Why does Dispensationalism teach...

God made specific promises of both blessing and cursing to the Jews. He has literally honored the promises that relate to the cursings. He will also literally honor the promises that relate to the blessings.

 

If you want the "literal context" then don't start at verse 35. Lets go back and start at verse 31:

31 Behold, the days come , saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah :32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah.33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:

So the context is the New Covenant. These things will take place when God gives the New Covenant.

Notice Hebrews 8 uses this Jer. reference:

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord.10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people :11 And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen, And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For all shall know me, From the least to the greatest of them.12 For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And their sins will I remember no more.13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.

These things were fulfilled in the New covenant.

Romans 2:15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts , their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws on their heart , And upon their mind also will I write them; then saith he,

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

Who is the Nation? New Covenant believers make up His nation.

I Peter 2:9 But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

 

What bothers me a lot is the fact that SWBTS is hiring dispensational profs who graduated from DTS. The president of SWBTS is a dispensationalist. Before that time the only dispensationalsists at SWBTS were some in the evangelism department.

 

If the profs are from Dallas, there is a good chance they are progressive dispies, which is better than classic dispies.

 

charles larkin that one has developed dispensational theology in piror 1910 also CI socfield was student under charles larkin teaching on dispensational doctrine. it spread so fast across american make it so more pouplar doctrine that why all almost baptist, other religous are adopted disepnesational doctrine caused many christian in confusion and split it up does the bible saying many divison ? i can see cearly there is one body of Christ.

brumleyj
ps27:1
amem

 

DD,

You're taking a course from Lightner? He spoke at my Dad's church when I was a kid. His daughter was in college with me. Small world.

Definitely an Old-school Dispie--or as some would say, a true dispie. From some of your posts, some might question whether you're a true dispie, DD.

Still amil.,

Tim

 

I am not an old school dispy at all. It is almost comical some of his arguments.

I am thinking to myself: I don't believe that. That isn't why I'm a dispy, etc.

Stiff.

 

Dispensationalism always believes that there is clearly one body of Christ. What dispensationalism does is define that body the way that Scripture does. "Body of Christ" is a term applied only to the church in Scripture. It is never applied to any one prior to Acts 2 at Pentecost. In teh body, Jews and Gentiles are one, on equal footing. That is not true in the OT.

As for dividing the SCriptures, Scripture divides itself, so that is clearly not a problem.

As for classics vs. progressives, do not mistake classics for larkin or scofieldian. While Larkin and Scofield were classic or traditional, there is a wide berth in that group. I am more of a classic, but reject much of what Larkin and Scofield would have taught. There is also a difference between the dispensationalism taught at Dallas and at Grace (the two main dispensational seminaries of the prior generation). I am more of a Grace adherent than Dallas. I think Progressives are saddled with a number of problems that will ultimately lead them out of dispensationalism. But time will tell. I was recently able to find Blaising and Block's book (the seminal work I believe) that is now out of print as I understand it.

 

As I said, much of progressive is problematic. However, many of the classic positions are just based on logic and very weak Scriptural support.

 

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

It has already led many out of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is simply something Darby saw that nobody else had seen prior to him. I am still amazed at how that could possibly be and followed by so many who will tell you they still don’t understand it.

Seems to me like progressive is much like Mormonism–ever changing.

 

Yet, dispensationalism deny 'saints' of Rev. 13:7,19, 14:12 is the part of the body of Christ.

Aren't we the saints of 1 Cor. 14:33? If so,

Then, therefore, saints simple mean Christians. Both are no difference. Saints of Rev. 13:7,10, 14:12 shall have the part of the first resurrection of Rev. 20:3-4. Same as otherwise, saints shall dwell in New Jerusalem - Rev. 21:9, because of their names are written in the book of life.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

This simply is not true. Darby is the one who began to put more of the pieces together, but the teachings of dispenstionalism are found all throughout church history. Revisionism won't change that.

