Dispensationalism

exscentric,

I know. When I wrote it I was feeling especially wicked.

Please forgive me.

 

Fortunately for all of us, Paul doesn't get to define "Larry's dispensational system." This is the easiest question of this thread, at least if you understand dispensationalism. The disciples are part of the church. Pentecost was the starting of the church. I can't imagine why this would even be questioned.

A major error one usually makes here is to think of national Israel as individual Israelites. But national Israel is just that ... national. Individual Israelites in this age are in the one body of Christ (Gal 3; Eph 2, 1 Cor 12, etc).

Perhaps you haven't kept up on the news, but those guys died about 1900 years ago or so. ... That means they wouldn't participate in the land promise anyway.

But they aren't, so that doesn't matter.

The Bible teaches a future for national Israel in teh fulfillment of hte NC and all the various connected passages. That will happen when Israel as a nation repents and receives Jesus as their Messiah in accord with Zech 12 and other passages. In this age, Jew and Gentile are one in the body of Christ.

 

Just my two-cents worth........
I am a dispensationalist, and it seems to me there are a lot of people telling me what I believe. Many of the things they tell me I believe, I flatly deny, and some of the things I've never heard of before, let alone heard them taught in dispensational churches. Perhaps there are some out there that believe and teach these things, but not me, and not my church. Scripture teaches:

--There is one way of salvation: faith in the finished work of Jesus. This is true for OT, NT, Jew and gentile.
--God does not require/ask/deal with people the same in Genesis 2 as he does in Exodus 20, or as he does today, or in Rev. 22.
--The church is made up of people from any nation: Israel, America, etc. (even France, believe it or not).
--The promises to the nation of Israel are not the same as, nor do they conflict with the promises to the Church.

It doesn't seem all that difficult to me, guys. Do I have all the answers to the implications and questions? No, by no means. But neither do the amils or post-mils.

 

Paul33: Not a problem, will keep my obnoxious questions to myself - if I can - and they all said amen.

Humblesmith: I'm with you, and those things are often called straw men - supposed items that can be easily shot down. Not to say that dispies don't do the same thing at times

 

Larry,

Your answer to the question would be very disappointing to the disciples if it were true. Because of your dichotomy, you have placed them in the church and have caused them to miss out on the future promises that are theirs for being ethnic Israelites.

It is not an either/or proposition.

The disciples are both part of national Israel and in the church as True Israel. That's why Matthew 24 applies to the church (True Israel/believing Gentiles) and not to "national Israel" as distinct from the church. Matthew 24 applies to Jews and Gentiles alike and is an accurate discription by Jesus of the end of the age for all people groups.

Ironically, you have Jesus teaching his disciples as Jews what is going to take place at the end of the age FOR JEWS, and then a very short time later, these same disciples are no longer part of national Israel but the church! Oops!

The New Covenant has been implemented with the remnant of Israel (disciples). How in the world can the disciples now be cut off from the New Covenant that was implemented for them and to them as Israel!

If they are now in the church it is because the church consists of True Israel and Believing Gentiles. The Church is True Israel and all who are far off (Gentile believers).

When you come to accept that True Israel is the Church and that Gentile believers are grafted in to this ONE people of God, you will be close to accepting the Biblical truth about the post-trib rapture.

 

Paul33,

AMEN!

 

Paul,

Think about what you said in light of Scripture. The end time promises for Israel are for those who come out of the tribulation and are living on earth. No first century Jew would partake of that, whether or not they are in the church or Israel. I can't imagine what possible point you are trying to make.

What is OOPS about Jesus talking to Jews about end time happenings for Jews? I don't get your point. Christ was obviously speaking for the future to know things, not just for that generation. AGain, that argument just doesn't make sense.

You say that the NC has been implemented. If so, then the burden is on you to explain why nothing that is part of the NC is actually taking place. We don't see the Jews being given new hearts as a nation. We don't see the Jews accepting the Messiah as a nation. We don't see the Jews being restored to the land in peace. In fact, everything that the NC says is what leads us to the position that the NC is not in effect with Isreal. It is hard to imagine you can read the NC passages and still argue that they are in affect. You would have to seriously distort the meaning of hte words.

