The Wall That Jesus Christ Broke Down; Rebuilt?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by OldRegular, Jul 28, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I believe that the doctrine of Dispensationalism is a manmade doctrine and does not comport with Scripture. I am sure that dispensationalists would say that Covenant Theology is a manmade doctrine and obviously say it is unbiblical. However, it is a Biblical fact that God deals with people through Covenants, not dispensations. The word dispensation is not mentioned in the Old Testament and only four times in the New Testament.


    Some years ago I started a thread regarding the claim by certain theologians of Classic Dispensational persuasion that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, was a parenthesis, an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel. At that time a great number of Board members took great umbrage at that claim. The vitriol expressed in some responses was intense to say the least but I cannot say I was surprised. Many who claim to be of dispensational persuasion are apparently of the “Rapture Ready” type and not conversant with the teachings of Classic Dispensationalism, a doctrine first formalized by John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth [England] Brethern.

    I raised this issue on another thread and provided links showing three prominent Classic Dispensationalists who subscribed to this doctrine, a doctrine I consider totally wrong and unBiblical!

    Following are remarks by Chafer and Ryrie. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. Charles C. Ryrie is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary He is also the author of the Ryrie Study Bible.


    Then there are the remarks of Harry A. Ironside former pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. The quote is from the preface to his book, The Great Parenthesis.

    Charles C Ryrie writing in his book Dispensationalism regarding the Progressive Dispensational movement states on page 134.

    I must state as forcefully as I can that I find the doctrine of the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, as a parenthesis or an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel to be repugnant and I reject it completely. However, I totally reject the comment made by one individual who refused to retract the following statement even after being confronted with the above statements by learned Classic Dispensationalists. I have noted before that I am surrounded by Baptists who are “Rapture Ready” dispensationalists. I would no more question their Salvation than I would my own.


    I have and will eagerly debate the Rapture Ready dispensationalists regarding their eschatology which I believe to be incorrect. However, as far as I am concerned any error in dispensational eschatology pales in comparison to the claim that the Church is a parenthesis, an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel. I would note at this time what the Baptist Faith and Message adopted in 2000 says about the Church:

    In the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Church at Ephesus God reveals to us His program for the Church of Jesus Christ.

    Ephesians 2:11-22
    11. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
    12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
    13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
    14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
    15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
    16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
    17. And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
    18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
    19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
    20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
    21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
    22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


    Sadly dispensationalism rebuilds that wall between Jew and Gentile that Jesus Christ broke down through His own Blood.
     
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,001
    Likes Received:
    46
    Both Jews and gentiles have been made part of the same flock of God now by Crtoss of Christ, but that does not mean that God will not turn back to dealing with national israel after the Churge Age is done with!
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Do you believe the Church is a parenthesis in God's program for Israel?

    With the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, instigated by the Jewish leaders, and the subsequent Resurrection God's program with Israel was finished!

    When some dispensationalist can tell me how the "for ever" of the Old Testament promises to Abraham and Israel got reduced to 1000 years then they may have something worth talking about!

    Scripture clearly teaches {Revelation 21, 22} that this earth will be replaced by a New Earth where God will dwell with the Church. Where does that leave national physical Israel and the "LAND"?
     
  4. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    From Acts 28:28 Israel was "cut-off" and the Body of Christ began.
    Before that, in Acts, Gentile believers were "grafted into" Israel.
    When the "fullness of the Gentiles be come in" to the Body of Christ,
    and the "Times of the Gentiles" be completed, Israel will once again
    become "God's chosen people" during the Tribulation (70th week of Daniel).
    The harvest by the Messianic Jews preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom
    during the first 3 1/2 years of the 70th week of Daniel will be MASSIVE
    and totally eclipse those saved during the last two millennia.

    The ability to be instantly transported to anywhere on earth by the Holy Spirit
    (like Philip & the Ethiopian), and the ability to speak any language on the planet
    will enable the Messianic Jews during the Tribulation to spread the Gospel
    of the Kingdom to every language, tongue and people on in the world.
     
    #4 beameup, Jul 28, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2014
  5. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Utter nonsense!

