Featured Church And Israel

Agree, with the exception that I believe the rapture will inaugurate the tribulation.

 

Are you addressing me with the frozen heart charge? If so, can you please explain how you concluded such a thing? In my post, I did not state a position but I included statements from other sources. The sources were included in my post.

 

Hmm, well you did ask (in post #44 ) "Do you agree? If not, please provide resources to support/clarify your position".

It "sounded" judgemental so I responded in like kind (shouldn't have).

So I am sorry. do you feel guilty of a cold heart?

When I was a babe in Christ I personally did indeed believe God would save everyone and was very happy indeed.
I felt that there would be a kind of "purgatory" (kind of like some of the "no-hellers" believe) in which all would eventually bow the knee and confess Jesus Christ as Lord.

Now I see scripture as hell being a forever place although I wonder really if folks there will be screaming in pain and agony forever.

It is a place of punishment and deep remorse and those there are eternally separated from God.

For me that would be HELL.

 

1689Dave gave a good answer to your questions. I'll add mine. Firstly you have selected 3 chapters dealing with the first century situation when Israel as a nation still existed as an embodiment of the Old Covenant. The whole 16 chapters of the letter shows that the redeemed people of God, true Spiritual Jews, Spiritual Israel aka New Covenant Israel are all and only believers in Jesus as Lord & Saviour.

Also your questions are loaded, based on your doctrine.

However in the first century the OC & the NC were coexisting apparently as rival systems. The questions Paul raises (& you) require Scriptural answers concerning the identity of Israel as the believing people of God - a covenant remnant had & has always existed even in times of apostasy & judgment. Paul begins 11 by explaining this.

Your answer (3) is not so used in the NC Scriptures.

We need to add answers -
(4) The many thousands of Jews & Proselytes who believed the Gospel preached by John & received his baptism, together with those who believed in Jesus during his ministry & those who believed the Apostolic Gospel, together with the Gentiles who believed the Gospel. These comprise the Church.

(5) The Jewish leaders who in practice rejected Moses & the Prophets as fulfilled by Jesus & preached by John, Jesus & the Apostles, together with & those who followed them or who otherwise rejected the Gospel. These Paul describes in 10:21 as"a disobedient & obstinate people. These maintained control of Jerusalem & the temple, & persecuted (4).

You would find a study of the Gk laos, generally translated "people" in Romans & ethnos, generally translated "gentiles" in Romans, but only 6 times as "nations" always referring to Gentile nations & not the nation of Israel. I'm not saying this as a Greek scholar, but the Blueletter Bible is a very useful resource in these discussions & it give access to the Gk through Strong's numbers.

(5)

(5)

(5)

The Jewish people as a whole, included in both (4) & (5) as of course the Gospel remained open to (5) until the AD 70 destruction when (5) perished. It continues open to all nations included those calling themselves "Jews" to this day & until Jesus returns for resurrection & judgment.

(5)
I recommend that you reread Romans with my answers & of course Scripture.
.....

 

Um, I wouldn't depend too much on Van's description of progressive dispensationalism. He did not mention its genesis (and the motive for that), what dispensations it recognizes, etc. I've very seldom interacted with him outside of the Translation/Version forum here, but began to ignore him when...well, a number of reasons.

The theology began as an attempt at the national ETS (Evangelical Theo. Soc.) meeting to unite dispensationalists with covenant theologians. (They had something called the "Dispensational Study Group.") Therefore, it is a compromise theology, trying to put the best of both into one basket. It fails, ending up with a confusing mishmash of only 3 (maybe 4) dispensations which do not match those of other dispensational theologies, making it not even a true form of dispensationalism, IMO.

The main theologians are out of Dallas TS. The movement was introduced to the public with a 1993 book, by Craig Blaising and Darrel Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism. I'll add to this post something from my lecture on the subject.

The Teachings of Progressive Dispensationalism​

A. Progressive dispensationalists have adapted their hermeneutics to literary criticism and covenant theology. “What emerges is what we will call the ‘historical-grammatical-literary-theological’ method. This fourfold description of hermeneutics is really what most mean when they speak simply of the historical-grammatical method.”[1]

B. To the progressive dispensationalist, “present blessings are a partial, not ‘allegorical,’ fulfillment of those promises. They look forward to complete fulfillment at the return of Christ.”[2] This is the result of what is called “already/not yet” interpretation, which suggests that prophecies can have fulfillment at not just one, but multiple times in history.