The church is not "true Israel" in Scripture. You never see one reference that makes that point. You have to bring it to the text in order to see it in the text.

I will accept that True Isreal is the Church as soon as someone can provide the scriptural proof for it. Until then, I will have to go with what Scripture says.

 

Well Larry,

Jesus must have been mistaken when he said to his Jewish disciples, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or "There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." He then explains to his disciples what it will be like when "the Son of Man is revealed" (Luke 17:20-37).

Silly Jesus, he really blew it when he took the cup and said to his disciples these words: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:20). Earlier he had said in reference to the cup, "Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (Luke 22:17-18).

So the kingdom of God is in "you," meaning his disciples, and his blood poured out for them is the new covenant represented by the cup. The next day, Jesus Christ would institute the new covenant just as he said he would. But, of course, he was mistaken, because elements of the new covenant prophecies as understood by Larry haven't taken place yet.

The Apostle Peter was also mistaken when he said: "No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16). Peter then quotes Joel 2:28-32 which references "the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord" - a reference to events that take place at the end of the tribulation. Never mind that he said, "This is that!" He was clearly wrong because the tribulation events haven't taken place yet. Stupid Peter.

The New Covenant is in effect right now. God's Spirit is being poured out right now. Just because there are still future aspects of the new covenant that need to be fulfilled does not nullify the words of Jesus or Peter!

The kingdom of God is in us, yet we still await a future manifestation of the kingdom on earth.

The new covenant is implemented, yet we still await the culmination of the new covenant.

The prophecies regarding the new covenant are being fulfilled right now for us and Israel, but we still await the final fulfillment of these prophecies in the millenium.

The whole point of Romans 9-11 is to teach that God has one people and that ethnic disbelieving Israel is being cut off even as "some" who are of Israel have believed. The New Covenant resulted in God's Spirit being poured out on all people. Non believing Israel is cut off, but believing Israel has not been cut off, and believing Gentiles have been grafted in.

Your dichotomy in this "age" is simply unfounded. It is a failure to reckon with the truth that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Only true Israel will be part of the church along with believing Gentiles. The promises given to Israel will be fulfilled not to nonbelieving Israel (who remain disobedient, Romans 10:21) but to the Israel that is believing in part and is being saved (11:25-26).

You can't understand the point that I'm making because you only see the New Covenant as a future event. But the New Covenant is here and now and is already working to bring Israel and Gentiles together into a holy temple (Eph. 2:11-22) and a holy nation (1 Peter 2:4-10).

You cannot yank the disciples out of their ethnic promises as Israel and put them in the church, if by doing so you cut them off from their heritage (Romans 9:1-5). Ethnic believing Israel (Jewish disciples) are the recipients of the New Covenant and are rejoicing in the Spirit being poured out on them and all people groups.

How dare you nullify what is theirs by claiming that they are only in the church and not in Israel! Since they remain in Israel and are part of the church, the absolute dichotomy you make between the church and Israel cannot be maintained.

 

Historically, the Jewish church began at Pentecost. And even though the gospel was for all people, including the Gentiles, the disciples had a hard time understanding that truth. The book of Acts shows how eventually they began to apply the great commission to their Jerusalem church! The early Jewish believers knew full well that they were "true Israel." Paul's letter to Romans enforced that idea. True Israel were those who believed the Messiah and weren't those who rejected the Messiah. Galatians taught the same truth from the other direction. Gentiles were spiritual descendants of Abraham and were therefore included with True Israel in being the people of God.

Jesus was indeed speaking to his disciples about future things that must take place. Only the "holy nation" of believing Jews and Gentiles would be looking forward to their coming Messiah at the end of the tribulation. "The end time promises for Israel are for those who come out of the tribulation and are living on earth" and for all those who preceded these. But the promises aren't just for Israel, they are for all who believe (Acts 2:39). And they aren't just for those living during the actual seven years of tribulation, they are for all who have believed through the centuries. With believing ethnic Israel, I too am looking forward to the Messiah's return at the end of the tribulation for all his Saints, whether I live through the tribulation, or whether I die before it commences.

