Featured Dispensational or Covenant Theology pt3

In our last episode we had many more failures to respond than in times past. Nevertheless we press on....

 

Y1 said;

I did not see any of this in part 2 Y1 you were asked to show it or give examples...yet you repeatedly did not answer the bell.
These vague statements about"pesky preterists" who you give no evidence of, does not help a thread...it kills it.
Can you show or demonstrate it or not? If not...do not post your tweets as they are off topic.Back up your accusations...or withdraw them and admit there was no basis for it.

what posts were they...no one care what you suggest unless you can show it.....who did it ..where i'n this thread?

 

Then we had this strange series of posts....
from our good professor; JoJ...

Everyone posts what they think is true

Speaking of...what was the word you used oh yes..;
su·per·cil·i·ous {see JOJ}
ˌso͞opərˈsilēəs/
adjective

1. behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others.
   "a supercilious lady's maid"
   synonyms: arrogant, haughty, conceited, disdainful, overbearing, pompous,
2. condescending, superior, patronizing, imperious, proud, snobbish, snobby, smug, scornful, sneering;

I think a casual reader of this thread will see your name when they look in the dictionary for this one.
Why would i say that? because it is a pure statement of unbelief. If you hold error and God was going to bring you to truth, He would use whatever means was necessary. Your proud and vain boasting in and of itself does not make you immune from being corrected.
Furthermore.... any truth that comes your way will be given to you by God, or not given to you...by God. We do not have to "convince you"...you offered a proverb to me in your post...I can offer you a verse also;
6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
(

,

Really? where did Icon say this? In fact it was you who protested and posted this: JOJ said;

If you "hate that" why are you doing that toward me?

Again...I said no such thing as you try and twist my words to avoid answering once again...I know that because here is exactly what i did say;


1]You are diverting from the real issues by not addressing what you were asked. Instead you seek to explain away what is offered...you try and look for a loophole, a word, that can evade the issue at hand.
I will offer from the links already offered, what you now try and ignore.

2]Many see it clearly.I do not think you want to see it, or you have been bound by your set of rules that it does let you see it.We will help

3]You know John...I am not doing that. However...I am not a dentist who is trying to do a theological extraction here.....you are not exactly forth coming here.....what do I mean?
I asked you what makes up a Covenant, you give a short answer...an agreement. I demonstrate an agreement, and you ignore it....that is on you.

4]So....now you will accuse me of putting words in your mouth???
Would it kill you to give us in BB land a hint what you mean by...
a purpose? Or are we left to speculate?
You believe there was a purpose.....but No agreement?

If you notice...these objections are to your behaviour...nothing else that you falsely suggest.

No one invited you to jump on any wagon.We just see you once again diverting to other things.
The thread was not about me, or you. It is designed to be about scripture.
I gave Chilton credit for a quoted portion from His book. you changed the whole thread to what kind of degree he had.
Here we bring up scripture, you question words and start some other thread to evade what is discussed. Same old, same old.

 

Then he went here;

You posted what you posted. I will stand by my posting and opposing your foul behaviour.

Again...I never said that anywhere. I cannot help what thoughts go through your mind. I have said that I am still quite open on these topics and still searching, still a work in progress yet you try and frame it this way...that is somewhat disappointing.

Not all, but you weasel out when you are not willing to to be questioned and answered....everyone else reading this, knows exactly what I mean despite you trying to paint a happy face on it.


.

Confession is good for the soul...off topic, hardly...you just do not graso how they tie in until it is explained to you, then you claim..oh yes..I knew that.

??? in other words...when I offer a quote that proves a point, or disproves one of your pet ideas...you determine it is too wordy, illogical, or impossible to follow.....although...no one else seems to have that complaint

There is no denigration, or personal attacks at all. I am just observing what you try and get away with with me and others on here.

I have said several times on here... I like how you have a heart for the unsaved, and God has used you to translate scripture...I still am thankful that men like you do that work.
that being said I find it very sad that you seek to twist my words and motives, and things I have learned over time , because it does not meet your artificial man made standards....all your seminary work and teaching does not insure truth in all areas of doctrine. The fact that you do not embrace the doctrines of grace as found in the historic confessions tells me all I need to know on that score.
While education is of value, it is not a guarantee. If you do not see the covenant of redemption your teaching is defective. No ,atter how many classes or systematic theologies you read...by your own words...you reject it.

You have not been interacting, but rather mocking and scoffing
{wheres the beef} so I will not miss out on your negative and snide comments at all...when i know you just cannot answer....you can respond, but not answer.

I have no need to accuse you...your posts show it. Your failure to answer shows it.

,

This is your characterization...if anything...you are attacking.

okay.....

Do you think you are the only person who has read systematic theologies???

You reject it as I said....no one knows if you understand it or not.

Any suggestions...yes repent of making such false statements..sarcasm or not.

The minutiae as you say are godly theologians describing the work of redemption.

i think the truth is out in the open...