    When Israel conspired with Rome to crucify the Messiah they had served the purpose of God in accomplishing the atonement initially promised in Genesis 3:15. This is clearly taught in Acts 2:22-24:

    22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
    23. Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
    24. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
     
  6. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Following are some remarks by reformed dispensationalist, William E. Cox.
    {From: http://www.neve-family.com/books/jews/Israel&TheChurch.html}

    ISRAEL and THE CHURCH

    by William E. Cox

    We come now to a study of the biblical relationsip between national Israel and the Christian church. A correct understanding of this relationship is absolutely essential to a correct understanding of the Bible. While opinions vary on many individual points, there would seem to be two main schools of thought on this subject. The first of these may be called the historical Christian view, being that view held by the great majority of the church fathers, Protestant reformers, and Bible commentaries. The second view origniated with John Nelson Darby around A.D. 1830, and is best known today as dispensationalism. I feel that the historical Christian view is biblical and sound, while the more recent view (which view I once held) is artificial and forced. Let us look at these two interpretations.

    The historical Christian teaching always has been that national Israel was a type of the church, and that the church replaced Israel on the Day of Pentecost. This view holds that God made two sets of promises to Israel -- natujral promises and spiritual promises. All earthly promises to Israel have been either fulfilled or invalidated because of disobedience. All spiritual promises are being fulfilled through the church, which is made up of Jews and Gentiles alike.

    Main Points of Historical Christian Teaching

    1. God has always had but one spiritual people, represented by the remnant in every generation.
    2. God's promises to Israel were conditional.
    3. All earthly promises to Israel have been either fulfilled or invalidated through disobedience and unbelief.
    4. Israel was a type of the church and was superseded by the church.
    5. The church was prophesied in the Old Testament, in Old Testament language.
    6. Christ was, and is, the" only Hope of Israel. And Israelites (Jews) will be saved only if they accept him during this age.
    7. The first advent of Christ completed Israel's redemption, and manifested the Israel of God (the church) referred to in Galatians 6:16.
    8. Christ institued a Jewish-Gentile church.
    9. All unfulfilled spiritual promises to Israel are being fulfilled through the Christian church.
    10. This does not represent a change in God's plan, but evidences progressive revelation.​

    Dispensationalists teach that God has two separate peoples -- Israel and the church -- and two separate plans for them. Israel, they say, is "an earthly people," while the church is "a heavenly people." Not only does God have two separate plans for these peoples, but two distinct destinations. They teach that Israel will spend her eternity on the earth, following an earthly millennium of one thousand years, while the church will spend eternity in heaven after the millennium. They say the Israel was indeed a type of the church, but then fo on to teach that this is the one and only type in the entire Bible which wqas never meant to have an antitype (fulfillment)! Dispensationalists teach that Jesus, at his first advent, offered to Israel an earthly millennium; that Israel rejected this offer; that God then postponed his plans for Israel; and that the church was instituted as a temporary (parenthetic) plan until after the second advent.

    Main Points of Dispentationalist Teaching

    1. God has two bodies (peoples) -- Israel, and the church.
    2. God's promises to Israel were unconditional, and therefore are still binding.
    3. God's promises concerning the return to the land, rebuilding the temple, etc., were never fulfilled. They aare therefore still future.
    4. Although Israel was a type of the church, they will always remain separate.
    5. Christ instituted the church as a "parenthesis."
    6. Christ came the first time to establish an earthly millennial kingdom with Israel.
    7. Israel rejected him, then God postponed this plan until the second advent.
    8. Christ instituted a Gentile church.
    9. Israel is God's earthly people; the church is God's heavenly people.
    10. Israel's destiny is to remain on earth forever; the destiny of the churchis to spend eternjity in heaven.​

    Continued in subsequent post:
     
    #6 OldRegular, Jul 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2014
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Following are continuing remarks by reformed dispensationalist, William E. Cox.
    {From: http://www.neve-family.com/books/jews/Israel&TheChurch.html}

    ISRAEL and THE CHURCH

    by William E. Cox

     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Following are remarks by reformed dispensationalist, William E. Cox.
    {From: http://www.neve-family.com/books/jews/Israel&TheChurch.html}

    ISRAEL and THE CHURCH

    by William E. Cox

    Conditional Promises

    One premise held by futurists and dispensationalists is that all promises to national Israel were unconditional, and that they are binding upon God regardless of the actions of the nation Israel. Here especially the student of the Bible needs to search out the spirit of the Old Testament and not to become enmeshed in the letter. Many Jews of Jesus' day had made this mistake, aned the result was their total blindness to Jesus' teachings.

