In several cases Watts calls Israel “the church,”47 proclaims the “church
or nation of the Jews” to be a “type or figure of the whole invisible
church of God,”48 and explains that for Israel “the church was their whole nation, for it was ordained of God to be a national church.”...Watts, however, appears to use the term
more specifically and sees at least a typological relationship between
the two bodies and very likely a replacement of Israel by the church.
Watts manifests this replacement emphasis in several places. He
argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin
and has replaced them with the Christian church
Isn't that what a-millennials do?
The Old Testament contains shadow, parable, and figure of what God would do in this Age.
Israel is a picture of the Church, but we would be foolish to ascribe Israel as the Church. She is not.
I agree with Watts' views. He is correct, though we would have to have more to see if the "replacing" of Israel speaks of the type yielding to the antitype.
We can say with some authority that based on Prophecy Israel will be active as a Nation in the Millennial Kingdom. That does not preclude the fact that all believers in that day will be the Church of Christ, for only those born again, something that did not take place in Old Testament Economies...can be called the Church.
Jews who are saved following Pentecost become members of the Church, but, those Jews do not shed their heritage, nor do they relinquish the promises made to them as a Nation, for every promise of God will be fulfilled to the letter.
So the above quote is a little obscure, and would have to have more of his view explained in order to see if it is consistent with Scripture.
What is strikingly absent from these triumphant declarations of
the future earthly reign of Christ, however, is the nation of Israel.
And that is not consistent with Scripture.
y dispensational characteristics
on the other hand, begin to make sense. Like the dispensationalist,
Watts sees progressive stages in the outworking of God’s plan in the
world. But Watts understands that plan much differently than the dispensationalist.
He sees the plan of God as rooted in a covenant of
grace, manifested primarily in spiritual blessings upon the church, and
culminated in the spiritual reign of Christ over his church with no
place for national Israel.
If that is true then Watts is in error.
But that would not exclusively deny his holding to Dispensational Distinctives. Nor does it negate the points made by DHK.
Can't be a Dispensationalist if you don't see the Church and Israel as distinct.
It would seem the quotes make it clear he makes a distinction. Sounds dispensational to me. The view that Israel was the type is the distinction.
And you really can't if you believe that the Church has replaced Israel which is why Watts cannot be counted among the Dispensationalist camp.
According to your human source.
How about actually discussing The Source.
Then perhaps your hang-up with Dispensationalism might take a back seat.
How many dispensations are there? People today quibble over the same thing. Why should that be a point of controversy?
Irrelevant. Except to point out that this view is not exclusive to a dispensational view.
He saw things as "progressive revelation." Many people do.
Many people have in history. It is not uncommon. No matter what eschatological stance one takes this is not new.
The point is made that his interpretation is literal. This is not novel. That is the way the ECF interpreted the Bible. The person that introduced the allegorical method of interpretation was Origen, and the person that made it popular was Augustine. It was unknown before that time. A literal interpretation certainly isn't novel. Then he believed in a separation of Israel and the church. This also is not a novel idea. These beliefs can be traced to many throughout history.
Then do so. I have seen that claim many times but on further investigation it has always fallen apart.
Be glad to: Israel will be preserved in the wilderness for 3 1/2 years.
Not the Church.
Want to go back further? Read Romans 9-11.
At best what I have seen is people taking the Classical Premillennial teachings and try to shove Dispensationalism into it but it doesn't work, they are too distinct from each other to be merged together throughout history.
Perhaps if you had actually read the post you would see that the correlation to Darby's views and views that precede them can be seen.
And if you actually read your Bible once in a while you would see that the views of Dispensationalism correlate to Biblical Truth far better than an A-millennial view, a Mid-Trib view, or a Post-Trib view.
True Historical Premillennialism is derived from the New Testament, not the works of men. And when you can show why a pre-trib rapture does not correspond to Biblical Teachings, then perhaps you might have something.
But you cannot. You know it, I know it.
What he did is put these things all together. We build on those who have gone before us. Revelation is progressive. He didn't find anything new. He simply put things together that others believed before him. And yet he is castigated for this, and unfairly so. OR calls him a heretic full of false doctrine, and the cause of the downfall or heresies of many. He is not in any place to say such things.
Again if that is true
If it is true?
Don't you know whether or not revelation is progressive or not?
Let's not gloss over that point and jump straight to "putting facts together."
that all Darby did was put "these things together" you should be able to show a clear historical trend of Dispensational teaching.
You can see it in the Bible. Just how much more historical can one get?
I look forward to see that, because as I have said before my Dispensational Bible College did not have a problem stating that Darby was the founder of Dispensational thought,
No, you don't, not really. You have been shown on several occasions that I know of, and concluded you were going to join the A-millennial camp.
And who cares what your "bible" college taught. That is your primary problem, the teachings of men given more time than the teachings of Scripture.
they made no claims to Classical Premillennialism.
Perhaps you should go back and teach them the difference.
But maybe you know something that my Professors there did not.
So far the results your "professors" have had are not all that impressive.
If you cannot see the correlation between Darby's views and Scripture, and instead would rather take a derisive attitude towards a theological system that by far correlates to Scripture than the A-mil, Mid, and Post trib position, help yourself.
God bless.