C. Progressive dispensationalism does not believe that the present dispensation started at Pentecost, but at Christ’s resurrection. “We also see how a new arrangement, a new dispensation, is inaugurated when Jesus, having died to provide for the forgiveness of sins, is vindicated by God and brought to God’s right hand to mediate the giving of the Spirit that places God’s law on the heart.”[3]

D. Progressive dispensationalists do not believe that the church is peculiar to the age of grace. Blaising and Bock wrote, “One of the most striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people.”[4] In other words, they consider the church to be a permanent fixture carrying on through the events of the next dispensation. “The only thing that makes the ‘church’ distinct in this era, according to progressive dispensationalism is the extent of salvation blessings: the present church is unable to receive all of the blessing of the covenants since kingdom blessings have only been inaugurated with Christ’s first advent.”[5]

E. This approach puts great emphasis on Old Testament covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) being progressively fulfilled down through the various dispensations.


[1] Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 77.
[2] Ibid, 53.
[3] Darrell Bock, “God’s Plan for History: The First Coning of Christ, in Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption, ed. by D. Jeffrey Bingham and Glenn R. Kreider (Chicago: Moody, 2015), 163.
[4] Blaising and Bock, 49.
[5] Beacham, 29; emphasis in the original.

 

Appreciate that, John. How in the world you can keep that straight is beyond me. I'll just be thankful that you are here to explain it to guys like me. I might have missed it in your response, but which view do you believe it the most accurate?

 

Dispensationalism has not ignored the Covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, Solomonic...).

The Old Scofield Bible discusses them at length but indeed it is difficult/impossible to meld the two at the Systematic Theology plane.

 

No, he did not! He avoided the issue by trying to pit one thing against another thing and the thing he chose to pit was theory not fact.

That is not correct! Paul is dealing with God's purpose for Israel in light of the gospel going to the gentiles and if this departure from Israel is permanent. Romans 11 specifically deals with the future of Israel as an ethnic people/nation in contrast to saved gentiles.

Wrong again! I stuck to the literally wording of the texts. Nothing less, nothing more!

In chapter 11 Paul is dealing with the FUTURE of the nation of Israel in light of God's departure from the nation Israel to the Gentiles. Hence, this text deals explicitly with what this debate is all about - the future of Israel in God's divine purpose of redemption.

Are you denying that Romans 9-11 is not dealing with ethnic national Israel or the nation of Israel in contrast to the Gentiles??????? Although the precise terms I use in answer 3 are not found in Romans 9-11 those terms are precisely accurate in describing the Israel Paul is contrasting with the Gentiles. He is referring to them as the nation of Israel which has existed from its roots with Abraham, of which Paul was "according to the flesh" and from the tribe of Benjamin which are in contrast to nations and peoples called Gentiles. Every question describes only what can be the Jewish nation or the people naturally born from the loins of Abraham.

No, we don't! All your additions are included in "elect remnant" which existed in every generation, in Paul's generation, and every generation after Paul.

Those people are those natural born Jewish people and your comment has no bearing whatsoever on the questions or the issue as no one denies the gospel was being preached to Israel just as no one is deny that Israel as a nation rejects the gospel then and will continue to reject that gospel as a nation until the full number of the Gentile elect come in, then those who were "enemies of the gospel" FOR YOUR SAKE will be saved by the very same gospel according to God's purpose of election. Those "enemies" are again "Jacob" or natural Israel.


I recommend you answer the questions if you dare.

 

Post #47


I responded to Martin Marprelate's invoking "Inclusion Theology" stating that I had never heard of it. Post #44

His response:

Post #50

I don't understand why my questions caused you to conclude I have a "frozen heart". I'll will try not to give such an impression in the future.

 

My position is revised dispensationalism, ala Charles Ryrie.

 

As Columbo would say, "one more thing, sir". Could you give me a short summary of revised dispensationalism, and the main differences from traditional dispensationalism?

 

Lodic your request is a difficult one. Dispensationalism has many flavors, even going back to the Early Church Fathers although it did not have that label. Look for chialism, Jacob's Trouble...

