• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant... 3 views

37818

Well-Known Member
What is biblical is that all the elect, from Adam to the present, are children of the promise as given to Abraham when God made a covenant with Abraham.
No gentile is a part of the Mosaic covenant and moreso the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by Jesus at the cross, thus ending the Mosaic covenant. God's relationship with the nation of Israel is over. However, God still has elect children of the promise who can trace their lineage to Israel.

That is biblical.

Therefore, when one says the church is Israel, it is only in so much as the church now has the New Covenant, which is an eternal covenant, while the nation of Israel no longer has a covenant with God.
We do not fully agree. Israel was given the New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:33. The church is of that New Covenant. New Testamant is the Apostlic authority we have of it. Ephesians 2:12, ". . . That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: . . ." And the revealed secret of the New Covenant are that non-Jews are partakers in it. So the church as a whole is not all Israel.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There are reformed and Calvinist Baptists though who do not see it in quite that way!
Why do Calvinists defend obviously false doctrine by claiming, that is not the Calvinism everyone believes!
 

AustinC

Well-Known Member
We do not fully agree. Israel was given the New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:33. The church is of that New Covenant. New Testamant is the Apostlic authority we have of it. Ephesians 2:12, ". . . That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: . . ." And the revealed secret of the New Covenant are that non-Jews are partakers in it. So the church as a whole is not all Israel.
Here I would say that Jeremiah and Ezekiel express the New Covenant. The New Covenant, however, is not given to the Nation Israel, but to those person's of the promise that flow from the Abrahamic Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant. Thus when Paul expresses that "not all Israel is Israel" he is expressing that the New Covenant is not given to the Nation of Israel as a whole, but is given to all who are children of the promise from every nation, tribe and tongue.

Therefore the term "replacement theology" is not accurate at all, but instead the term reveals that such a person using the term does not understand the covenants of God and how God is working his will through them.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here I would say that Jeremiah and Ezekiel express the New Covenant. The New Covenant, however, is not given to the Nation Israel, but to those person's of the promise that flow from the Abrahamic Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant. Thus when Paul expresses that "not all Israel is Israel" he is expressing that the New Covenant is not given to the Nation of Israel as a whole, but is given to all who are children of the promise from every nation, tribe and tongue.

Therefore the term "replacement theology" is not accurate at all, but instead the term reveals that such a person using the term does not understand the covenants of God and how God is working his will through them.
Saved Jews and Gentiles are both now spiritual heirs of Abraham!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We do not see the one that you rail against as being calvinism!
Since Calvinists routinely deny Calvinism your claim simply reinforces the surmise. :)

I provided a published source for the generally accepted CT position.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Thus when Paul expresses that "not all Israel is Israel" he is expressing that the New Covenant is not given to the Nation of Israel as a whole, . . .
There is an Israel of God, Galatians 16:15-16, ". . . For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. . . ." The two groups in the churches.
 

Mikey

Active Member
Since Calvinists routinely deny Calvinism your claim simply reinforces the surmise. :)

I provided a published source for the generally accepted CT position.

there are different positions within CT not a single position. So just on that level you statement demonstrates your lack of understanding.
 

AustinC

Well-Known Member
There is an Israel of God, Galatians 16:15-16, ". . . For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. . . ." The two groups in the churches.

Perhaps you don't see how you are making my point. The nation of Israel is no longer in covenant with God via the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus fulfilled that covenant. The children of the promise expressed in the Abrahamic Covenant and continued in the New Covenant are expressed as the Israel of God. It's not a replacement. It's an expression of God's covenant work with his chosen people of the promise.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
there are different positions within CT not a single position. So just on that level you statement demonstrates your lack of understanding.
You do not say what CT is, but claim you know what it isn't. Folks, of course different people hold differing understandings of false doctrine. Doesn't make it any less false.

”Richard Kendall Soulen argues that supersessionism is linked with how some view the coming of Jesus Christ: “According to this teaching [supersessionism],God chose the Jewish people after the fall of Adam in order to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus Christ, the Savior. After Christ came, however, the special role of the Jewish people came to an end and its place was taken by the church, the new Israel. ”Herman Ridderbos asserts that there is a positive and negative element to the supersessionist view: “On the one hand, in a positive sense it presupposes that the church springs from, is born out of Israel; on the other hand, the church takes the place of Israel as the historical people of God.”
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Perhaps you don't see how you are making my point. The nation of Israel is no longer in covenant with God via the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus fulfilled that covenant. The children of the promise expressed in the Abrahamic Covenant and continued in the New Covenant are expressed as the Israel of God. It's not a replacement. It's an expression of God's covenant work with his chosen people of the promise.
The Church under the NC is now those who are the spiritual heirs of Abraham!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You do not say what CT is, but claim you know what it isn't. Folks, of course different people hold differing understandings of false doctrine. Doesn't make it any less false.

”Richard Kendall Soulen argues that supersessionism is linked with how some view the coming of Jesus Christ: “According to this teaching [supersessionism],God chose the Jewish people after the fall of Adam in order to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus Christ, the Savior. After Christ came, however, the special role of the Jewish people came to an end and its place was taken by the church, the new Israel. ”Herman Ridderbos asserts that there is a positive and negative element to the supersessionist view: “On the one hand, in a positive sense it presupposes that the church springs from, is born out of Israel; on the other hand, the church takes the place of Israel as the historical people of God.”
Calvin and Spurgeon both held to CT, but not holding to same viewpoints!
 
Top