    Certainly John the Baptist recognized conditions to be binding upon Israel. The fact is recorded in Matthew 3:7-12 that John recognized one such condition to be fruit-bearing. John refujsed even to baptize the leaders of Israel unless they showed evidence of meeting this condition -- "Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance" (vs. 8).

    Knowing that they believed themselves to be living under unconditional promises which would accrue to all the descendants of Abraham, John blasted their false hopes by saying: "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: ... And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees [including national Israel]: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matt. 3:9,10). According to these scriptures, John did not accept the Jewish tradition that to be a natural descendant of Abraham placed one under unconditional promises. John believed and preached that the promise was only to those who "brought forth good fruit." This, then, was a condition.

    The paramount condition of the law was the acceptance of that to which the law itself pointed -- the Messiah. Romans 10:4 tells us that Christ is the end of the law. We take this to mean that he was that to which the entire law pointed. Then any person who rejected Christ -- as did many of the Jews, then and now -- is "guilty of the whole law." They have broken the main condition and therefore God is not obligated to force them to be saved.

    Jesus recognized that the reception of him was a condition of the covenant with Israel. We have recorded for us in John's Gospel (8:31-47) an account of a conversation between a group of Jews -- who believed in an unconditional covenant -- and Jesus. Jesus brusquely shattered their false hopes. He distinguished between national Israelites and spiritual descendants of Abraham.

    When told by Jesus that they should continue in his word, the Jews immediately fell back upon their ancestry and claimed self-sufficiency because of their being descendants of Abraham. Jesus acknowledged that they were natural descendants of Abraham (vs. 37); but then went on to say that if they were genuine spiritual descendants they would have done the works of Abraham. These "works of Abraham" would have been the acceptance of Christ (compare Gen. 15:6 with John 8:39,40,42,47). Jesus concluded that these men, who were definitely natural descendants of Abraham, were the children of Satan and not true Israelites. His proof of this was the fact that they failed to meet the condition of the covenant with Abraham, that is, they failed to believe in the Messiah of God.

    It is important at this point to interpreet scripture with scripture. The prooftext method of interpreting the Bible -- this is the method of taking isolated verses out of context -- always leads to confusion. A denomination (Disciples of Christ) was founded by Alexander Campbell, who read such passages as Acts 2:38 to the exclusion of all other passages on baptism. The futurist has made this same mistake in reading the Old Testament passages concerning Israel. He reads such passages as II Samuel 7 as blanket unconditional promises, while ignoring other passages such as I Kings 9:4-9, where the conditions are spelled out. In almost every Old Testament passage used by the futurist to prove unconditional promises to Israel, there are parallel passages dealing with the same account, which lay down definite conditions binding upon the recipient of the promise.

    So we see that to take isolated passages from the Bible and build a doctrine on them is a dangerous thing. Whereas Acts 2:38 would appear -- if taken by itself -- to teach baptismal regeneration, there are many other passages which leave no doubt that the candidate must first become a believer in Christ if his baptism is to be valid.

    Perhaps we should also remind ourselves of John's statement that the whole world would not hold the teachings of Christ. By this we mean to say that many of God's teachings are taken for granted and are not mentioned every time he deals with a particular subject. In the Old Testament God taught people both blessings and cursings (Josh. 8:34), but did not spell them out in every statement he made. That is to say, the condition was not mentioned every time the promise was given. However, it is impossible to read all the Old Testament without seeing both. When the conditions are not spelled out, they are always understood.

    Jonah's prophecy to Ninevah was conditional. Although it is never mentioned in the prophecy of Jonah, the condition was repentance. Proof of this is the fact that Ninevah was not destroyed in forty days. This in spite of the fact that God had instructed Jonah to prophesy: "Yet forty days, and Nivevah shall be overthrown." No provision was mentioned. From all appearances the prophecy was unconditional. However, we know that there was a condition in the mind of God, because he did not destroy Ninevah in forty days. They had met the conditions (understood) by repenting, and thus God had withheld the destruction at that time.