 

And why? Becuase the body of Christ is already gone by that time. Dispensationalism does not deny that they are saints.

Completely incorrect and a non sequitur at that. The fact that 1 Cor 14:33 (and numerous other passages teach that the church is "saints" has nothign to do with saints in the Tribulation or in the OT. They are talking about different things.

Christians are saints. Not all saints are in the body of Christ. OT believers were not "Christians." They are not a part of the body of Christ. They are still believers and are still in heaven. There is no scriptural reason to assert that OT saints are in teh body of Christ. They in fact would not have even known what that meant.

This is a place where many feel that dispensationalism is too rigidly tied to Scripture. They want to superimpose their own views on Scripture and thus come up with these kinds of arguments. But again, Scripture must be our guide. Scripture clearly delineates between teh body of Christ which is the church and other believers. They are all saved. They are not all in the same body.

 

Pastor Larry,

You do need a SOLID evidence verse in the New Testament to support your belief. Please show prove where one verse saying accord your words?

Bible does not teach us there will be z-e-r-o saint on earth after the gathering together. It teaches us, we all shall be meet Christ while he descends all the way to earth at His coming - 1 Thess. 4:15-17.

Why not? O.T. saints and N.T. saints both already reconciled together unity into one by the cross - Eph. 2:12-16. There is no longer divided between Jews and Gentiles, both are unity together forever after the result of Calvary.

Ok. Firstly, let you know the word 'Christians' appear only ONCE in Acts 11:26. Why it says, 'Christians'? It says, "And the disciples were CALLED 'Christians' first in Antioch." Why the disciples were called, 'Christians' first in Antioch? Because, people noticed them witness the gospel to people, and follow Christ, that why, people called them, "Christians" - 'Christ-person' . Also, word, 'Christian' appear only twice in the New Testament - Acts 26:28; and 1 Peter 4:16.

King Agrippa told Paul, that he almomost persuade him to be Christian.

Christian means a person who surrender life, and FOLLOW Christ.

Christ means the anointed one.

There is no difference between OT and NT of the saints, both are Christians, because they followed Christ - 1 Cor. 10:4.

Yeah???

Galatians 4:26 - "But Jerusalem which is ABOVE(heaven) is free, which is the mother of US ALLLLL." Obivously, both OT and NT saints are belong to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is God's city 'New Jerusalem'. So, therefore, they ate Christ's bride - Rev. 21:9.

Paul tells us, "For ye are ALLLLLL the children of God BY faith IN Christ Jesus." - Gal. 3:26

Obivously, He tells us, both Jews and Gentiles are God's children, even include Abraham too, we are God's ONE family in heaven, where we shall dwell in New Jerusalem, we are Christ's Bride - Rev. 21:9.

Then, they are not belong to God's family - Gal. 3:26???

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

The exegetical case for pretribulationism has been made many times.

Neither does dispensationalism.

We all who??? We all the church is who is in view.

OT saints are dead ... They are not united iwth NT saints in any meaningful sense. But you are right that there is no longer any division between Jews and Gentiles. But that is in the church, which is, once again, what dispensationalism teaches. The fact that there is "no longer" a division means taht there once was. Which destroys the whole "body of Christ in which there is no division" in teh OT.

But there is one major problem. You do not have one OT verse that tells anyone to believe in Christ or to follow Christ. You are reading NT revelation back onto the OT. You cannot do that. The OT believers did not follow Christ.

Once again, of us all who??? THe "who" is the church, which is NT only.

Gal 3:26 once again is the church.

You are taking all these verses that apply to the church and making them apply to something else. You can't do that. These verses have referents. You can't change them to fit your theology. Your theology needs to change to fit the verses.

 

I sure wish I could be as reckless as non-dispies in handling God's word. Unfortunately, I have an obligation to actually study first.

 

You still not given any verses to prove me, that the body of Christ will be gone by that time. I want you to show me where verse saying that the body of Christ will be gone before tribulation period begins, please.