You may be better off doing your own research following the path wherever that leads you.

 

I expect you are right. I'll do just that. This is a LOT more complicated than I had expected, and it wouldn't be fair to tie up someone else's time like that.

 

John, it wasn't fair of me to ask you to describe this. My apologies, Brother. I'll do some research myself.

 

No problem. Seriously, you can't understand current dispensationalism without reading Dispensationalism, by Charles Ryrie. It's inexpensive, informative, and the standard text. I really get tired of the ignorance about the theology I find here on the BB. I hardly bother to answer any more. Most folk here are happy with their misunderstood criticisms.

 

If you want to start a thread, I'll participate. Tomorrow I don't teach and can spend some time on it.

 

Bro Biblicist,

Can you not see that Jer 31-31:33, Jer 32:37-41, Isa 59:21, and Isa 54:17 are prophesies concerning the local literal visible body of Christ AND the kingdom of God? These verse declared the will and work of the Father and Christ. It is a NOW occurrence and needs no waiting for the future. If those of ethnic Israel will receive the blessings it will be through the church to which the new covenant belongs. Am I wrong to assume you believe that Israel IS being grafted into the new covenant and that also in the literal local assembly, the church. And if they are being grafted into the church how are there two purposes of administration?

I was not grafted into a literal tree. The two trees represents two peoples, two generations, two nations.. . We see the same illustration in the two baskets of figs in the OT in the 24th chapter of Jeremiah and Christ's prophetical teaching of the good tree and evil tree and their fruits. Christ's cursing the fig tree was his prophesy of what he would do to that stiff necked rebellious generation of OT Israel that had perverted the true application of the old testament. Their interpretation could not bring forth anything profitable or fruitful in the sense of the kingdom of God and his righteousness. (Mt 6:33).. As I quoted Mt 21:43 "Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the FRUITS (of righteousness) thereof." This coincides with the covenant in Isa 59:21

I agree there is one spiritual kingdom since Adam and all the elect abide therein but the scriptures show two generations, a righteousness generation representing the remnant and a rebellious stiff necked generation. Abel and Cain, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau. These were abiding together in covenant Israel in its two fold state. They also represent the two covenants. (Gal 4:24). It was also true during the time of Christ when he told them that the kingdom of God dwelt in the midst of them. There is a constant warfare between them concerning the things of the Lord. The same is true of this website in many ways in answering the question of Christ, "...whom say ye that I am."

If you believe there is one spiritual kingdom, how do you justify making the remnant and spiritual Israel two separate classifications when they are both clearly spiritual. They are both one in Christ. (Gal 3:28) National, Ethnic, Israel was a covenantally identified nation both in the OT and during the time of Christ, That ended in 70 AD when they were stripped of their authority to speak as the mouth of God. The point of national ethnic Israel now becomes pointless since the old covenant has passed away and they can no longer be identified with that covenant.
,
There is nothing universal and invisible in the teachings of Gal 3:28 since Paul was addressing the literal local assembly called the church at Corinth.

Is national ethnic Israel as you call them being literally grafted in to literal trees. If not, then the trees take on a new meaning in the context of the covenant. You cannot separate the church which is declaring the great and wonderous work of the Father from the spiritual kingdom. Those in the spiritual kingdom come through the local assembly. The local assembly is given the new covenant and charged to keep its teachings. This is also the way national ethnic Israelites are grafted into the body of Christ today.

I ask you again, what nation did Christ give the kingdom, and with it the new covenant, after the took it from covenant Israel? The literal local visible body of Christ.

 

God has promised He will re-join Israel and Judah as one nation again, & restore their fortunes, not because they deserve it, but because He made those promises to Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob. He also promised David that his dynasty would never end nor be interrupted, meaning there would always be a descendant of David's ruling over at least some Israelis somewhere, culminating with Jesus returning to take over David's throne for ever.

These promises are separate from the Church, as they're for Israel only. However, to be saved, each individual Israeli must come to Jesus same as anyone else. There is but ONE plan of salvation for Israeli & gentile alike.

 

Israel and the Church: See the Difference?

 

I appreciate that, Brother John. Instead, I will research Ryrie's book that you mentioned above.