Dispensational error pt2......or...is it truth?

[Iconoclast]

This is an excellent article, and I commend you for posting it. It proves that the OP is flawed, since there is not a consensus among dispensationalists, therefore any way you interpret the new covenant is not really a strictly dispensational viewpoint.

OR.....it proves dispensationalism was D.O.A. and after it was shown to be flawed, a mad scramble has gone on, all kinds of damage control, trying to repair the breaches.....so we get doublespeak, partial fulfillment when the scripture indicates no such thing.
It is defective it it's view of the Covenants, and must seek to explain away that which holds it all together.

KYRED SAID;

There's something flawed with there not being a consensus among dispensationalists.

Originally there was......then when it got picked apart they had to change it.

Even those who offered it up front felt the pressure and could sense the mistakes in it....to their credit, they did try and address it like here;

14Commenting on the new covenant in Jer 31:31–34, Chafer notes: “There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a ‘new covenant.’ It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two covenants—one for Israel and one for the Church—are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God’s purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church. Israel’s covenant, however, is new only because it replaces the Mosaic, but the Church’s covenant is new because it introduces that which is God’s mysterious and unrelated purpose” (Systematic Theology, 7:98–99).

 

[Iconoclast]

Dispy have always held that the Church is now under the new Covenant of God, as the Body of Christ was formally ratified and began at day of Pentacost!

We also would state that both Jews and gentiles come to God thru that Covenant, by receiving Yeshua as messiah...

Also state that God will one day once again deal with converting national Israel in order to make true His promises to save all of Israel on that Day!

show me from this article or Ryrie, or chafer where they are saying this....I have quoted where they deny this very thing you say. Address the quotes as they are offered.....your say so is not getting it done.

 

[Yeshua1]

OR.....it proves dispensationalism was D.O.A. and after it was shown to be flawed, a mad scramble has gone on, all kinds of damage control, trying to repair the breaches.....so we get doublespeak, partial fulfillment when the scripture indicates no such thing.
It is defective it it's view of the Covenants, and must seek to explain away that which holds it all together.

KYRED SAID;


Originally there was......then when it got picked apart they had to change it.

Even those who offered it up front felt the pressure and could sense the mistakes in it....to their credit, they did try and address it like here;

There are problems in both it and Covenant theology, hence the New Covenant Theology, which to me is closer top what the Bible actually teaches!

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeshua1,

We also would state that both Jews and gentiles come to God thru that Covenant, by receiving Yeshua as messiah...

You are saying this, but here is what was already quoted from dispensational persons;

1]Christians are not party to a covenant of any form—new or old.

Are Christians in any covenant? This dispensationalist says NO.
The first question does not speak about national Israel, does it?
yet you answer;

[National Israel} will still have a plan for it from God,
to be fulfilled at the Second Coming,
It is not speaking about the second coming
while the Church will have both saved jews/gentiles in it...
the dispensational writer says Christians are not in any covenant....

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

Do you believe only national Israel has a covenant that results in salvation?

3]Christians are not party to the new covenant. The new covenant is not made with the church.
Do you believe that Christians are NOT IN THE NEW COVENANT?

THOSE ARE THE THREE QUESTIONS......3 QUESTIONS....3 ANSWERS..

 

[Iconoclast]

There are problems in both it and Covenant theology, hence the New Covenant Theology, which to me is closer top what the Bible actually teaches!

show it from scripture.....

 

[Iconoclast]

show it from scripture.....

The New Covenant is Exclusively for Israel and Will be Fulfilled by Israel in the Future A view popular among early dispensationalists15 and still found today16 is that the new covenant is exclusively for Israel.

15E.g., J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, 5 vols. (reprint ed., New York: Loizeaux, 1942), 5:330. In his discussion on Heb 8:7–13, Darby states, “We enjoy indeed all the essential privileges of the new covenant, its foundation being laid on God’s part in the blood of Christ, but we do so in spirit, not according to the letter. The new covenant will be established formally with Israel in the millennium.” Commenting on Heb 9:15, Darby adds, “The way in which the apostle always avoids the direct application of the new covenant is very striking” (5:340). Similarly, on Heb 10:15–17 Darby says, “He does not speak of the covenant in a direct way, as a privilege in which Christians had a direct part” (5:360).

 

[kyredneck]

The Noahide Covenant.

Google it to get the background.

I did, and if I'm following your gist here this is distinctly Jewish, straight out of the Talmud.

Can you provide some scriptures that make this distinction of Noahide Covenant people from Mosaic Covenant people and New Covenant people? This is getting rather complicated.

 

[TCassidy]

Dispy have always held that the Church is now under the new Covenant of God, as the Body of Christ was formally ratified and began at day of Pentacost!

That may not be the consensus of Dispensational opinion. Some Dispensationalists believe the New Covenant only applies to Israel. Others believe the formal ratification occurred prior to Pentecost.

We also would state that both Jews and gentiles come to God thru that Covenant, by receiving Yeshua as messiah.

Some Dispensationalists, as noted above, deny the New Testament saints are under the New Covenant, but only Israel. Currently salvation is the same for Jews and Gentiles, but some Dispensationalists teach that Jews under the Old Covenant were saved by the works of the law, or via some other means.

Also state that God will one day once again deal with converting national Israel in order to make true His promises to save all of Israel on that Day!

All Israel or only those of Israel who are alive at the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy?

There are as many different views on Dispensations as there are of the Covenants.

 

[kyredneck]

OR.....
Originally there was......then when it got picked apart they had to change it.;

BINGO! Excellent concise articulation!

