Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election

That is a smart way to author a book! It doesn't avoid all of the critical commentary (just ask Dave Hunt) but it certainly adds to the integrity of your work! Good on ya, mate/bro! :thumbs:

I'll go check it out.

skypair

 

Some reason I couldn't get to it this morning. Were you working on it?

skypair

 

Well, after a long time away I see the debate on the subject of calvinism and covenant theology hasn't stopped. hahahahaha

 

Yeah? --- where ya bean? :wavey:

I think "Dispensationalism" and "Election" have provocative implications without even naming Calvinism and CT, don't you? Whether "election" is to salvation or to purpose, it would be interesting to find out how it is woven into a "sermon with 7 points," wouldn't it? :laugh: I mean, what about the 'election' of Noah? Hmm.

One of Lance's citations is to There Really Is a Difference by Renald Showers who I think had done a definitive work on Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology, but I do think there were more points to make even in that work. I'd, for instance, like to see the 'election' of the laborers in Mt 20 or of the 'wedding guests' in Mt 22 -- any of Matthew's 'kingdom of heaven" parables because they ALL speak dispensationally, involve the 'election' of certain individuals, and certainly overthrow the premises of Covenant Theology.

skypair

 

I have been busy with work, family, et. And I grew weary of the debates. Hopefully I can stay out of them generally speaking.

Concerning the dispensationalism I am not intimately familiar with all its details and nuances, nor with Covenant Theology. Our pastor preached a series on the covenants and I have several works on it.

I probably mentioned it before, but I never subscribed to either one system of theology, but many would say I am "covenant" I do reject dispensationalism (as I understand it) in the main because of its teaching of two peoples of God: the Church and Israel. I do not see this concept in Scripture.

I have seen this concept twist and mangle verses like Jeremiah 31 which I was appalled when I learned many dispensationalists apply to Israel and think it has nothing to do with the Church. How folks can do this only makes sense when I understand our human tendency to hold to a prior belief even in the face of revealed Scripture. There is no need for any interpretation of Jeremiah in this passage as Hebrews applies the very verses to the Church and the New Covenant spoken of there to the Covenant in Christ.

This alone is enough for me to know dispensationalism has missed the mark of truth, although many godly men hold to it.

 

Did you get my notes on Ch 1?

skypair

 

For many, dispie appears to violate the law of non-contradiction when reading Jeremiah and Hebrews. The law says that contradictory statements about the say thing cannot be true in the same way at the same time -- and they're not in the case of Jeremiah and Hebrews.

Jeremiah prophesies a "kingdom" in which "God" will put a "heart of flesh" into "Israel." Isn't that the gist of it? Hebrews speaks of a SPIRITUAL kingdom already come in which JESUS put a "heart of flesh" into some of believing Jews and Gentiles which He calls the "CHURCH."

Now that does not preclude (contradict) the "EARTHLY MILLENNIAL KINGDOM" when GOD/MESSIAH will resurrect believing ISRAEL (cf: Ezek 37:14) to earth and give them "HEARTS OF FLESH."

Now from Jeremiah to the cross, Israel could not see that it would work that way. All their expectations should have been fulfilled when Messiah came and presented Himself entering Jerusalem in 33 AD. From their prophecies, He would then set up His kingdom on earth and give a heart of flesh to all believers -- Israel. Instead, Rom 11:26 says that they await the "fulness of the Gentiles" (nations, Armageddon) "and then shall ALL Israel [OT and trib] be saved [resurrected and indwelt]!"

These are clearly NOT same way-same time events and, thus, they are noncontradictory, right? Nobody is "replacing" anybody else in the prophecy as some others put it. Like many prophecies or events, there is merely "dual fulfillment." Take the feasts of Israel for instance. Every one of them was viewed as Irael-centric by the Jews and yet we understand them to have a different Christ application.

Then look at the law. Lance might want to comment on this, but under the "law," it appears that God was sanctifying the OT saints' spirits through "works" of the flesh whereas now Christ is sanctifying the NT saints' flesh through the indwelling Spirit such that Paul said, "If it is of the law [flesh], it is no more of grace [Spirit]..." and vice versa. They were to think about God according to feasts, rituals, historic events, etc. -- external SIGNS. We are to think of God according to Christ's Spirit that abides in us. If you noted only this difference in the revelation of God, you would be a dispensationalist!

skypair

 

I'll try PM rather than your web "contact us" route this time -- soon.

skypair

 

Concerning Hebrews 8

In my previous post I briefly explained why I will not accept dispensationalism as I understand it. One of those reasons is how dispy's use Jeremiah 31, which is contrary to how the Apostle uses the passage in Hebrews 8.

From what I understand, dispensatioanalist apply the New Covenant spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah to natual Israel only. This is contrary to the Apostles teaching in Hebews.

Now, I can cut and paste the Scriptures from Hebews for that, but I am certain that you have read them and more certain that no matter what, you will not reach the same conclusion I have in reading them.

Best regards

 

Not true. Someone is trying to discredit dispensationalists on false pretenses, RB. Or as we used to say in college, "Someone's shooting you a crooked arrow." :laugh:

skypair

 

Ever read Charles Ryrie? He says the New Covenant of Jer. 31 is for natural Israel. I'm with ReformedBaptists on this one. To deny the New Covenant has been made is a serious problem for me.

 

I do believe RB used the word "ONLY" in his response. No, the NC is not ONLY for "natural Israel." Dispensationalists don't believe that.

But being "dispies," we believe it is with different TIMING. "Natural Israel" (the OT saints) receive the new covenant in the postrib resurrection and live under it in Messiah's Millennial Kingdom on earth whereas we receive it and live under it now, Heb 12:24. The indwelling Spirit = "putting My laws in their heart."

Now maybe you want to say with Paul that the NC came first to Israel who rejected except for a few branches, Rom 11:17, and those branches brought it to the church, Heb 8:13. But I see the NC given to "all ['natural'] Israel" in the MK, Rom 11:26 after the fulness of the Gentiles have already come into it.

skypair

 

For those who think eschatology is not really important, think again. It effects almost all the other "ology's:

 

Mr. Ketchum,

I don't believe I asked a question. And you would not want to waste your time on me.

Best regards