Dispensationalism

Hey Chemnitz

Hahahahahahaha!

How does wild beasts apply to the Church
How does the Church fulfill the promises of abundant food?
How can you vindicate an 100 year old being called a child?
How is the wolf, bear, calf, lamb, serpent being tame fulfilled in the Church?

Silliness does not make good theology
Lloyd

 

Hey Chemnitz

Hahahahahahaha!

More silliness. Have you no comprehension of the contractual clauses of the NT?

Each clause is a specific fulfillment of the all that the Mosaic law could not provide. The distinctions never clouded the Gen 3:15 Promise given through Abraham to the world.

You fail progressive revelation!
Lloyd

 

Hey Chemnitz

I love this bullet. You don’t even realize that your ranting includes “YES” and “NO” statements in the same post.

Here you decry the distinction as if it is not valid. But in your bullet #5 you criticize DT for overlooking the unity. You can’t have both ways and yet criticize DT.

DT holds to the both / and approach. You hold to the either / or approach and cannot adopt both/and thinking without declaring yourself to be a dispensationalist.


Goodness! Think about what you write before you mindlessly cut and paste.
Lloyd

 

Hey Chemnitz

Do you deny a judgment of rewards?
Do you deny a judgment of the nations?
Do you deny a judgment against sins?
Do you deny a judgment of eternal damnation?

All these are biblical. What would you have us do – think that there is but one future judgment? If so, pull out your Sharpie and cut up God’s Word.

Lloyd

 

Hey Chemnitz

A run and dodge tactic. You are so pious that you won't (can't) even prove what you propose as refutation.

The very writings you blissfully appeal to prove you wrong. Paul spends 3 whole chapters charting the future return of national Israel. All of this has nothing to do with the Church supplanting national Israel. We Gentiles receive the privilege of being grafted into national Israel's root stock.

Jesus Himself gave witness to the return of national Israel. It is you who runs from biblical truths.

Lloyd

 

Greetings all

Covenant theologians typically hold that the national promises are unconditional but must be interpreted allegorically. Dispensational theologians hold that all promises are unconditional and to be fulfilled literally.

CT looks to human obedience. DT looks to God’s faithfulness.
. . 1. No conditions were given in the original establishment of God’s covenant with Abraham. None were given years later (Gen 17:1-2, 22:16-18).
. . 2. When the covenant was formally established, only God went through the slain animal pieces.
. . 3. God established the Abrahamic covenant after Abraham asked about whether he would know that he would inherit the land (Gen 15:8).
. . 4. The Covenant was still in effect even after grievous sins. God confirmed the covenant with Isaac (Gen 26:1-4), Jacob (Gen 28:13-15), Moses (Ex. 2:24; 6:2-8).
. . 5. Even after Israel sins of several centuries, David regarded the Abrahamic Covenant in effect (I Chro 16:15-18). Why would David exhort his people to be mindful of the Abrahamic Covenant if it were no longer in effect?
. . 6. Moses promises that even though Israel would be idolatrous and scattered, God would not fail Israel or forget His promises (Dt. 4:25-31).
. . 7. God’s Spirit indicated that the Abrahamic Covenant was in effect and that it had something to do with Israel’s deliverance from its enemies (Luke 1:67-75).
. . 8. Even after Israel rejected Messiah Jesus, Peter regarded them as children of the Abrahamic Covenant (Acts 3:12-15, 25-26)
. . 9. The Book of Hebrews indicates that God doubly emphasized the fact that the Abrahamic Covenant was His unchangeable purpose (Heb 6:13-18).
. . 10. The Abrahamic Covenant included a universal promise of blessing to all families of the earth. Jesus came and salvation was provided in spite of the centuries of disobedience.

The allegorical blunder is much harder to prove. How can the Church fulfill these promises according to historical-grammatical rules of interpretation?

Ok. That was a rhetorical question. The allegorical method can only rant and rave. Covenant theology simply cannot answer the biblical evidences. If Chemnitz is an example, simply count the Bible references.