 

Now..getting back to the topic;
Grace online Library;
The proof of the doctrine has, however, a much wider foundation.

When one person assigns a stipulated work to another person with the promise of a reward upon the condition of the performance of that work, there is a covenant. Nothing can be plainer than that all this is true in relation to the Father and the Son.

The Father gave the Son a work to do; He sent Him into the world to perform it, and promised Him a great reward when the work was accomplished.


Such is the constant representation of the Scriptures. We have, therefore, the contracting parties, the promise, and the condition. These are the essential elements of a covenant.

 

Dispensationalist Alva McClain shows where and how they differ;

 

In these threads i have promoted the teaching of a New Exodus, with the Lord Jesus Christ as being the True Israel'
Here is a link that is critical of this teaching.
The thing i appreciate about the link is the author does a good job of accurately offering some good representative views in their own words, then he attempts to show why he does not follow, but instead, rejects the views...
what do you think???This man is said to have a PH.D.....but I am more interested in getting to the verses and objections raised, then to devote a thread as determine if he has a valid PHD.
however...his bio offers this;

https://www.tms.edu/m/msj23c.pdf;

Non-dispensationalists often claim that Jesus’ identity as “true Israel” means there is no longer any future significance for Israel as a national entity. For them, if Christ is “true Israel,” this means that all who believe in Christ whether they are Jew or Gentile are now part of Israel by relation of their identification with Jesus, the true Israelite. Thus, national Israel’s place in the plan of God no longer exists. This approach, though, draws incorrect conclusions concerning how Jesus relates to Israel. Jesus is identified with Israel and He is the true and ultimate Israelite. But this identification serves as the basis for national Israel’s restoration, not Israel’s non-significance in God’s plans.

Introduction Israel continues to be a major point of disagreement between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists. Dispensationalists maintain that the nation Israel will be saved and restored to a place of service to the nations when Jesus returns and reigns over the nations (see Isa 19:24–25; Zech 14; Matt 25:31). Thus, Israel, as a nation, has a role to play in God’s future plans, including leading the nations in example and worship (see Isa 2:2–4). Non-dispensationalists, on the other hand, often argue that the church is now the fulfillment or replacement of Israel with the implication that Israel will not be restored as a nation.1 For them, since Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel, there is no need for a restored national Israel.

 

Now a word of warning...The link is 12 pages long...it is wordy,and probably irrelevant to some
However, for those who have the time....feel free to see the issue framed out.
Respond to all or part of it...with scripture...no tweeting.

 

He offers his idea on page2

The problem with this view is that it is not found in Scripture. In fact, it is refuted by explicit texts in both testaments that indicate otherwise. Our purpose here is to show that this non-dispensational understanding of what Christ as “true Israel” means for the nation Israel is not biblical

Instead, Christ’s identification with Israel is the basis for national Israel’s restoration not the revocation of the nation’s significance. Because Christ identifies himself with Israel and is Israel’s corporate Head, He is able to restore the nation that currently is undergoing a temporary hardening and rejection. So instead of leading to the end of national Israel’s significance in the plan of God, Christ’s identity as Israel guarantees the nation Israel’s significance.
I will argue that the non-dispensational view is correct in identifying Jesus Christ with Israel but is incorrect on the implications of this truth.

 

To demonstrate the non-dispensational perspective, I will reference the writing of four non-dispensational scholars—Robert B. Strimple, Kim Riddlebarger, Russell D. Moore and Vern Poythress. All four have explicitly addressed the implications of Christ as “Israel” in a way that supposedly refutes the dispensational understanding of Israel. These four men have argued that Christ’s identity as “Israel” means that the dispensational understanding of a future restoration of the nation Israel is in error. Before looking at their statements, though, I want to make a point of clarification.

I agree with these men when they link Jesus with Israel. The cluster of OT passages that Matthew uses to link Israel’s experiences with Jesus in Matthew 1 and 2 indicates that Jesus has an important connection with Israel (compare Matt 1:22–23/Isa 7:14; Matt 2:15/Hos 11:1; Matt 2:17–18/Jer 31:15). Jesus is the head of Israel and He represents everything God intended for Israel to be. There is no problem with this understanding

Now lets see where he objects;

What I am disputing, though, is the implications some give in regard to Jesus being identified with Israel. These critics of dispensationalism are claiming that Jesus’ identification with Israel rules out a restoration of the nation Israel. My understanding, though, is that Jesus’ representation of Israel is the basis for the restoration of the nation. This is explicitly stated in Isa 49:3–6, a passage that will be looked at later. But now our attention is on the four critics of dispensationalism.

 

While he agrees that there is a connection with Israel....he is going to redefine the significance of what the scripture declares that connection to be.

Here he starts it;
Note that for Riddlebarger, the coming of Jesus as “the true Israel of God” means prophecies related to a future kingdom involving Israel “vanish.” Thus a literal fulfillment of OT promises to the nation Israel vanished away into thin air. Riddlebarger’s logic can be summarized in my words as follows: In the OT the nation Israel was identified as the “servant of the Lord.” The servant, the nation Israel, was promised a future restoration. The New Testament indicates that Jesus is the fulfillment of the servant of the Lord. Because Jesus is the true servant of the Lord, He is the true Israel. Therefore, do not expect a literal restoration of the nation Israel since Jesus is the true Israel.