 

[Internet Theologian]

In listening to R.C. Sproul today, he lamented Dispensational Theologies (DT) false teaching that there doesn't have to be any transformation of a person, ever, when they trust Christ for salvation. He also stated that Campus Crusade for Christ was one of the largest proponents of this false teaching, and that the unfortunate outcome is that these people falsely believe they are saved. He also spoke of how churches are saturated with this false teaching.

This was via a podcast series, and I believe it was titled 'The Dividing Christ' or 'The Barren Fig Tree'. I listened for several hours to him today while working on a project, so I forget which one it was, but it was on his series on Luke.

Here are a couple links:

http://renewingyourmind.org/2016/08/20/the-parable-of-the-barren-fig-tree

http://renewingyourmind.org/2016/08/06/the-dividing-christ

There are going to be a lot of people responsible for others that they have taught this error to.

This is one reason that DT is preaching a false message of the gospel. I believe this to be a grave error. Now, not all who hold to DT teach or believe this error, John MacArthur Jr. for instance.

I want to edit to add some Scripture for this, that refute the error that there need be no change: Romans 6:20-23 (especially note verse 22); 2 Corinthians 3:18ff; Hebrews 12:14; Luke 13:8ff (on the parable of the Fig Tree as mentioned above). Note also the near entirety of 1 John as well.

 

[Yeshua1]

That may not be the consensus of Dispensational opinion. Some Dispensationalists believe the New Covenant only applies to Israel. Others believe the formal ratification occurred prior to Pentecost.


Some Dispensationalists, as noted above, deny the New Testament saints are under the New Covenant, but only Israel. Currently salvation is the same for Jews and Gentiles, but some Dispensationalists teach that Jews under the Old Covenant were saved by the works of the law, or via some other means.
All Israel or only those of Israel who are alive at the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy?

There are as many different views on Dispensations as there are of the Covenants.

That seems to be either Old Scofield studt bible notes though, or else Hyper Dispy, that deny that we are under any NT scriptures except for paul!

 

[Yeshua1]

The New Covenant is Exclusively for Israel and Will be Fulfilled by Israel in the Future A view popular among early dispensationalists15 and still found today16 is that the new covenant is exclusively for Israel.

15E.g., J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, 5 vols. (reprint ed., New York: Loizeaux, 1942), 5:330. In his discussion on Heb 8:7–13, Darby states, “We enjoy indeed all the essential privileges of the new covenant, its foundation being laid on God’s part in the blood of Christ, but we do so in spirit, not according to the letter. The new covenant will be established formally with Israel in the millennium.” Commenting on Heb 9:15, Darby adds, “The way in which the apostle always avoids the direct application of the new covenant is very striking” (5:340). Similarly, on Heb 10:15–17 Darby says, “He does not speak of the covenant in a direct way, as a privilege in which Christians had a direct part” (5:360).

The Church, starting at pentacost, has been ubder the New Covenant, as that One was made by the shed blood/death of Christ upon the Cross, and one must be born again in order to get saved, and all who are saved are under the New Covenant!

One cannot be saved and not under that One...

 

[Yeshua1]

show me from this article or Ryrie, or chafer where they are saying this....I have quoted where they deny this very thing you say. Address the quotes as they are offered.....your say so is not getting it done.

This is a very through survey of the different options held by Dispy regarding the relationship between the Church and New Covenant
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2003/compton.pdf

 

[HankD]

I did, and if I'm following your gist here this is distinctly Jewish, straight out of the Talmud.

Can you provide some scriptures that make this distinction of Noahide Covenant people from Mosaic Covenant people and New Covenant people? This is getting rather complicated.

It is Jewish but it applies only to gentiles today.

Gentiles who believe the OT only and do not want to convert to Talmudic Judaism can come in under the Naohide Covenant and worship Jehovah.

Read further on the internet. Have a Dr appointment.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

It is Jewish but it applies only to gentiles today.

Gentiles who believe the OT only and do not want to convert to Talmudic Judaism can come in under the Naohide Covenant and worship Jehovah.

Read further on the internet. Have a Dr appointment.

HankD

One cannot worhsip Yeshua though apart from coming to God under His new Covenant!

 

[kyredneck]

It is Jewish but it applies only to gentiles today.

Gentiles who believe the OT only and do not want to convert to Talmudic Judaism can come in under the Naohide Covenant and worship Jehovah.

Read further on the internet.

I would rather read further from scripture provided from you that describes this other way for Gentiles to worship Jehovah, which you seem unable to produce.

 

[kyredneck]

There are going to be a lot of people responsible for others that they have taught this error to.

This is one reason that DT is preaching a false message of the gospel. I believe this to be a grave error. Now, not all who hold to DT teach or believe this error, John MacArthur Jr. for instance.

I believe there's going to be those that teach the false killjoy doctrines of Lordship Salvation/MacArthurism that will be responsible for driving the sheep away. And for the record I've known many godly Dispensationalists.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe there's going to be those that teach the false killjoy doctrines of Lordship Salvation/MacArthurism that will be responsible for driving the sheep away. And for the record I've known many godly Dispensationalists.

You don't like those solid Reformed teachings then?

 

[TCassidy]

This is a very through survey of the different options held by Dispy regarding the relationship between the Church and New Covenant
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2003/compton.pdf

The DTS paper you directed us to proves you are wrong about Dispensationalists and the New Covenant. Read under the heading,

The New Covenant is Exclusively for Israel and
Will be Fulfilled by Israel in the Future

 

[kyredneck]

You don't like those solid Reformed teachings then?

Not when it's in the spirit of Pharisaism. Attack and find fault with everyone is IT's modus operandi.