1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What Dispensationalism Provides?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by BibleTalk, Dec 24, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    While I think anyone would make that claim it can be a tough thing to fully understand the historical context. In talking with some of my friends who have graduated from DTS there are those who look at the Sermon on the Mount as in the future only and others who are yougewr in age as seeing that same sermon as appllicable for today.

    I do not see consistency across the age groups concerning dispensationalism. Some DTS grads will say that the younger generation agrees with very little of the much older generation from years ago.
     
  2. J.D.

    J.D. Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    11
    The promises were made to Abraham and his seed. The NT defines "seed" as 1) Christ; and 2) believers in Christ.

    By what exegitical magic do we exclude believers from the promises of land? [edited]

    Remember, the Law does not void the Abrahamic Covenant.
     
    #82 J.D., Dec 29, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2008
  3. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, that is not what has happened to me. I really didn't know any theological "systems" at that time, but came to my understanding through reading the scriptures.

    Romans 11 speaks of Gentiles being "grafted in" to the vine of Israel. Those Jews that were not cut off for unbelief make up the remnant (v.5) of Israel which God has kept for Himself.

    Both Jew and Gentile that are saved make up the children of promise from Chp.9.

    The Jews that are saved when the blindness is lifted are grafted back into the very same vine of Israel when the fullness of the Gentiles has come (when all Gentiles that will be saved are saved). Notice that everyone that is saved are in the same vine. It is a common future, not a separate future.

    Thus, all "Israel" will be saved. All "Israel", in context, is referring to both Jew and Gentile, children of promise, those chosen by God for salvation.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  4. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    OK, how exactly should we understand God's promise to never again destroy Jerusalem......forever?

    Wouldn't the normal understanding of the passage be that Jerusalem would never again be destroyed?

    peace to you:praying:
     
  5. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Phil. 3:1-11, "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."
     
  6. Martin Luther

    Martin Luther New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0


    That is the Holy Spirit talking, Christ came to redeem man, it does not matter what blood you have. The NT could not be any clearer; An Israelite is one by faith. God is able to fulfill His promise to Abraham without one single Israelite if need be.( Matthew 3:9) I wish Christians would stop selling themselves short and realize that by being saved they will become joint heirs with Christ. What Gods gives Christ will be given to the church, the bride of Christ, Holy sinless Israel. Read Ezekiel 37 it is the church, a called out assembly.


    Romans 8:17
    And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.


    Remember that Paul was an Israelite, the apostles were all Israelites, and they were part of the new covenant. The new covenant was better than the first; there is no way God will go back to the law in the future.


    Galatians 3:29
    And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
     
    #86 Martin Luther, Dec 29, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2008
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is unfortunately typical of the minimalistic approach to the Scripture. The seed is Christ, and is believers, but for what purposes? When you study the Scriptures, you see that the purposes of "seed" is different. The promise of the land was made to Abraham's genetic seed. Remember in Gen 17 Abraham tried to include a non-descendant in the promise, and God refused, clarifying that it was his own seed that would receive the land promise.

    We don't. We simply understand who the promise was made to. If I promise my son that I will take him to McUncle Donalds (as he calls it), I do not break my promise by not taking your son. So the fact that NT have certain promises does not mean that OT promises are made null. As you say, "Remember, the Law does not void the Abrahamic Covenant.

    The Abrahamic covenant included the promise of the land to Abraham's genetic descendnats in Genesis 17.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you read the Scriptures in their context with no presuppositions, I say it is impossible to conclude what you have concluded. It just isn't there. To me, only imagination can exchange "Israel" for "church." I just can't find it in the text.

    Romans 9-11 are pretty clear on this, and through reading it you will see that the interchange between "Israel" and "church" doesn't work. It makes no sense in the text itself. As I have argued, the exchange requires some very difficult explanations.

    Having studied this out, and the more I read and study, the less I can see any merit to your position. It simply isn't in the text of Scripture that I can find.
     
    #88 Pastor Larry, Dec 29, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2008
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, (to repeat myself) 'olam doesn't mean unending. Just get out a lexicon and look it up. I think even something as basic as Strong's will show this by looking up the passages. It can mean a very long period of time, which the MK certainly has.

    Second, understand the context of destruction for the OT. It has to do with destruction for disobedience. Remember, Israel was promised peace and security in the land for obedience, and they were promised exile and destruction for disobedience. That is the context in which this promise was made.
     
  10. J.D.

    J.D. Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    11
    But Larry, you DID promise me, a genetic descendant of Abraham, that you WOULD give me land. And now you say that because I am a believer in Christ, I don't get the land you promised!

    YOU said that believing genetic Jews don't get land.

    You have a delimma my friend.

