Dispensationalism - yea or nay.

I certainly never meant any disrespect for you, and I'm sorry you took it that way. And I still believe my point is entirely valid for anyone (not you, apparently) who believes that the universal (also called invisible) church replaces Israel.

 

Well, someone wrote to the Israelites, because we have the book of Hebrews.

 

The kingdom was present when Jesus first preached it. But the restoration of Israel (believers in Christ in the resurrection) takes place on the last day as we enter the new heavens and earth.

 

You are missing the restoration of Israel (resurrection) on the last day where we enter the new heavens and earth.

 

You're missing the entire end time message of the bible if you ignore the restoration of Israel (believers in Christ) that takes place in the resurrection and rapture on the last day, into the new heavens and earth.

 

Most of scripture points to Israel's restoration (believers in Christ) on the last day along with the rapture into the new heavens and earth. It's all there if you look for it.

 

What I believe, and what I hope I have stated very clearly in this thread, is that there is only one people of God. If you disagree with that, perhaps you would like to cite John 10:16; Romans 2:25-29; 3:29-30; 9:23-26, and Ephesians 2:14-16 in your reply? When we have resolved this point, we can go on to discuss where this one people is to be found today.

What I don't need is for you to keep telling me that the word 'church' is not found in Romans 9. Believe it or not, I have read the chapter and am well aware of it.

 

The church (congregation of the Lord) is found over 300 times in the OT. Stephen says; “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:” (Acts 7:38)

 

Church = Congregation = “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:” (Acts 7:38)

 

Honestly I cannot tell whether you just do not understand how words are used differently in differing contexts or are you just being dishonest again.

 

“This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:” (Acts 7:37–38)

Church = ③ people with shared belief, community, congregation (for common identity, cp. the community of Pythagoras [Hermippus in Diog. L. 8, 41]. Remarkably, in Himerius, Or. 39 [Or. 5], 5 Orpheus forms for himself τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, a group of wild animals, who listen to him, in the Thracian mountains where there are no people), in our lit. of common interest in the God of Israel.
ⓐ of OT Israelites assembly, congregation (Dt 31:30; Judg 20:2; 1 Km 17:47; 3 Km 8:14; PsSol 10:6; TestJob 32:8 τῆς εὐώδους ἐ.; Philo; Jos., Ant. 4, 309; Diod S 40, 3, 6) Hb 2:12 (Ps 21:23); e.g. to hear the law (Dt 4:10; 9:10; 18:16) Ac 7:38.


Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 303). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

If you will start a debate thread to this effect, and I like the OP, I will discuss it with you.

You seem angry about this, and I'm not sure I understand why. The typical non-literal view is that the term "church" represents all believers of all ages, NT or OT. (My historical premil grandfather believed and taught this.) Based on my previous interactions with you (in which you have represented your position well), you seemed to fall in that category. Since you say (if I have you right) you do not believe that the term "church" applies to the true people of God, your view is unique in theology. I have apologized for misrepresenting you.

My belief is: (1) Paul distinguishes carefully between spiritual Israel (those who are actually saved) and spiritually false Israel. (2) that God is at work in history, and He often uses lost people to accomplish His redemptive purposes. That means that Israel as a nation (including lost people) was a chosen people to bring about the advent of the Messiah. I think Rom. 9:1-5 is clear about that.

Dispensationalism is at its core a philosophy of history. Therefore, I look at prophecy as simply future history. In history, which I also teach, we deal with facts (as far as we can ascertain them) and do our best to avoid allegory and figures of speech unless they explain history in a peripheral way.

 

Do you know how to read a dictionary? Because a lexicon is just that, a dictionary of two languages. "Congregation" vs. "church." You don't understand the difference? The numbers in a dictionary definition represent different meanings for the same word.

Arndt and Gingrich listed these two different meanings for ekklesia. Why? Because the word is polysemous, having more than one meaning. Ergo, OT saints are not in the NT church, since it is a different entity--not simply an "assembly," but the "body of Christ."

 

If BDAG is not good enough for this, how can you trust any dictionary?