    If one were intellectually honest in seeking out the spirit of the Old Testament, he would see just as many definite promises to destroy Israel as to redeem her. Here the futurist, like everyone else, takes these threats to be provisional. He realizes that God meant to destroy Israel unless they repented. In view of the following scriptures, by what authority does one place a provision or condition upon the promises to destroy, while saying there are no conditions attached to the promiss to redeem?

    "And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of Jehovah they God, to observe to do all his commandmlents which I command thee this day, that Jehovah thy God will set thee on high above all the nations of the earth.... But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of Jehovah thy God, to obeserve to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee" (Deut. 28:1-15).

    "If ye forsake Jehovah, and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you evil, and consume you, after that he hath done you good" (Josh. 24:20).​

    Compare also Genesis 17:9-14; Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 30:15-19; Joshua 8:34; I Kings 2:3,4; 9:2-9; 11:11; II Kings 21:8b; I Chronicles 28:7b; II Chronicles 7:19-22.

    While it is not spelled out each time, it is obvious that the conditions were laid down when God made his covenant promises to Abraham. Before he received the blessing, Abraham was given a command: "Now Jehovah said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country,... unto the land that I will show thee: and [then] I will make of thee a great nation..." (Gen 12:1,2).

    In Genesis 15:6 we read that Abraham "believed God" and that it (Abraham's belief) was counted unto him for righteousness. Belief here was a condition (understood).

    In Genesis 17:9 God very definitely lays down a condition before blessing: "And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations."

    A very definite condition was circumcision (Gen. 17:30), with God spelling out the fact that for anyone to disobey this condition would cut him off from the covenant (vs. 14). In 17:23 we read that Abraham immediately was obedient. In Genesis 22:1-12 we have the account of God's testing Abraham's obedience by challenging him to sacrifice his only son on the altar. In verse 12 God is recorded as having said to Abraham, "... now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me." In the verses which follow the account, God specifically says he blessed Abraham "because thou has obeyed my voice."

    According to Genesis 26:5, God renewed the covenant with Isaac "because Abraham obeyed my voice anbd kept my charge...." Compare this verse with Hebrews 11:8.

    Many of the foundation stones of the Darbyite beliefs are ruled out completely when one discovers that the Old Testament promises to Israel were conditional and that Israel failed to observe these conditions. Thus it was necessary for God to institute a better covenant (compare Jer. 31;31,32; Heb. 8:6,7,13).

    A simple chart will show that there were two parties to the contract between God and national Israel:

    PROMISES..........CONDITIONS
    Gen. 12:2 ....................Gen. 12:1
    15:5 ...................................15:6
    17:4 .....................................17:9
    14:2-8 .............................17:9
    17:10,11 ..............................17:14
    ...............................Ex. 13:4,5
    Deut. 28:1-14 ...............Deut. 28:15
    .........30:15,16 ........................30:17-19
    ................................Josh. 8:34
    ........................................24:20
    II Sam. 7 ........................I Kings 2:3,4
    ....................................................9:4-9
    ....................................................11:11
    ......................................................21:8
    ...........................................I Chron. 28:7
    II Chron. 7:16-18 ...........II Chron. 7:19-23​
     
  9. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Following are continuing remarks by reformed dispensationalist, William E. Cox.
    {From: http://www.neve-family.com/books/jews/Israel&TheChurch.html}

    ISRAEL and THE CHURCH

    by William E. Cox

    These are but a few of the conditional passages. The interested reader will find many such passages throughout the Old Testament, where the promises have parallel passages, showing that conditions were attached. At least five conditions stand out clearly as we read the Old Testament covenant promises to national Israel: (1) faith, (2) obedience, (3) circumcision, (4) faithfulness, and (5) acceptance of Christ at his first appearance.

    Fulfilled Prophecy Concerning Israel

    The disputed promises were made to Abraham and were essentially four in number:

    1. Promise of the Messiah (first advent). Compare Genesis 22:18 with Galatians 3:16.
    2. To make the descendants of Abraham into a great nation (Gen. 12:2).
    3. The inheritance of the land of Canaan by Abraham's descendants (Gen. 22:7; 13:14,15; 15:18f; 17:2-8).
    4. A great posterity (Gen. 13:16; 15:5,6 17:2-8).