    There is a resolution to the delimma, however. All believers, both Gentile and Jew, inherit land. The land is called heaven, or, if you prefer, the eternal state known as "new heavens and new earth", the whole of it, not just Canaan, which was its type.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I don't have a dilemma. Perhaps you didn't read everything I said. The promise is not given to individual Jews, but to Israel as a nation. Again, please read the OT such as Deuteronomy 30 for starters. There you see clearly that the land promise is to the nation, not to individuals.

    Right now, no believing Jew is a part of a believing nation.

    That's all true (except the type part), but it's not the promise God made. That God might one day give them more than the promise does not mean that he does not fulfill the promise. To use an example, tell your son you are going to take him to McDonald's, and then tell him you changed your mind and are going to take him to a steak house instead. My bet is that he won't believe you kept your promise, because you didn't do what you said you would do.

    I am not going to prolong this for the sake of time and priorities, but I appeal to you folks to read the OT and see what it says. Both the Law and the Prophets are clear on this.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It can be in some senses, but it is not really all that difficult to understand the historical context of a literary text. When you read the OT promises about the land and destruction, you know what the context of Jer 31 is.

    That is an age old debate. Nothing new there.

    That is true, not just of dispensationalism, but of the alternatives as well. All this means is that people continue to study. It's not a problem.
     
  13. Martin Luther

    Martin Luther New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure they are, it's called the church.
     
  14. J.D.

    J.D. Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    11
    And perhaps you did not read everything I said. Notice that the promise was given to ABRAHAM and to HIS SEED. Paul is explicit on defining SEED. He is the reductionist.

    An expansion of the covenant which included CONDITIONS UNDER THE LAW THAT WERE VIOLATED.

    BY THE WAY I AM NOT YELLING - JUST EMPHASIZING.

    "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"

    Okay, I don't want to get bogged down arguing over types, but I don't see how Canaan cannot be representative of heaven.

    EXACTLY!! In fact, God DID one day give them more than the promise (Christ, not land), and they get land too (new heavens and new earth, wherein righteousness dwells)

    A number of problems with this analogy. 1)God didn't change His mind (I know you know that); 2) The people of God, as exemplified in Abraham, and as revealed in Hebrews 11, were MINDFUL OF THAT LAND, THAT IS, THE HEAVENLY. So in your analogy, my son actually wants a steak, but settles for a hamburger till the real thing comes along. And boy is he happy when he gets that steak!

    And neither am I. It's just the two peoples of God thing really bothers me. I can accept the idea of a future Jewish repentance and sweeping in to the church, I can even accept the idea of a return to their ancient land, but any blessing to the Jews must come through Christ who is the Head of the Church throughout all ages, world without end.

    Anyway, take a break and maybe we'll get back to this later. I'm signing off now myself and won't be back for a few days.
     
  15. Martin Luther

    Martin Luther New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0

    Good verse, looks like a slam dunk.
     
  16. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    That is all the more reason why we must hold our feet to the fire about studying scripture in light of its historical context.

    The problem I have seen over the years is that to many have tried to short cut their study by studying a systematic theology instead of the text itself. I have yet to see any systematic theology give answers to some of the tough questions which result as a serious study of the Bible.

    The most serious problem I have with any systematic theology is how many have been misled by studying them instead of the Bible and have strayed from the faith. Just look around and see how few have a good working knowledge of the Bible.
     
  17. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Where is church ever referred to as a nation :confused:
     
  18. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    First, I don't recall referring to Israel as the "church". If I did, or if you thought I did, that was not my intention.

    I referred to "Israel" as those who are the children of promise, made up of both Jews and Gentiles. If you read those passages of scripture with no presuppositions, I cannot understand how you could come to any other conclusion.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    You are wrong again. John F. Walvoord in his book Major Bible Prophesies states on page 279, as follows:

    "In the entirety of Revelation 4-18, no mention of the church on earth is found. Instead, believers are referred to as believing Gentiles or believing Jews but never as the church. The total absence of any reference to the church is difficult to explain unless the pretribulationists are correct that the church is in heaven and not on earth during this period."

    In fact if anyone cares to check; the words believers or believing do not occur in Revelation Chapters 4-18. Neither do the words Jew or Gentile. The word Israel occurs only one time:

    Revelation 7:4. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

    Now John F. Walvoord, former president and chancellor of Dallas Theological Seminary, is supposedly the preeminent theologian among classical dispensationalists yet he makes an incorrect statement in an effort to prove his incorrect premise, that the Church is not present during the time period covered in Revelation 4-18, and this in a book written to the Church.

    Now Pastor Larry you have implied in the past that I am either lying or being disingenuous when I have referenced this book by Walvoord. You have also on several occasions stated that I am implying that God is lying because I do not bow to the dispensational error. I had quit responding to anything you posted for this reason but your statement: I don't know of any dispensationalist who would argue this way. demanded refutation. So I suggest that before you do so again please access the book by Walvoord and verify that what I have said is correct. As you see it definitively refutes your statement: I don't know of any dispensationalist who would argue this way.
     
  20. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    1Pe 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

    1Pe 2:10 Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...