I've been know to do that now and again.VERY SNEAKY....Looks like you have cheated TC by reading your bible
-
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!
Dispensational error pt2......or...is it truth?
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
I disagree. In discussing the fate of the Old Testament Saints at the time of Christ, He said
in John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out."
The Old Testament Saints belonged to the Father. He gave them to the Son, and the Son says two things about them: 1. All the OT Saints will come to Jesus. 2. None of the OT Saints will be left out.
Add to this that the New Testament Saints were engrafted into the the Olive Tree with is always a symbol of Israel.
Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them, and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree;
18 don’t boast over the branches. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you.
Rom 11:19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.”
Rom 11:20 True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Don’t be conceited, but fear;
National Israel was "broken off" and the NT Saints were "engrafted in" to be the recipients of the promises made to Israel ("partaker with them of the root and richness of the Olive Tree).
So, right from the very beginning, the earthly ministry of Christ, the OT Saints and the NT Saints have been one, together. Not two separate entities, but one in Christ.
It is only unbelieving Israel, National Israel, that remains separate, separated from God by their unbelief.
Tom, I never used the word "separate" except to explain what the relationship of redeemed Israel and the church IS NOT. I must have said that a dozen times, lose your spectacles?So, right from the very beginning, the earthly ministry of Christ, the OT Saints and the NT Saints have been one, together. Not two separate entities, but one in Christ.
It is only unbelieving Israel, National Israel, that remains separate, separated from God by their unbelief.
Redeemed Israel - All of the true believers under the law.
Matthew 16:18 church - All of the true believers in Jesus Christ.
All citizens of the New Jerusalem.
They are NOT separate, I know that. They are distinct representations of God's kingdom upon the earth sharing some values but not all with new and/or enhanced ministries (e.g. just for one aspect is the NT priesthood vs the Levitical priesthood) of the old which foreshadowed the new.
Distinction - In like manner, the members of the Trinity are distinct from one another but not separate.
The Trinity definition in irreducible complexity: God is three distinct persons in one divine essence.
HankD
A distinction without a difference.
Um, not sure what you mean. No difference between believing Israel and the Mat 16:18 church?
A distinction is made in Revelation 21
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Or, what then is the significance of these passages in their allusion to Israel and the church of the New Jerusalem?
Thanks
HankD
That's right.
1 Cointhians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colosians 3:11 Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
To show that the Patriarchs of Israel, for whom the tribes were named, are on equal footing as the Apostles. The People of God before the cross and the People of God after the cross. All together in the same city, with the same honor, with the same (imparted) glory.
“'Tis ordinarily said, that the Jews were a typical people, the whole divine economy toward them is doctrinal and instructive to us, not immediately or literally, but by way of Anagogy” - Henry Hammond
Anagoge: 1. An elevation of mind to things celestial. 2. The spiritual meaning or application; esp. the application of the types and allegories of the Old Testament to subjects of the New.
Last edited:
You means these guys?:
By faith Abel; by faith Enoch; by faith Noah; by faith Abraham; by faith Isaac; by faith Jacob; by faith Joseph; by faith Moses; by faith Rahab;
And what shall I more say? for the time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah; of David and Samuel and the prophets: Heb 11
1 Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Heb 12
Sounds like we're right there with them, not distinct from them. There's no distinction made between those before and those after Moses, why should there be a distinction between those before and those after Christ? Especially when we've been told repeatedly that there is no distinction.
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb 13
Last edited:
Surprise - I partially agree. All Jews and Gentiles saved by faith through grace in this, the times of the gentiles, are covered by these verses. However before and possibly after the completion of the fullness of the Gentiles not so.
My opinion of course.
This of course begs a question. One which we see on occasion here at the BB.
What of the millennial kingdom of dispensational systematic theology?
Looking at it as an institution (as many describe the Matthew 18:16 church), what will be its structure, how will it operate, etc...
On those rare millennial kingdom debate occasions here at the BB there have been verbal fistfights in the past when some of these questions are raised: e.g. The Millennial Temple and the animal sacrifices of Ezekiel 40ff which grappling events personally I try to avoid.
HankD
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.
And this is where I part company with classic dispensationalism. It seems to imply there is more than one way of salvation. The OT saints were saved one way and the NT saints are saved another way. There is only one way. Christ. And all of us, the Children of God, are one Kingdom, one Family, one People called by His Name.
Believing in a coming millennial kingdom is not a function of dispensationalism. I am an Historic Chilliast (Historic Premillennialist). I believe there is going to be a yet future Kingdom of God on earth with a duration of 1,000 years (or so). But I have, at best, a mild, progressive, understanding of the unfolding of God's self revelation. As dispensationalism is defined as "a series of stages in God's self-revelation and plan of salvation," my primary objection is the inclusion of "and plan of salvation." If there is a "plan of salvation" it is the same in both the OT and NT. And, of course, that plan is Christ.
Nobody wants to be in an institution. Besides, the term "universal church" is an oxymoron. Not to mention that the entire theory lacks any structure, as has been pointed out already.
The rebuilding of the Temple, the reinstituting of animal sacrifices, etc., are minor points without sufficient import for me to argue about them. If there are going to be animal sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom they will, probably, be memorial in nature, just as our ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper are memorial in nature.
But majoring on the minors never results in consensus.
There's something flawed with there not being a consensus among dispensationalists.
Which economy do the OT saints that lived prior to Israel belong to?
We are very close in these views. I particularly like the use of the word Chiliad rather than millennium.And this is where I part company with classic dispensationalism. It seems to imply there is more than one way of salvation. The OT saints were saved one way and the NT saints are saved another way. There is only one way. Christ. And all of us, the Children of God, are one Kingdom, one Family, one People called by His Name.
Believing in a coming millennial kingdom is not a function of dispensationalism. I am an Historic Chilliast (Historic Premillennialist). I believe there is going to be a yet future Kingdom of God on earth with a duration of 1,000 years (or so). But I have, at best, a mild, progressive, understanding of the unfolding of God's self revelation. As dispensationalism is defined as "a series of stages in God's self-revelation and plan of salvation," my primary objection is the inclusion of "and plan of salvation." If there is a "plan of salvation" it is the same in both the OT and NT. And, of course, that plan is Christ.
Nobody wants to be in an institution. Besides, the term "universal church" is an oxymoron. Not to mention that the entire theory lacks any structure, as has been pointed out already.
The rebuilding of the Temple, the reinstituting of animal sacrifices, etc., are minor points without sufficient import for me to argue about them. If there are going to be animal sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom they will, probably, be memorial in nature, just as our ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper are memorial in nature.
But majoring on the minors never results in consensus.
HankD
There's something flawed about there not being a consensus among covenant theologians. There's something flawed about there not being a consensus among Calvinists. There's something flawed about there not being a consensus among Arminians.
There is something flawed about all of us. That is part of our fallen nature.There's something flawed about there not being a consensus among covenant theologians. There's something flawed about there not being a consensus among Calvinists. There's something flawed about there not being a consensus among Arminians.
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!
- Status