I will argue that this logic does not work. But now on to another critic of the dispensational understanding.

 

In sum, the non-dispensationalist argument asserts that since Christ is the true Israel all who are in Christ are Israel; thus, there is no need for a future restoration of the nation Israel with any type of mediatorial role. Or to put it in the form of an argument:

Premise 1: Israel was God’s chosen nation and servant in the Old Testament.

Premise 2: Jesus now fulfills Israel and is the true Israel.

Premise 3: As the true Israel, Jesus assumes and fulfills the nation Israel’s mediatorial role.

Premise 4: All who are in the true Israel—Jesus Christ, are also Israel.


Conclusion: There is no future role for the nation Israel in the plan of God.

Now note footnote 16;
16 We are not using the exact language of any one theologian but we believe that the wording of this argument represents the traditional non-dispensational understanding of Christ as true Israel.
We understand that some may word things differently.

This attempted loophole is the beginning of diverting away from the direct implications of the scriptural teaching....verses are not offered, but substituted language.

 

Here on page 5 ...he offers this;
A Critique of the Non-dispensational View There are problems with the non-dispensational argument both at the premise and conclusion levels. Before looking at these problems, though, it should be noted again that dispensationalists often agree with
Premises 1
and 2.

Dispensationalists affirm that Israel was a nation in the Old Testament. No surprise here. But what may be surprising to some is that many dispensationalists also accept Premise 2 that Jesus is identified with Israel.


For instance, Craig Blaising states, “I agree with Strimple that the New Testament presents Christ as Israel.”17 This author, too, believes that Christ is identified with Israel and that Matthew 1 and 2 indicates a strong connection between the nation Israel and Jesus. Jesus is the corporate Head of Israel who represents Israel.

 

He starts his explanation at the end of page 5;
Some clarification is necessary, though, in regard to identifying Jesus as the “true Israel.”

1] This combination of terms is not found in the Bible.

2]Jesus does not call himself “true Israel” and neither do the other NT writers.

3]This does not mean the concept has no validity, but the reader should understand that this is not the language of the NT.

4]Another potential problem is that in calling Jesus “true Israel,” the impression could be given that the nation Israel is not truly Israel anymore.

I think he needs a response right here....

 

EWF,
These posts are some of what I am working through, regardless of who wants to look.
The linked 12 page article is directly opposed to what I have offered.
The author makes a biblical case against what I have taught. If Christians do not agree there is a reason for that.
If I cannot examine what I believe and defend it, I need to learn more, or abandon what I have held.
You will need to read the link....to follow the questions being asked.
They go to the heart of the issue.
The first few posts were a response to the previous thread which was being closed.I responded to what was said toward me....now I am moving forward .

 

In another article Michael Vlach is at it again...making a case for the mediatorial Kingdom as yet future;dependant upon israel's repentance.

ISRAEL’S REPENTANCE AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD Michael J. Vlach Professor of Theology The Master’s Seminary The exact timing of Jesus’ return and the kingdom of God is known only to God. Yet in His sovereignty God has determined that the return of Jesus the Messiah is closely linked with the repentance of national Israel. This article examines both Old and New Testament texts that reveal a close connection between Israel’s repentance and the coming kingdom of God. . * * * * *

Introduction This article examines the connection between national Israel’s repentance and the kingdom of God. The argument promoted here is that the kingdom’s coming to earth is connected with and contingent upon Israel’s repentance.

1 God is sovereign over all matters, and His universal kingdom extends over all, yet He has determined that the arrival of the mediatorial kingdom

2 on earth is connected with Israel’s turning from sin and unbelief. This position, that the kingdom’s timing is related to national Israel’s repentance, is not popular and is often rejected. For example, the amillennial theologian, Kim Riddlebarger states, “But the New Testament knows nothing of a kingdom offered and kingdom withdrawn according to the whims of unbelieving Israel.”3 Yet the biblical evidence for the kingdom’s arrival being related to Israel’s repentance is strong, with multiple passages in both testaments supporting it. This is an oft-neglected truth, even among those who affirm a future for national Israel. Yet it is an important part of the Bible’s storyline.
Looking to the future, the question must be asked, “Is Israel’s repentance a precondition to the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom?” The answer is, Yes. “The restoration of Israel from worldwide dispersion will depend upon repentance (cf. Jer 3:11–18; Hos 5:13–6:3; Zech 12:1–10).”7 Arnold Fruchtenbaum argues that “confession of Israel’s national sin” is “a major precondition that must be met before Christ will return to establish the Messianic Kingdom.”8 This backdrop helps with understanding the significance of Jesus’ declaration, “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17). Jesus will call for national repentance which is necessary for the arrival of the kingdom.