When we understand that we are part of the one people of God throughout all the ages, the pre-trib rapture view vanishes. We are branches of the olive tree of God's one people along with believing ethnic Israel, to whom the promises were originally given.

You can separate yourself from the promises of Israel if you want to, but I will never do that. It is because of God's grace that I have been grafted in and have become a partaker with Israel of her promises. I will never repudiate that, for to do so would be to repudiate my salvation in Messiah and the New Covenant which he implemented for Israel and all who believe.

 

Paul,

Do you really think that no dispensationalists has ever thought of these things? THere are men far smarter and more theological than you or I that have put forth solid answers. Why do you think these things you put forth are not convincing? It is because they have answers.

Consider for instance, you appeal to the oft-cited "kingdom within you" verse. Remember that long discussion about historical context, and lookiong to see the particulars of the passage? Well, look at who he was talking to. He was talking to hypocritical Pharisees who were unbelievers. Ask yourself why Christ would tell an unbeliever that the kingdom was "within" them. He wouldn't, and you don't have to think long to figure that out. What he told them was that the kingdom was "in their midst," meaning that he was doing kingdom type things ... the miracles, the healing, the teaching, etc. And they were rejecting it. They had the OT telling them (and us) what the kingdom would be like and they were completing ignoring the revelation. Don't abuse this passage by ignoring its context.

You talk again about the disciples having part in the ethnic promises which are mainly involving restoration to the land in peace. How in the world would they be a part of that? They are dead. Is that not so obvious as to require no explanation?

I can't imagine that you have done much exegetical work on this issue. You seem to parrot standard lines that have long been shown to be faulty. You fail again to show any place where the Bible says that true Israel is the church. Why do so many people believe that? Why are those of us that take the word in its literal grammatical historical meaning considered wrong? Is not God's word enough for us?

You say that I have separated myself from the promises of Israel. Yet I haven't. Not being an Israelite, I was never included in those particular promises. There are some promises that extend to all people and we both participate in those. For you to claim that my position is repudiating your salvation in the Messiah is completely absurd and appears to be a last ditch effort to win this battle with a completely prejudicial statement. You can try to include yourself in "true Israel" if you want, but you aren't, at least if the Scripture means anything. But don't make this claim that we are somehow repudiating our salvation in Christ. You know better.

This issue will only be won by solid exegesis. So long as you continue to put forth the type you have put forth here, you will never make much headway in understanding the Scriptures on this issue. But take great comfort in that you will be there with the rest of us, if you have trusted Christ as your Savior.

 

I've read all of your so-called experts. I grew up with it, studied it, wrestled with it. The truth is even DTS is abandoning classic dispensationalism in favor of progressive dispensationalism.

Talk about repeating tired arguments. You have admitted that the New Covenant has not been instituted, despite what Jesus said. You admit that we as Gentile believers have no part with Israel, despite what Peter said. You deny that the kingdom of heaven is in us, despite what Jesus said to the Pharisees and his own disciples, speaking generically, which of course you apply only to the Pharisees.

You see discontinuity only. You never see continuity. And that is your grave mistake.

The funniest thing that you have said is that the church benefits from the overflow of the blessings of the New Covenant even though the New Covenant has yet to be implemented!

How absurd and contradictory is that!

One thing you will never be able to do is silence the witness of Jesus and his disciples to these very issues.

One other mistake you make is failing to see that the land promises extend to far more than the Nation of Israel in Canaan. It extends to all peoples ruling and reigning with Christ in peace over the nations of the earth during the millenium and then on into eternity - heaven on earth, God dwelling among men, for ever. That is the ultimate fulfillment of the land promises originally given to Israel, but ever since expanding to include all peoples of the world.

Your limited persepective and understanding of prophecy and promise is really skewing your view of the nature of God's people.

Finally, Larry, we do have salvation in Christ because we are directly involved in the promises given to Abraham and Israel. It is their Messiah we worship and serve. It is their heritage that we participate in. It is the promises given to them that we enjoy, not in some indirect way, but directly through being grafted in.