Lloyd

 

Greetings

The Guarantee of Israel’s Permanent Existence As A Nation is a blight to covenantal theology. In light of the unconditional nature, the Abrahamic Covenant has at least a twofold effect upon Israel. First, it guarantees Israel permanent existence as a nation. A covenant cannot be everlasting if one party of the covenant ceases to exist. Several passages promise that it spite of Israel’s terrible sins, it never will be totally destroyed as a nation.

Deut 4:25-31. Here, the two occurrences of the English word destroy comes from two different Hebrew words. In verse 26, the word destroy (‘abad) is understood in context to mean overthrow or remove from the land. In verse 26, the word destroy (shachath) is understood in context to mean not destroy as in not putting it out of existence.

The Guarantee of Israel’s Permanent Ownership of the Land
The second aspect of the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant is that it guarantees Israel permanent ownership of the Promised Land. God promised Canaan to Abraham and the people of Israel forever (Gen 12:7; 13:14-15; 15:18-21; 17:8; I Chr 16:15-18; Psa 105:8-11). This does not mean that Israel had to live in the land in order to maintain ownership.

The prophets foretold of a total, permanent restoration of Israel.

Ezekiel had many such prophesies.

Run Chemnitz Run!
You have no Bible response to Bible
Lloyd

 

Greetings

Evidences For The Future Fulfillment Of The New Covenant With National Israel

The evidences for a literal future fulfillment are as follows:

First, Ezek 36:16-20 shows that God would fulfill His promises with the same people who profaned His holy name among the Gentiles. Since Israel has not yet received all of those promises, they must happen with national Israel in the future.

Second, God’s declaration does not depend on Israel’s obedience and so they cannot forfeit their relationship to the Covenant.

Third, some promises were purely spiritual and some were material and national in nature. The Church today partakes of the spiritual blessings but not the material and national promises. These promises must be fulfilled sometime in the future.

Fourth, after the Church came into existence and began to partake of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant, Paul declared that Israel would experience the fulfillment of the New Covenant (Rom 11:25-29).
. .In Rom 11:1 he specifically identified national Israel.
. .In Rom 11:14 he declared that the Israel to which he referred was his flesh.
. .In Rom 11:11-14, 25 he contrasted Israel with the Gentiles.
. .This shows that Israel had not forfeited its promised relationship to the New Covenant in spite of rebellion and dispersion. The Church has not replaced literal Israel.


Covenant Theology is revealed to be the dull witted theology.
Lloyd

 

Hey Chemnitz

Would love to enter a formal debate with you over this. The insulting attitude is directed at a system that does not measure up to God's Word. This would be akin to my zeal for smashing the Christ-denying Arminian system of death and despair.

I do not intentionally insult you except as you get caught through your embracing of the error that is demolished.

I ask you to note the post just above this as I reference to "Covenant Theology is revealed to be the dull witted theology." I try not to equate you personally with your views of eschatology.

It is a hard line to see sometimes.
Lloyd

 

Hey Monergist

You are getting up to speed! Keep up the good work! Avoid those who elevate noble but God-denigrating deterministic theology above God's Word.

Stick to a theology that holds God's sovereignty and human free will in the proper "both/and" balance.
Lloyd

 

Hey Matt

Although the thread is a general guideline, are we limited to precisely this topic?

Not so. Furthermore, would this question be pertinent for a thread all by itself. I say, "no." However, if you think it is this important, then you have the right to start a new thread. Go for it!

Otherwise, you tactic was a good one if all you are trying to do is get to FOUR THOUSAND posts.

Lloyd

 

Hey Matt

To get back on topic - God even yet acts with respect to national Israel. They are the "apple of His eye" (Deut 32:10, Zech 2:8).

Have you not yet noted the historic ramifications of nations who mess with national Israel? No nation that has opposed Israel fares well.

The New Covenant was originally given to Israel (Jer 31) and repeated as the basis for the New Testament (Heb 8).

Don't mess with Israel!
Lloyd