    All four of these promises having to do with national Israel have been fulfilled literally. Some of them had ramifications now being fulfilled through the church, which includes the believing remnant of national Israel. These latter ramifications include "all the nations of the earth," and were not restricted to national Israel (compare Gen. 22:18 with Rom. 4:16,17).

    Paul assures us that this fulfillment will not include the entire nation of Israel, but only the believing remnant: "And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved.... And, as Isaiah hath said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had become as Sodom, and had been made like unto Gomorrah" (Rom. 9:27-29).
     
  10. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    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 fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 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. Romans 11:25-27
     
  11. RLBosley

    RLBosley
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rom 9:6-8 HCSB - But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants. On the contrary, your offspring will be traced through Isaac. That is, it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children, but the children of the promise are considered to be the offspring.
     
    #11 RLBosley, Jul 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2014
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    The Deliverer, Jesus Christ, came out of Zion 2000 years ago!
     
  13. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    It has been shown on another thread that you do not understand "dispensation" as it relates to the theology of that name, yet you continue to comment as though your definition is the working definition. It is not. Dispensation simply means the method by which administration occurs.

    The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations. This is primarily where you err, claiming your "parenthesis" label that is woefully misapplied. It is the primary misunderstanding of the opponents of Dispensationalism.

    Theologians of all stripes agree God worked differently through the Law than He did through Grace. That is what is meant by "dispensation," the administration of His relationship with the Jews and the Gentiles. Please note I'm not saying salvation was attained differently for each of the two groups, but that the members' responsibilities to God were different during the period of the giving of the Law up to the cross. By the way, He also administered His relationship with Adam and Eve differently than He administered the Law to the Jews.

    Adam and Eve were created in innocence, but sinned in their disobedience to God's commands, and therefore lost not only their innocence, but their unquestioned relationship with God. Their sin and deception put mankind on the road to the Law, which of course was given to Moses.

    The Jews were to show their true faith by doing what God had commanded, even though they couldn't keep the moral Law. That was the purpose of the the sacrifices. Paul stated clearly that, as to the Law, he was blameless (Philippians 3:6). He didn't mean that he never sinned. He meant that he obeyed God by following the guidelines of the Law, accepting that the animal sacrifices offered for his sin by the priests was sufficient. Salvation came not by keeping the law, but by seeing it's true purpose in exposing sin, and turning to God for salvation. Contrary to what many Jews thought, the weren't saved based on how well they kept the law. They were saved through faith in God, and the work of Christ on the cross was counted for them, even though it hadn't happened yet.

    So, if the principle interpretation of what a "dispensation" is amounts to the primary error of those who rail against it, what is the best method of interpretation?

    The Bible is to be interpreted literally. Don't get derailed by that word. A "literal interpretation" takes into account the figurative, poetic and allegorical language included in both the Hebrew and Greek writings. Such an interpretation will lead to an understanding of the biblical covenants and prophecy under a specific set of core beliefs about God's kingdom program, what the future will hold for ethnic Israel, and for the Church. Understanding God's program in that vein must lead to a distinction between Israel and the Church, and a promised future earthly reign of Christ on the throne of David, the Davidic Kingdom. It requires one to conclude there is a very specific plan regarding the endtimes.
    • As per God's promise, Israel must be re-gathered to their land
    • The purge referenced in Daniel's seventieth week prophecy specifically regards to the Israel, and not the Church. These were the clear words spoken to Daniel. The church doesn't need purging from sin. It is already clean.
    • Some of the warnings in Matthew 24 are directed at the Jews, and not the Church, given that God will be finishing His plan with national Israel at the same time
    • A Pretribulation Rapture: Israel, not the church, is seen in Daniel as the key player during the tribulation. God removes the elect when he brings judgment on the world, as illustrated by the types seen in Noah, John 14, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16
    • Premillennialism: A literal 1000 year Millennial Kingdom, where Christ returns before the Millennium starts, for several reasons, including that Revelation 20 doesn't give us a reason to interpret the 1000 years as symbolic, there is a promised literal reign of Christ in the Old Testament, and the chronological language and order of events between Revelation 19-21
    Charles Ryrie in his book "Dispensationalism" points out that some Christians have actually called Dispensationalism heretical. In reality, the use of words like "heretical" for nonessential doctrinal beliefs are the true cause of division in the church.

