Scripture or Chafer

Mate, you are forgetting the "parenthetical church age"; the after thought of Israel and God's plan of redemption and reward. Even Job said he knew that he would stand on the earth and see God.

Cheers,

Jim

 

OH I get it!

We've finally gotten past attacking the Grace Evangelical bunch for their heresy, and now we're going after the Dispensationalists! Ahhh!

Because obviously, no "real" Baptist could possibly be Dispensational. No real Baptist could believe in distinctions between Israel and the Church and that they had varying roles in God's unfolding plan of redemption! No! And what's all this stuff about an earthly Kingdom when it's obviously meant to be spiritual, allegorical! And that rapture nonsense! Ha!

No, no real Baptist could be Dispensational. In fact, no one could believe any differently than....You?

Shunning the brethren and shooting the wounded... Sometimes I think that ought to be the slogan for Baptists. Not sure we'll ever get past it.

 

I'll be honest OR, I don't don't how to view Israel today much less how to envision them in the coming Kingdom. I do know 144K will be saved but are they currently saved (Heb 11:1) or will they be saved in the future (Tribulation), I don't know. Here is why I don't know;

All of the promises made to Israel were in the first Covenant. Christ came, shed His blood and mediated a new covenant. All the promises God made to Israel were fulfilled in the earthly mission of Christ. However, they rejected the fulfillment of the old and mediator of the new. So the question I have about Israel is how many times do they expect God to continually fulfill the old covenant?

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when 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 when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because 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 write them in their hearts: 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 neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The Church really belongs to Israel but they're not in it. I don't know what the future holds but I do know there is only one way of salvation and His name is Jesus.

 

I agree, and I also forgot the part of the two genealogies that so happen to make two Gospels proving the lineage of Christ back to David, Abraham and Adam. I guess one of the dispensationalist will be along to explain it.

I think this is on topic, because if the old covenant was fulfilled, then all the promises were already fulfilled and God has no more promises to Israel except via the New Covenant which is the Church. I have likewise heard the theories that Israel can repent at the second coming, but again, like you I believe salvation through Christ is individual and not national.

 

I think the OP question is unnecessarily rude, even offensive.

OldRegular, you are not convincing anyone to your view, only alienating people like me.

 

No, I am not saying that your posts to me have been rude. You have been very polite to me and I truly appreciate it. But you are really hammering a view you disagree with a little too much, imo. However, you have a right to do so, just as I can express that I think you are doing that.

It's the title of the thread that got to me; I think it was just one too many.

 

If anyone is truly interested in dispensational eschatology they would want to read"Things to Come", by Dwight J. Pentecost This is the text book used in most dispy Bible colleges and seminaries.

 

Obviously one would suggest reading Dwight Pentecost. He was a longtime professor at Dallas Theological Seminary..the home of dispensationalism and not a Baptist school, I might add.

Cheers,

Jim

 

And some who critique dispensationalism don't understand it either.

 

Which is correct, Chafer or Scripture?

Let's change the question: Which is infallible, Chafer or scripture? The answer, of course, is scripture.

Did Chafer have perfect understanding of scripture? No, of course not.

That is why modern dispensationalists do not always agree with Chafer. He was fallible.

That is why modern dispensationalists do not always agree with each other. We are all fallible.

So, why do dispensationalists disagree with Old Regular? Is it because OR is infallible? Please, sir, a little humility would enable a better discussion.

 

I have a lot of dispensationalists books, including Chafer's theological texts. Many a sermon came out of those books. I don't think anyone from the opposite camp doubts the Christian beliefs of those people as much as we might disagree with the eschatology and some concepts. When I first came out the Church of England I was a member of a Plymouth Brethren Gospel Hall and was baptized under them. I learned something about their teachings. At the time I was historical premil and leaned to amil in the 60's. So, yes, I do have some understanding of dispensationalism...but of the old school, I admit. I also admit that I have all of Clarence Larkin's books and charts, the mainstay of the old PB's.

Not all of us are totally ignorant of the vews. I would that all men were like me,,,,,,,,,,,wait,,no I don't. Just kidding.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim1999, Here is a statement made by Old Regular on this thread:

What is one to make of this statement? Is it an argument for a position? No. Is it evidence for a position? No. It tells us what OR thinks, but nothing as to why he thinks it. It is a statement that is neither provable or refutable. Baptist Board would be such a nicer and more useful place if statements like this were not allowed. Unfortunately, many threads are full of such statements. This is a discussion board and the above quote simply does not qualify as discussion.

 

I pastored a number of churches where dispensationalism was a key doctrine. I managed to preach the word without getting into deep water. I avoided the use of titles and no backs were raised. We discussed the different views, but never debated them.

Most of my church friends were dispensational. I am not going to name some of them because one might get the notion I am name-dropping, but a few years back there were quite a few well known men in the field. We can learn to get along, and we can learn when someone has a serious viewpoint, but is not contentious about it.

Frankly, I have been all through these battles over the years and they are not new to me. I do need some entertainment though....:saint:

Cheers, and bless,

Jim