Dispensational error pt3......or...is it truth?

In our last episode it went like this;

Iconoclast said: ↑

That is my exact point Hank.....
JOJ. Said that Peter did not use the word covenant.
I thought such statements are foolish so I turned the table on him.
Notice he suggests the sand of the sea is an obvious reference to the Abrahamic Covenant In Hosea. ...he allows for that....yet when I use the language from Hosea he suggests it is not covenant language.

Click to expand...

JOJ replied

Right, because the language from Hosea is not quoted in the NT, nor is it a representation of anything that any passage says about the new covenant/testament. Your view verges on theological wishful thinking, not careful exegesis.

And for the record, I did not say that Hosea was "not covenant language." I challenged you to prove the connection, which you have not done. Exegete, man, exegete!

Click to expand...

The language of Hosea is not quoted in the NT.????

Here we go.....[note] in the KJV....Osee= Hosea
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

After the cross the Holy Spirit has Paul explain that gentiles in the New Covenant church are "now the people of God."
The very language of the New Covenant from Jeremiah 31;
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

When Jer.31 speaks of the new covenant he says one of the main features is...."and will be their God, and they shall be my people"

So when Paul tells us that gentiles are now the people of God right alongside the elect remnant of Jews quoting Hosea......I say that locks it up

What do you say dispensational brothers?

A dispensational writer offered this; in pt2....it was never answered except by Hank and TC...anyone care to defend this position?
3 questions should equal at least 3 answers....ignoring this will not make it disappear like it was raptured out

The New Covenant and Christians?
1]Christians are not party to a covenant of any form—new or old.

2]The very concept of covenants is exclusively associated with Gods earthly people Israel

3]Christians are not party to the new covenant. The new covenant is not made with the church.

Click to expand...

This was not answered;


{11E.g., Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1999), pp. 89–90. Mathison states: “The new covenant was inaugurated by Jesus Christ at His first coming and is being fulfilled in and through the church during this present age…. The institution of the new covenant does not await the start of the Millennium or the eternal state. Since the new covenant is the means by which God will finally and completely fulfill all previous covenant promises, and since the new covenant is specifically the covenant of the present age, these promises must be fulfilled in the present age” (p. 90).]

JOJ said;

But there are only three mentions of the phrase "new covenant" in the whole Bible, and those are: Heb. 8:8 8:13 and 12:12. And in 8:8 it is clearly between "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." So the new covenant is with Israel--not "spiritual Israel," but Israel. After all, it is (wait for it) the book of Hebrews.

So how do you prove that the new covenant is for anyone other than Hebrew people? You can't. All you can do is resort to allegorical interpretation, which I deeply oppose. God said what He meant and meant what He said.

Click to expand...

Here Keith Mathison answers this objection;

From His book Dispensationalism Rightly dividing the People of God?
The promises made to literal physical Israelites were fulfilled by a literal physical Israelite, Jesus the Messiah.
He is the seed of Abraham.

What dispensationalists fail to grasp is that through unionwith Christ.all who are His by faith have become members of His Body.
Therefore all who are in Him by faith, Whether Old testament believers or new testament believers. are coheirs of the promises and covenants.

The Covenantal promises do not require a future fulfillment by national Israel in order for God's word to be true.

The promises were typologically fulfilled by national Israel in the OT.[josh21:43-45]

They are now being fulfilled by the true Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ Gal 3:16
And they are being fulfilled in and by all who are united to Christ by faith.[vs.29]

The Church through Union with Him, shares in these promises.

As I recall (and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong), I was referring to the "sands of the sea" statement in Hosea, which was a direct quote from the Abrahamic covenant and not referring to the New Covenant. While the specific passage is referred to in the NT in Romans as you have proven, that is a moot point to me.

Further, since I am extremely busy right now, and because on the other thread I said several times that the new covenant is not a big deal in dispensationalism and that DT scholars differ on it, your new thread doesn't really interest me, even though you have aimed it at me.

Enjoy the discussion.

JoJ

even though you have aimed it at me.

Click to expand...

I was not aiming at you, but trying to respond to the unanswered portions and seeking to get those questions answered.....but maybe that will happen at a future time.

I can remember how I looked forward to hearing sermons from dispensational pastors.
The system sought to deal with the whole bible and it does.
It was helpful in several ways. By the time I came to learn the defects I was ready to move ahead.

Iconoclast said:

I can remember how I looked forward to hearing sermons from dispensational pastors.
The system sought to deal with the whole bible and it does.
It was helpful in several ways. By the time I came to learn the defects I was ready to move ahead.

Click to expand...

A random person might say......if the system deals with the whole bible, why would you not continue to hold to that system?
Good question.....
After awhile you come to understand that others in church history also dealt with the whole bible. They have done so in a more unified way that does not fragment the bible , but rather it starts with God's eternal purpose being revealed to the Church.
It starts where the bible starts.....with the revelation of God being a Covenant making and Covenant keeping God. It does not reveal made up dispensations where a task is given, man fails, and then a new task is given then man fails again, etc.

Instead it reveals God's love before time for a multitude of sinners to be saved by the Covenant death of the Son.

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

Iconoclast quoted JoJ as saying,

But there are only three mentions of the phrase "new covenant" in the whole Bible, and those are: Heb. 8:8 8:13 and 12:12.