You never deal with that fact because to be grafted in is to conflict with your view of Israel as distinct from the church. The church, for you is something new and totally separate from Israel. Therefore, just what exactly would a Gentile believer be grafted in to? Certainly not the trunk from which Israel branches out from.

 

To premill dispensationalists:

Please show us a single verse anwhere in the New Testament saying Jews will be finally possess their own tiny nation - Israel, and Modern Jerusalem will be the world's capitol during future millennium.

Romans chapter 9 to 11 does not discuss about ethnic or physical nation - Israel, this passage is discuss about the between physical and spiritual. Physical seed is speak of unbelieving Jews are cut off. But spiritual seed is speak of believing Jews are remain in the same tree, God just added Gentiles unto the tree join with believing Jews together, so, therefore both are Israel. Well as Israel is Church.

Olive Tree of Romans 11 is the picture of the Calvary, that Christ made both reconciled together became into one according Ephesians chapter 2 and Galatains chapter 3 too.

Right now, salvation is for every individual of all nations, all colors, all races, God have only one family, not divided family.

Dispensationalism doctrine is the mostly influenced by C.I. Scofield than John Darby. During year between 1900's to 1810's, many churches and colleges adopted Scofield's teaching of Dispensationalism. They forsaking Bible's teaching, and they follow men's teaching of Colossians 2:8.

Do you understand what is 'Testament'?

Notice there are two parts in the Bible - 'Old Testament' & 'New Testament'.

Old testament was the mystery to the world about the prophecy of Messiah and Calvary. New testament already make manifest the mystery by through Calvary and Messiah was right there. Messiah brough salvation unto all nations, and Messiah already made a NEW covenant (Mark 14:24)to everyone, not just for Jews only, also, every individuals of all nations through His blood by Calvary.

Bible teaching is so very simple about the purpose of Calvary and the new covenent.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Then why do you make the kind of wrong headed arguments that you do? I would expect more from someone who has studied it.

And??

I said the NC has been inaugurated, but it is not yet in force. If you read the NC passages for what they say, then you must admit that the NC is made with people described as the house of Israel and house of Judah, whose fathers God made the Mosaic covenant with after He led them out of Egypt, and who rejected Him in disobedience. That can only be the nation of Israel. Did God make a covenant with your ethnic Fathers to lead them out of Egypt by the hand? I didn't think so, and since he didn't, then you are not officially part of the NC. This is simply literal grammatical historical hermeneutics, and your perspective on this passage and others is evidence that you don't use it, despite what you claim.

 

Do you think the OT all of the sudden became false? Why limit your understanding of God's plan to the NT?

If so, then why did Paul begin this by talking about his "kinsmen according to th flesh"? That is none other than ethnic Israel. You need to study this passage some more.

That is exactly what dispensationalism teaches.

You know better. WHile both your position and mine have problems, mine is far more defensible from Scripture. Just these little exchanges bring a smile to my face when I think of how funny these arguments you put forth actually sound. I am not sure that you understand how far off base they really are. You have imbibed at one well for far too long and have never stopped to actually think about what Scripture says. To dispensationalism is "forsaking Bible's teaching" is patently absurd. You know that.

Yes. Didn't you already ask this?

That is very simplistic, very very inadequate to describe the OT.

Yes, and that is what dispensationalism teaches with the exception that dispensationalism recognizes what the NC actually is.

On this, you are right. Which leads to the question of why you miss it. When God makes a distinction between Israel and the church, why don't you?

 

The New Covenant not only is inaugerated, it is in force to and for the disciples of Jesus, the same disciples who were to go into all the world and make disciples of every nation. I am so glad that I am included in the New Covenant and share in its blessings!

Maybe if you studied a little harder, starting with what the Scriptures teach and not what the Scofield Bible teaches, you might understand!

I see you wont' deal with the words of Peter or Jesus. Is that because there hermeneutic is bad.

Peter thought the New Covenant was not only inaugerated but in force!

So did Paul.

You have yet to show me one place in Scripture where the church and Israel are said to be distinct to the point of excluding each other.