    Whether a person believes in a literal future Millennial Kingdom is not essential Christian doctrine. The Deity of Christ, the Trinity and the Atonement are essential doctrines that must be adhered to for a true understanding of Christ, and God's plan for the world. The battle between Convenantalists and Dispensationalists is not one fought over essential doctrine. A house divided against itself will not stand. When we get to heaven, or the Millennial Kingdom, whichever will come first, we will understand the truth of all the word of God, but until then there are essential doctrines of the faith that are worth going to battle over. There are also nonessential doctrines that are not, since we don't want to be found going to battle with each other, and therefore, with Jesus Christ Himself.
     
    #13 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jul 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2014
  14. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I do know what dispensation means. The word dispensation comes from the Greek word "oikonomia" which means the management of a household or of household affairs. The word does not occur in the Old Testament and occurs only seven times in the New Testament. On four occasions it is translated dispensation and on three occasions it is translated stewardship.

    I did not apply the parenthesis label, Dispensational theologians did. It is not I who err, it is those who introduce a doctrine that divides the Church and splinters the Word of God!




    That adds up to two administrations.

    Some words I wrote in a discussion of the Doctrines of Grace:
    I believe I discussed this on another thread.

    The Jews are not Israel.
    Dispensationalism is, to put it simply, an erroneous doctrine.

    Stating it simple:

    1. It is foolish to insist that all Scripture is to be interpreted literally.

    2. The basis for much of dispensational error is the faulty and nonliteral interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27.

    3. We are now in the millennial kingdom.

    4. Many dispensationalist that I know, with their glorification of Israel, really do reduce the Church for which Jesus Christ died to an afterthought. They reason that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom, the Jews rejected Him, and the Church was established instead. I have had the passage: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: quoted to me more times than I can count. I have posed a question on this forum similar to the following: Who does God favor, if anyone, in a conflict between a Christian and a Jew? Hard to get an answer. To many dispensationalists the Jews are still God's chosen people. Even Old J Vernon did not claim that! And all this nonsense is the fault of Darby and the SRB!

    5. I would not call dispensational doctrine heretical {excluding hypers}. To do so would mean that all those Rapture Ready dispensationalists I know would be heretics and I don't believe they are.

    Without John Nelson Darby there would be no systematic dispensational doctrine and without his disciples, including Scofield and his SRB and Moody, dispensationalism would have never gained the foothold it has in the Churches.
     
