue that the New Covenant is in force today when the NC clearly provides for the salvation of all Israel? (Jer 31:31 ff) If Israel is the church, then does the NC mean that all true believers, the church, will now be saved as a result of the NC? That would make the NC totally meaningless!!! All true believers have always been saved in all ages! The church did not exist in all ages, but all true believers have always been saved! What then, is the meaning of Jer 31?

 

Trailblazer, (to 1/3/05 - 15:26)

WOOAH THERE A MINUTE, forgot to respond to the ESV’s very loose translation. “Abraham’s offspring”. Not in any kind of a literal sense. Being children by faith does not make us physical descendants of Abraham. THERE IS NO PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE THAT TRANSFERS ANY OF THE LAND PROMISES OF THE OT COVENANTS TO NT BELIEVERS!!!

I did deal with Gal 3 in a post to ChasM.

 

rj

WHAT?????? YOU'RE OVERWORKING YOUR COMPUTER!

 

Pastor Larry,

Of course he misses the point! He is not reading the sources! He is reading the critics, and for the most part they misrepresent dispensationalism. That is the only way they can attack the core principles of dispensationalism, to misrepresent it!

I have yet to see one CT present D teaching in terms that most D’s would agree to be a fair representation of their position! That is one of the key reasons this debate has raged for over a century. Most of us do not read the writers of the other side. We read what the writers for our side say about their side!

I have spent literally hundreds of hours reading after the amils and postmils and reconstructionists and theonomists etc, etc, etc. I no longer view them as either liberals or heretics, though I did at one time. I view them as sincere men of God who, for the most part, have not made a sincere effort to study the other side. Trailblazer, at least for one, is coming from this perspective. Let’s go a little easy on him, but still strong on the truth. I think that you and I are coming from pretty much the same perspective on most of this, lets not beat him up too badly. Rather, lets ALL direct our attention back to the Word and a contextual literal grammatical historical interpretation. If he wont consent to CLGH, then the only real limit of the interpretation is the imagination of the interpreters.

BLAZER,

Don’t give up on us. As iron sharpens iron and all that... You will never be weaker for having reexamined an issue in the Word again. The whole point is for all of us to challenge each other to find CLEAR AND CONSISTENT Biblical support for our theology. Though the process may at times be frustrating, it is never futile. Not if our intent is to learn about the other side and to learn how to refine and better present the truth. We all win. If our goal is to CHANGE the other person, IT IS INDEED HOPELESS!!! For just a minute, think about how hard it is to change even yourself!

How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one. But the lightbulb has to WANT to change! Is my point clear here?

Some of us have minds like concrete, thoroughly mixed and well set. Kai hard as a rock! Of course we do not agree about who is mixed and set yet do we! Hah!

 

Pastor Larry, (1/3/05 - 20:48 post)

Ditto. If we resort to name calling this does indeed become an exercise in futility, does it not?

 

Blazer,

Overworking my computer? Nah. It can handle it. It is my brain that is the problem!

 

ALL,

I think I have caught up with myself! Or something like that. Later.

 

You know I'm going to quote that often.!

 

I have two teenage boys (15 & 18), a 21 year old daughter and a wife! All are very bright! In fact I call my boys, suns. I am used to my words being used against me! Not only that, I am a pastor... The fun part is anticipating which part they will use when!