Featured Baptist Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead

What he says is true. There is a distinction between the church and Israel. Replacement theology is a well known heresy. And to say that "the church" is an extension of Israel is just plain Biblical error. It does injustice to the very definition of the word "church." It is a contradiction in terms.
There is no other way to interpret the Bible but literally. Otherwise one drifts off into heresy very quickly. So what is the problem there?
--That doesn't define dispensationalism; it avoids it.
A definition of dispensationalism was not even given as far as I can tell.

Since I looked up the word "Lordship salvation" in it. It was so slanted it was pitiful.
But in the end, I admitted that it gave the best defnintion of all the ones that you posted. It was a clear-cut definition of dispensationalism very much like the one Enns had, that I have been using.

That probably was added in over time. Dispensationalism developed over time. Many of the ECF believed in dispensations.

Then laugh.

Source after source will define it the same way: Theopedia, Enns, etc.

Again:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

 

You call "replacement theology" heresy without proving it or even defining it. I assume by replacement theology you mean the teaching you repudiated above - that the church is the extension of believing Israel. You take the traditional interpretation of the church and label it heresy. Sad.

And of course there are ways to interpret the Bible other than literally. People do it all the time. What is more accurate is the question. Of course, dispensationalists don't actually adhere to literal interpretations, particularly when the apostles literally applied OT Israel passages to the NT church.

And you continue to outright lie, claiming that the ECF believed in dispensationalism.

You are wrong. That is abundantly proven but you refuse to see it.

DHK, I'm done. It's pointless to discuss things this serious with the completely irrational. Your continual lying and misdirection is disgraceful.

 

If you have been here long enough you would know that some of the administrators declared that replacement theology is heresy, and I am not certain but some may have been banned for it. (But don't quote me on that last one). Yes it is a heresy.
It is not the same as saying the church is an extension of Israel (perhaps close).
It is like the Catholic belief that the RCC replaces Israel and that Israel no longer exists. The church never replaced anyone. According to Islam, they will replace Christianity. Is that also true? That also is replacement theology. Replacement theology is, in no way a traditional teaching. It is novel. It is a recent heresy.

Perhaps you need a course in hermeneutics. The Bible is to be taken literally except in those places where the context demands that the figure of speech being used be treated as such. There are allegories, parables, metaphors, etc. used in the Bible. They are to be treated as such.

I have posted links to this evidence and so have others. Calling me a liar won't change facts. It will only get you into trouble.

Where am I wrong? Where have I lied?
Calling me a liar is disgraceful and uncalled for. When one resorts to such innuendo and name-calling they have clearly lost any sense to debate. It does appear you have nothing more to say, especially when resorting to name-calling.

 

Blows my mind:

And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Mt 8:11-12

They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Mt 21:41-43

...if that ain't being replaced then I guess I don't understand the meaning of the word.

 

First let's quote the entire context to see what Jesus is talking about:

Mat 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
Mat 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

A centurion had come to him. He had asked healing for his son. He demonstrated "great faith," in that he didn't even ask Jesus to come to his house but believed that He could heal him from afar, right where he was. Thus the exclamation of Jesus in verse 10:

Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
--Jesus is contrastng the faith of a Gentile, a Roman centuion, to the lack of faith in the nation of Israel.

Then he continues:
Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
--The subject is now about the Kingdom, the Millennial Kingdom which the Jews thought that the Messiah, Christ, was bringing. When He didn't, they crucified him. The OT teaches a literal Millennial Kingdom that the Jews are still awaiting for.

Jesus said that many Gentiles, just like this centurion would sit down in this Kingdom with other men of faith such as Abraham and Isaac. Both demonstrated their faith.

He also said that some of these Israelites would never enter the Kingdom. The ones surrounding him hated him. Some of them would be the very ones that would end up crucifying him. The Lake of Fire would await them. They will be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. There is no evidence of faith with them.
In the Millennial Kingdom only believers will be allowed in. This Roman centurion will be one of those believers.

And what do the last two verses say:

Mat 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
Mat 21:46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

He was speaking to those Jews and Pharisees that had rejected him. Remember that not all Jews rejected Christ. He was speaking to those who lived at that time in history. They were God's elect.

When Pentecost came what happened?
Three thousand Jews got saved.
About 97 thousand Jews did not get saved! What happened to those thousands of Jews that did not get saved. Did they just disappear into the woodwork. NO, they still exist to this day. They were scattered in 70 A.D. as a judgment, and then they were given their land back and reinstituted as a nation in 1948. They still live as a nation. Christians and Jews live side by side together.

In the OT God called out a nation unto himself--Israel.
Did that mean that all the other nations of the world cease to exist? Under the logic of your system of theology, yes, it does.

But in the NT, God is calling out a nation (not the Jews) unto himself.
Like the other nations in the OT, Israel in the NT still exists, just not presently the "elect of God." She has been set aside for a temporary period of time. There will come a time when God will fulfill his promises to Israel. God is faithful. He does not go back on his promises.

We are not Israel. We have no relationship with Israel.
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:
--Israel still exists. But we are a holy nation that God has called out apart from all other nations including Israel.

That has nothing to do with replacement.

 

Don't do it, don't do it....you're debating Captain Obstinate....

 

Replacement Theology has been debated many times here over the years.
Here are a couple of posts I made years ago. You can also review the thread in which they were made if you like:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1102428&postcount=43

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1102499&postcount=60

 

No, that is precisely what it is, replacement.

 

Again:
We are not Israel. We have no relationship with Israel.
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:
--Israel still exists. But we are a holy nation that God has called out apart from all other nations including Israel.

 

7 For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner;
8 and, A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
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:
10 who in time past were no people, but now are the people of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. 1 Pet 2

Peter is NOT addressing Israel after the flesh in this passage.

 

When someone is booted out of the kingdom and others take their place, they have been replaced.

When the vineyard is taken away the the original keepers and given to someone else, they have been replaced.

When the original branches have been broken off and other branches have been grafted back in, they have been replaced.

 

Then who is he addressing? Those 3,000 Jews who got saved on the Day of Pentecost??
They are called Christians, or Jewish believers. The Jews that survived after the dispersion of 70 A.D. are still Jews to this day. They are called "the nation of Israel," and are presently fighting for their lives.

In your view Paul was insane because Israel was no more, the "church" having replaced it. So clearly he was out of his mind, demented, praying for something that never existed:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 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;

and also:
Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
--What a poor demented man, praying for people that don't even exist!

 

I ask this in sincerity because I haven't read all the OT yet. Where and when did the land, the country Israel, get that name?

Israel was the name God gave Jacob. But when and where did the land of Israel get it's name?

 

When Jacob (Israel) went down into Egypt they went down as a large extended family, nomadic, divided into twelve tribes. There they were treated as slaves but grew in number mightily.
When Moses delivered them, and they came to Mount Sinai they were formed into a nation, a theocracy, under Jehovah having been given the law. I would say then were they actually a nation. But the land was given to Abraham and delineated to him a number of times in separate visions by the Lord.

 

The replacements of course:

You who in time past were no people but now are the people of God.

...definitely NOT Israel after the flesh.

 

But, when was that dirt given the name 'Israel'? IMO, Israel is referring to the tribes and not the dirt they dwell on. BTW, they possesed the land when they entered into the promised land, did they not?

 

That's what I'm trying to say. When the bible is speaking of 'Israel', it is in reference to Jacob, his sons, and their descendents, and not the dirt, the nation that was later given that name by man. God named Jacob 'Israel', and we're given the promises that God gave to his grandfather, Abraham.