  15. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    .
    That's seven more times than the word "trinity" appears in Scripture, but obviously you don't deny that doctrine, right?
    You endorse it, however, so you may as well have.
    Uh, no. The only place I find that word used in in Wikipedia and your thread. I think we can agree the former is not a valid theological source. None of the noted Dispensational theologians used anything remotely suggesting the church as "parenthetical." It is an inaccurate and deliberately concocted pejorative used by those who argue against the doctrine.
    That's your perception, one that is inaccurate, as my post pointed out.
    Which, as I said, is seen by scholars from many differing varieties of both Convenantal and Dispensational theology as being a valid view. It is inarguable that, prior to the Cross, God's relationship with Israel was administered differently than was His relationship with Adam and Eve, and also than was His relationship with the Church.
    I read those. They are the words of a Convenantalist. They are not valid, in my opinion.
    Again, the view of a Convenantalist, one which ignores many of the arguments I believe I successfully made in the post to which you have replied. I find it somewhat amusing that you use the works of a Jewish rabbi, the teacher of a religion you deny has any remaining validity, to make your point in attempting to disprove mine. :rolleyes:
    Again, the statement of a Convenantalist, and also one that I dismissed as being overly critical of a nonessential doctrinal disagreement.
    This view obviously ignores my qualifier that a "literal interpretation" takes into consideration the literal as well as the figurative, poetic and allegorical nature of both Hebrew and Greek. You attempt to talk over that point as though it has not been made.
    On the contrary, it is the Convenantalist who fails to make a literal interpretation of Daniel. The Convenantalist's view is that the vision is figuratively allegorical, making the whole thing pointless, and then he attempts to make a point of it that doesn't stand up to careful scrutiny.
    I'd laugh, but that would be rude.
    You must understand that we don't "glorify Israel," but recognize it as the vessel that sustains and protects spiritual Israel, which is not the church. Your claims elsewhere regarding the "withdrawal" of God's promises from Israel are too lengthy to go into here. Suffice to say, you cannot provide an accurately interpreted Scripture that places those promises with the church, or simply outright denies them to Israel after a purge of unbelief (see my previous post) without making God a liar.
    This is utter nonsense, given that I've stated quite clearly that one has to see -- and many Covenantal theologians do see -- differing administrations of God's relationships with people through history. It is impossible to deny. Yet you do.
    That would be because they have never been in conflict. Or did you not notice that in your careful study of history? Both are "His people." That's the tripping point for you. You do not understand that God can have one plan of salvation, but administer it differently to differing peoples. He can, He does, and He will.
    They are. So are we. Again, that's the impossible concept for you to grasp, but it is clearly biblical in nature.
    Well, I guess we can thank the Holy Spirit for revealing that much truth to you. :smilewinkgrin:
    Completely untrue. Dispensationalism did not originate with Darby, or become "acceptable" through Moody, Scofield or anyone else. Paul himself teaches dispensationalism. It is found in Romans 9-11. But Covenantal Calvinists reject that concept too, so we'll just have to agree to disagree, because insulting me and denigrating the theology does nothing to convince me of anything but it's truth
     
    #15 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jul 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2014
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,001
    Likes Received:
    46
    Do you argue from the position that Covenant Theology MUST be right in all that it describes, and is the only valid way to understand "rightly divide the Word?"

    If yes, no wonder that you are coming up a wee bit short in trying to get the gist of what the Bible might actually be teaching here...
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    Prior to Pentecost, the issue was not another gospel or another salvation that separated the Jews from the Gentile (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Rom. 4:1-22; Gal. 3:6-8) as the Gentile proselyte (e.g. Abraham was a gentile) was saved on the very same equal basis as was the Jew (Acts 10:43). The issue was the believing Gentile did not have an equal place in public worship in the house of God.

    The wall that divided them was not salvation but equal worship in the house of public worship. That was the Old Covenant administration.

    In the New Covenant administration, the new house of public worship (Heb. 9:1 "also....and") made public worship consistent with salvation as there were no walls of separation in the congregational body of Christ.
     
  18. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    That comment is unbecoming of you TND. I would expect that from some dispensationalists such as DHK but not you. In the OP I presented direct quotes from Ryrie, Chafer, and Ironside using the word parenthesis or intercalation in reference to the Church as an interruption in God's program for Israel,
     
  19. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is nothing "unbecoming" about my comments. You have continued to use the word "parenthesis" is a disparaging way, despite Ryrie's warnings to the contrary that the Progressive Dispensationalist, the Calvinist, the Covenantalist, uses it in that fashion.

    Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but in calling your use of the word a "misapplication" I was referring to how you use it, not how Ryrie uses it. When I said I find no use of it outside of Wikipedia, your usage, I was referring to the use of it in that context that is an inaccurate and deliberately concocted pejorative used by those who argue against the doctrine. Such as yourself. In other words, how you use "parenthesis" and how Ryrie used it are not compatible.
    The continued deliberate misuse based on the misunderstanding of the word's application makes your argument very tentative. For example, the illustration shown for Ryrie's definition in Webster's:
    In that example, the hypothetical coalition government was not secondary to anything. In fact, it would be a reasonable assumption its lack of success would foment action to disband it and replace it with something else. Though that would not apply to the church age, it definitely debunks the continued use of "parenthesis" as denoting something secondary, or an afterthought, as you have continued to insist on applying it to Dispensationalist thought.
     
  20. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    My understanding is that Gentile proselytes essentially became Jews. {See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12391-proselyte} I would also note that Jesus Christ did not have much good to say about proselytes to Judaism so I am not sure what is your point!

    Matthew 23:15. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...