Click to expand...

Really? How about Matthew 26:28 (Majority Text); Mark 14:24 (Majority Text); Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, not to mention Jeremiah 31:31?

Martin Marprelate said:

Iconoclast quoted JoJ as saying,

Really? How about Matthew 26:28 (Majority Text); Mark 14:24 (Majority Text); Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, not to mention Jeremiah 31:31?

Click to expand...

2 Cor 3 Paul says he is an able minister of the new testament....some say it does begin until a future millenium...Paul says it has begun.

Martin Marprelate said:

Iconoclast quoted JoJ as saying,

Really? How about Matthew 26:28 (Majority Text); Mark 14:24 (Majority Text); Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, not to mention Jeremiah 31:31?

Click to expand...

I was in a hurry at the time, only did a quick software search of that exact term, and later amended that statement.

John of Japan said:

I was in a hurry at the time, only did a quick software search of that exact term, and later amended that statement.

Click to expand...

That is okay John. No one gains anything looking to jump on your words.....your point was that there are not an over abundance of the references.
Why some of us see it as significant is the few references are in key places and as we look more through a Covenant lens, naturally it will become a point of contention.
We are not in a rush here as there is much to reread on this issue.
One thing is certain we have the victory in Jesus as Lord of all....right now and on into eternity.

John of Japan said:

I was in a hurry at the time, only did a quick software search of that exact term, and later amended that statement.

Click to expand...

That's OK. I didn't see your posts in the previous thread. I wasn't trying to jump down your throat, only to say that the term 'New Covenant' is more common than you seemed to be suggesting.

In fact I failed to notice Hebrews 9:15 and 10:16 , and the context of Romans 11:27 really demands that it is speaking of the New Covenant.

In Things to Come by J.Dwight Pentecost there is a 12 page section on the new covenant...
After offering 3 views of the new covenant that of Darby, Scofield and Chafer.....this statement was made;pg124
Regardless of the relationship of the church to the new covenant as explained in these three views,there is one general point of agreement: the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 must and can be fulfilled only by the nation Israel and not by the church.

These views are in contrast to God's revealed purpose in Eph 3.

On pg 90 and 91 Ryrie tries unsucessfully to explain mt 21:43;

from whom was the kingdom of God taken? It seems clear the" you" refers to the "generation" to whom the Lord was speaking.

Click to expand...

okay so far.... he introduces the term "the generation"....now watch as he invents this story;

To WHOM would the Kingdom be given?
By application,"the nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" may mean any generation which will turn to Christ.

but in it's strict interpretation it refers to the nation Israel when she shall turn to the Lord and be saved before entering the millenial Kingdom.

Click to expand...

this false idea allows for a long gap or parenthesis to be inserted where there is in reality no gap.

Iconoclast said:

On pg 90 and 91 Ryrie tries unsucessfully to explain mt 21:43;


okay so far.... he introduces the term "the generation"....now watch as he invents this story;


this false idea allows for a long gap or parenthesis to be inserted where there is in reality no gap.

Click to expand...

From Findley Edge.....the greening of the church,pg36

In effect Jesus said to Israel,for more than a thousand years you have had your chance.God said,go work in my vineyard.
Be a kingdom of priests.
You said you would do it,but you failed.
Therefore the kingdom is taken from you and given to a people who will bring forth fruit-that is, who will fulfill the purpose of their calling......

Dispensationalism ignores this reality as they look to escape the task but rather look to be rescued.

Iconoclast said:

A dispensational writer offered this; in pt2....it was never answered except by Hank and TC...anyone care to defend this position?
3 questions should equal at least 3 answers....ignoring this will not make it disappear like it was raptured out

Click to expand...

All christians are under the New Covenant relationship with God now, as that is PNLY one that gives to us salvation and the Holy Spirit, but church is only under its spiritual provisions, as Israel still has physical blessings yet to come to her under it, when jesus is accepted as their Messiah...

Both israel and church will be in the new jerusalem, so both share eternal state, just divided between heaven/earth during time of Millinium

Yeshua1 said:

All christians are under the New Covenant relationship with God now, as that is PNLY one that gives to us salvation and the Holy Spirit, but church is only under its spiritual provisions, as Israel still has physical blessings yet to come to her under it, when jesus is accepted as their Messiah...

Both israel and church will be in the new jerusalem, so both share eternal state, just divided between heaven/earth during time of Millinium

Click to expand...

Okay.....you are getting closer to an answer....
If a saved Israelite is living now.....he only has spiritual promises?
Since God has made one new man in Christ. ....why do you split God's people into two? Earthly/heavenly?
In Hebrews 11...why does it say that ot saints desired a heavenly country if an earthly millenium was in view? Heb 11:13-16

Y1,

All christians are under the New Covenant relationship with God now

Click to expand...

,
Chafer.....this statement was made;pg124
Regardless of the relationship of the church to the new covenant as explained in these three views, there is one general point of agreement: the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 must and can be fulfilled only by the nation Israel and not by the church.

but church is only under its spiritual provisions

Click to expand...

,

you say this......but can you show anywhere in scripture that teaches this idea?

as Israel still has physical blessings yet to come to her under it

Click to expand...

,

does scripture say this?