Why you saying the body of Christ will be G-O-N-E????

Understand 1 Thess 4:15-17 speaks to us as future final generation of the believers over the world include believers in Israel who will be still alive and remain will be caught up together when Christ descends, we all shall meet Christ while He descends in the air. NO verse saying the saints will be gone. We just gathering together FOR to meet CHrist while Christ descends to earth at the second coming, for the purpose to judge the world.

Aren't Abraham is belong to the body of Christ - Ga. 3:14, 16, and 26? Calvary paid all people's sins both OT saints and NT saints. It is NO longer that the wall separate Jews from Gentiles, and separate us from the commonwealth of Israel, now we are reconciled with Jews together into one, we are all Israel - Romans 11:25-26.

Oh, aboslutely, YES! OT believers followed Christ same as follow Christ. Often, the Bible emphasis the word, 'faith', faith is believing without sight. OT saints never see Jesus Christ in flesh, but they believed in him by the faith. same as we not yet see Christ in flesh, yet we believing in him by the faith. Faith is very important. Also, Jesus Christ is the deity of God. CHrist IS God. The OT believers followed God, same as we follow God. Both are no difference.

Galatians 3:26 does not limited for the NT saints only, also, Abraham dwells in New Jerusalem, he is belong to New Jerusalem, because he is part of the Christ's bride.

If, you think Abraham and all OT saints are not belong to New Jerusalem or Christ' bride. Rev. 21:12-13 tell us, the 12 gates around NJ are the twelve tribes of Israel, obivously, all OT saints are belong to Christ's bride!!!

Yes, Calvary already reconciled both OT saints and NT saints together into God's family, all are Christ's bride and we are the mother's of above - Gal. 4:26.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

DeafPosttrib: "We just gathering together FOR to meet CHrist while Christ descends to earth at the second coming, for the purpose to judge the world. "

Actually, that passage says nothing about where Jesus
is headed after the Rapture/resurreciton.

1 Thesssalonians 4:17-18 (kJV1769):

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

No mention of where Jesus is headed, but we shall be with
him. Be comforted, this will all happen afater 3½-years
of torture. Oops, that isn't very comforting. How about
BEFORE THE TRIBULATION! Amen!

Of course, those who read the REAL KJV1611 Edition
(instead of the modern version KJV1769 edition) and read
the footnotes, they find that the second best translation
for the "comfort" is "exhort". So the KJV1769 is pre-trib
and the KJV1611 can be pre-trib or post-trib.

 

Yes I have. We have been through the evidence many times. If you are truly interested, then you can study it from the numerous authors who have defended it.

Because SCripture leads us to believe that.

Walvoord and others deal with this in a very thorough manner. It will be well worth your time. But let me point out the little word "us." That is an important one. The "us" are the church. You cannot take a passage meant for one group and apply it to another. That is your consistent method because you are not studying teh passages in their context.

No. Read those verses again and don't confuse the body of Christ with believers.

Again, repeating things we have said many many times and things that are readily available for those truly interested, Calvary did pay for the sins of both OT and NT people. But that does not mean all are in the body of Christ. That is a complete jump that is unjustified from teh text. We (the Gentiles in teh church) are no longer separated from teh Jews in the church. But that is in the church. Rom 11;25-26 is a clear proof that Israel and the church are distinct and that Israel's future will not happen until after the church is complete.

Then show us from the OT where any OT believer followed Christ. How would they even know what it meant to follow Christ?? They wouldn't. You cannot pretend like the OT people had the same revelation as NT people. Remember Heb 1:1-3 ... In the former days God spoke through prophets; now he speak through his Son.

There is a difference. "No difference" theology is oneness pentecostalism. Christ is distinct from God.

Gal 3:26 says nothing of the sort. Go back and read what it actually says.

The major problem with your positions is simply that Scripture does not teach them. You quote a lot of references but when you study those references in context, you see that they do not say what you say they say. This is where we have to assert the authority of Scripture over the opinions of man.

 

Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it!