Dittos for PBs in general.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dispensation(s)
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
Dittos for PBs in general.
Oh baloney, TC hasn't 'hoodwinked' anyone. I suppose next you'll accuse him of being "pope-driven". It made my heart happy to learn Historic Pre-mils share some similarities with amils & pan-mils, and that in a huge way.
Last edited:
Yes. I didn't state that very well. As I often told my students, "Don't listen to what I say, listen to what I mean."
By who? lol
It's a false argument.
I know of no Dispensational Teacher that is credible who confuses National Israel with the Israel of God.
Israel is a secular Nation, and has been long before Christ came. Their history is one of idolatry, unbelief, and disobedience.
The point remains that they were the People of God in the Old Testament. They were a Witness Nation created by God Himself, and the fact that they did not keep the Covenant God gave them, which made them a distinct nation, is the very reason we have the New Covenant today.
Promise in the Old Testament, reality today.
God bless.
The question is can one believe that yet distinguish between the Covenants and the provision available to men under those Covenants?
I do.
The primary point to consider would be atonement for sin and remission. Under all Old Testament Covenants God demanded the blood of animals, that was the means for atonement and remission of sins.
Under the distinctly different Economy of the New Covenant, those sacrifices have been made obsolete, and God no longer demands animal sacrifices which were only a shadow of the good things to come.
Not really.
There were Gentile believers when Israel trekked through the Desert, as well as when they entered the Land. They did not become members of Israel. In at least one point they could never have equality, and that was service as priests. Only one of the Tribe of Levi could serve in that Service.
No Gentile could.
That is distinct to the Covenant of Law, but does not apply to those prior (Melchisadec), nor is it relevant to the New Covenant (us).
The standard has changed significantly.
Paul makes it clear that the Covenant of Law was parenthetical in His Redemptive Plan:
Galatians 3:16-19
King James Version (KJV)
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now I would just mention one other thing in this passage for consideration: in view are the promises made to Abraham and his Seed.
What about those prior to this Covenant?
We know God planned to redeem mankind through the Seed of woman, but were the promises made to Abraham given then?
God bless.
I agree, EXCEPT, that I do see a future "physical land promises (in the Scriptures) made to Israel."
ALL are saved ONE way - by faith.
I would disagree that the promises to a physical "National Israel" would apply to the church.
Especially, considering the conditions in which the church would operate in as Christ stated the believers were to endure.
Certainly, that alone, removes the church from being able to be considered as replacing national Israel.
God made both conditional and unconditional promises.
Much of the prophecy of the end time events when taken as reality verify that God is not through with the nation that He called by His name.
But, that isn't applicable to the question that I ask.
Is it not true, that both the covenant folks (as you have shown) and the Darby folks, reject in some manner national (and even some - Bach, Luther, ... both national and spiritual) Israel at during what is commonly referred to as the church age?
If so, another question then comes to mind.
Why then do some become greatly exercised proclaiming Darby was wrong, yet do not see the same type of error in their own view?
I doubt it, or you would have read with more insight my posts.
Rather, all you could see was someone who showed how certain views of eschatology were aligned with Papists, and apparently offended.
TCassidy and I are in great agreement upon the salvation being the same from the time of the Eden crisis. And with exception perhaps of some slight (imo) areas, we agree on eschatology matters - at least, from what I have read over the years, we are pretty much in agreement.
His post did catch me a bit by surprise and he gently assuaged my thinking.