Featured Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant... 3 views

Yes, as that can be taken to the extreme of becoming a heresy, as in Rome!

 

The Church is right under the NC, as how can any be saved who are not a part of it now?

 

Yes

 

he calls himself a "Leaky One"

 

Is this where we stand?

1. the church has no legal relationship to or participation in the new covenant. The Traditional Dispensational view.
2. the church has an indirect relationship to the NC The Progressive Dispensational view, the church is grafted in.
3. the church has a direct relationship to the NC The Covenant Theology view, replacement theology.

 

The Church is spiritual israel, but nation Israel still has a future when Jesus returns!

 

The thing is, God doesn't function under dispensations. The concept is entirely man-made.

 

1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

 

Yawn...
The english translation there has absolutely nothing to do with how dispensationalism butchers the Bible into false chunks.
For instance, dispensationalism came up with the whole pretrib, post-trib, mid-trib rapture fairy tale. Dispensationalism attempts to say that God saved Old Testament person's because they obeyed the law, since God somehow did not save by grace at that time.
The whole man-made system is a forced method of viewing the eternal God.
With that being said, I believe a large majority of dispensationalists are saved. They are just poorly taught regarding the wholeness of God's work.
But, thanks for sharing four verses where translators used the word dispensation in the Bible. Perhaps you feel that makes the man-made theory sound. I don't. I recognize God's continual work of grace from beginning to end through his covenants.

 

Ryrie points out, and I reiterate, that the word "dispensation" in these verses (οἰκονομία) is used exactly as dispensationalism uses it--a stewardship. Also, the other three usages of the word are actually translated "stewardship" in Luke 16. Thus, the use of "dispensation" in dispensationalism is used exactly like the use of it in the Bible--a stewardship from God.

Concerning the oft repeated claim that you give, "Dispensationalism attempts to say that God saved Old Testament person's (sic) because they obeyed the law, since God somehow did not save by grace at that time," That is a false charge. I challenge you to come up with a quote from a dispensationalist on that. Furthermore, I teach the subject in college and seminary, and do not believe that salvation was ever through the law. So even if you can come up with a quote, it wouldn't apply to me, my students, our textbook (Ryrie), etc.

 

Which of the three views do you hold?
1. the church has no legal relationship to or participation in the new covenant. The Traditional Dispensational view.
2. the church has an indirect relationship to the NC The Progressive Dispensational view, the church is grafted in.
3. the church has a direct relationship to the NC The Covenant Theology view, replacement theology.

 

Right. The man-made theory of dispensationalism is all about stewardship...
You're attempting to force the Bible into your pretext.

 

Actually, there are many non-dispensationalists who are premil. That doctrine does not come from dispensationalism so much as from a simple literal reading of Scripture. So all of the early church fathers were premil. The term for this is historic premil. My grandfather's position was non-dispensational. He came to the historic premil position through personal Bible study. Lee Roberson also did so.

 

You are welcome to your opinions--but that is all these statements are.

The theology is actually "all about stewardship." If you do not understand that, you do not understand dispensationalism at all. I require my students to learn this definition from our textbook: "A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose" (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p 33). In dispensationalism, God gives a stewardship, a responsibility, to Mankind in each dispensation. My students are required to learn what that stewardship is for every dispensation.

You say you know Chafer's Systematic Theology. I suggest you go back to Vol. 1, where he discusses dispensations.

 

Modified point 3, as Church is spiritual israel now, but national israel still has a future when jesus returns!

 

I hold to Covenant Premil myself , as did Spurgeon and even some Presbie Reformed held!

 

As usual, another non-answer. Y1 has chosen #3, and then adopted #2. Which is it? Nobody knows.

 

Why stated Modified, as agree that God has not finished with the jews now!

 

Then why not pick #2? Could it be you have no idea what you are posting about?

 

I hold the view that saved Israel is part of the church, but not the whole church, aka the one body of Christ is not the spiritual Israel nonsense.
Galatians 6:16, ". . . And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."
Also Revelation 21:12-14,". . . the twelve tribes of the children of Israel . . . the twelve apostles . . . ."