You stick to your hermeneutic, and I will stick to the words of Jesus to his disciples in Matthew 24 and Luke 17; and Peter's sermon from the text of Joel!

 

DPT,

Amen!

 

Larry, you think DPT doesn't understand what the New Covenant is? You really need to look in the mirror.

Inaugerated but not in force?

Get real.

 

Your statement above reminds me of an argument my brother, a SS teacher in Knoxville, had with another teacher, who was pushing dispensationalism, in a teachers meeting.

My brother, as was I, was saved as an adult. Unfortunately, unlike me, he purchased a Scofield bible and for a time came under its influence. However, the influence of the Holy Spirit was stronger. He rejected dispensationalism and has stronger feelings against it than I do.

Back to the debate. His opponents only response was: "If I had my books [by so-called experts] I could show you", not "I can show you from Scripture".

 

Then why don't the descendants of those whom God led by the hand out of Egypt, who later turned against him have a new heart to follow him? Why aren't they living in the land in peace? Are you saying that God lied when he said those things were a part of the NC?

Which of your ancestors was led out of Egypt by the hand?

The ironic thing is that I have never read Scofield's notes. I don't appeal to Scofield. I encourage people not to use Scofield. I have focused my attention on Scripture, and tried to get you to, but you won't for some reason.

Where did you see that? I have dealt with teh words of both of them.

Where?

Where?

Yes I have. I have appealed to you to deal with Roman 9-11, particular the first part of 9 where Paul declares that true Israel is a subset of ethnic Isreal, and teh last part of 11 where Paul contrasts Israel and the church. But you, so far, have refused. If you read those passages, you will see that Israel cannot be the church. It becomes absurd if you try to make Israel the church. I have shown from the NC itself that Israel is defined by a very specific group of people.

You want me to show where they are distinct (which I have done many times), but you won't show where they are the same because you can't. EVery passage you appeal to requires the presupposition that they are the same.

So if Peter used Joel as you say, then God lied, because what God said, and what Peter quoted didn't come to pass. There were no great cosmic signs. You want to use Scripture when it suits you, but you refuse to deal with what God said without importing your own position. That is completely illegitimate and leads to the nonsensical position you are tryign to defend. And all teh while you attack me. I have said only what Jesus said. I have said only what Peter, Paul, and the apostle said. Your problem is not with me or dispensationalism. Your problem is with them.

 

This is a bit of a foolish argument, and very unconvincing. The fact that some are untaught in the Scriptures does not mean that the position they hold cannot be defended from the Scriptures. The fact that this teacher was unable to defend it from Scriptures does not mean that no one can. We can, and we have. We have shown how your position implies that God lied. We don't believe you believe that, but we see that you have no real escape from that conclusion without resorting to gross inconsistency.

Your claim that the influence of the Holy Spirit was stronger and therefore he rejected dispensationalism is extremely misguided. What if I say that the Holy Spirit, through the word, has led me to the truth of dispensationalism. How do you respond to that? Probably by saying I am not listening to the Holy Spirit. How do you reach taht conclusion? Because I disagree with you.

I would never be so arrogant as to invoke the Holy Spirit's influence on a matter like this. That would be very unwise, and you should never have done that. Spirit filled men from all throughout church history have disagreed on this issue. For you to invoke the "influence of the Holy Spirit" is an indication, to me, that you misunderstand His work, and have no real arguments to put forth. It is like the KJVOs who, when confronted with the truth, resort to "the Holy Spirit led me" argument. If we are going to discuss this, let's discuss Scripture. I wish you and Paul and DPT would finally get around to that. I have begged for years in here for you guys to do that, and very few have been willing. It is sad ... Perhaps this might be the day of change.

You guys honestly make me think of people who have never actually read the text and thought about it. You make me wonder if you even know what the issues are, and what the questions are. It just seems that your interaction is so surface and trite. How can you take these kinds of arguments that you are putting forth seriously? Do you really think they should be?

Start with Romans 9:1-13 and tell us about whom Paul is writing. Define for us, exegetically, who Israel is. That should be enough to get us started.