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

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan,

Finally you find a chapter in There Really Is a Difference, by Renald Showers (1990), but hey, that is a comparison of dispensationalism and covenant theology, so he would have a chapter when most ignore the discussion--because it's just not that relevant!

In short, you are making a big mountain out of a small molehill.

Who is in the New Covenant is very relevant.

Are church members in the New Covenant?

Is the new covenant made with gentiles?

 

[John of Japan]

Here's the thing, as I understand DT, it has God with two plans, with two separate ppl, one plan for Jews, one plan for Gentiles. Where I take exception with Walvoord & Ryrie(or maybe Shafer or Chafer...can't remember which...here), is they referred to us Gentiles as a 'blip' on God's radar in His dealings with the nation of Israel.

First of all, this does not explain why you think DS is heresy. That is a very serious charge, and you've not proven it in the slightest.

Secondly, I'm afraid you misunderstand the basics of DT. God does not have separate plans for Jews and Gentiles. There is one plan into which both fit: history for the glory of God. I have no idea where you got that "blip" quote. I'd appreciate it if you can track it down. Ryrie certainly says no such thing, nor do I remember anything like that in Walvoord, though it's been quite a while since I read him. I have Chafer's systematic theology, and can look it up if you can find the quote.

I agree that God is not done with that nation. However, as Bro. Voddie Baucham preached a sermon on Romans 11:25-36, USA is has the largest population of Jews in the world. So He can deal with Israel here and bring a multitude of Jews in and fulfill that plan. BTW, I am no longer staunchly amil, I am leaning towards Chiliasm, just not in any eschatological camp yet.

The fact that God is not done with Israel is a central tenet of DT. One cannot be a dispensationalist if one does not believe it, and one cannot be in favor of covenant theology if one does believe it.

Personally, in the light of Rom. 9-11, I don't see how any honest Bible student can deny a divine future for Israel. My son wrote in his lecture on that passage for my class, "The number one foundation of dispensational theology is the question of Israel and the Church, especially regarding whether or not Israel, as an ethnic entity, still has a future."

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

Who is in the New Covenant is very relevant.

Are church members in the New Covenant?

Is the new covenant made with gentiles?

Please explain further. How is it relevant? If it is relevant, why is the issue largely ignored in the dispensationalism textbooks I have mentioned?

 

[John of Japan]

To the English majors...is this sentence gramatically correct? This doesn't seem plausible.

I just don't think no sentence can be worded that way. 'Don't have internet at home.' I said 'no sentence' intentionally. Being funny here...

It's colloquial, with the reader supplying the "I." But it is a sentence anyway if you take it as imperative. Just sayin'.

 

[Yeshua1]

When Jesus was pierced in the side and blood and water came forth, Zechariah 13:1 and Zechariah 14:6 were fulfilled, imo.

But not yet Ezekiel 37, as that is yet to happen, as national Israel has yet to turn to Yeshua!

 

[Yeshua1]

Many say that is true right now.......Why do you think it is not true now?
Has a fountain of blessing been opened in Jerusalem .....at the cross?

Because Israel has not yet mourned over Yeshua, their greiving over Him will lead them to repent and believe unto Him for salvation...

God turned to the Gentiles to wotk with them in Acts, but Romans makes it quite clear that He is not yet done with Israel!

 

[percho]

Of course. And Calvin was making it plain that baptism did not save, or even is the cause of salvation, but that baptism points to what actually saves, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Of course, when he speaks of baptism he is talking about infant sprinkling. He takes, essentially, the same position most Presbyterians take today. It does not bestow grace, but points to that which is by grace.

But then, I am not beholden to Calvin or his writings. My faith in Christ as my Redeemer is based on what I read in the bible, not what I read in Calvin's Institutes.

Besides, I am not a Calvinist. I am a Particular Baptist.

Luke 12:50

I think death burial and resurrection is baptism and is the baptism that did/does/will save us.

 

[HankD]

I believe the church is within the scope of the New Covenant and part of the New Covenant with adaptions to accommodate the Gentile world until the fullness of the gentiles are come in.

This is a personal and heavily opinionated view:

Israel rejected the leadership of the Great Commission:

Acts 13:
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

This one adaptation (among others) will continue until "the times of the Gentiles" Luke 21:24 has ended, then the fullness of the polity of His government will be realized.

Acts 3
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

One thing we do know concerning His rule of law

Revelation 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Psalm 2
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Luke 12:50

I think death burial and resurrection is baptism and is the baptism that did/does/will save us.

ASV Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

HankD

 

[percho]

ASV Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

HankD

Was Jesus baptized in the Holy Spirit and in fire? BTW what is the fire?

Luke 12:50 I have a baptism to be baptized with:
Matt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

 

[HankD]

Was Jesus baptized in the Holy Spirit and in fire? BTW what is the fire?

Luke 12:50 I have a baptism to be baptized with:
Matt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

I don't know but the baptism IN the Holy Spirit is for us and He (Jesus Christ) is the officiator of that baptism.

I do see what you saying. Will think on it.

HankD

 

[percho]

I do not really know about dispensations however here is what I think.

Jesus died and was resurrected, maybe, a little under 2000 years ago and I would think most of you think, "It," is about over. And that your view of salvation is, "few there are that find it".

My view is that 2000 years ago was only the very beginning of salvation.

That this; Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, equates to this: Genesis 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; through this: Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And we ain.t close yet and that most of those will come after the return of Jesus.

I think that is why he returns.

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

I (God) will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore;
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: Hebrews 8:10

 

[Iconoclast]

Please explain further. How is it relevant? If it is relevant, why is the issue largely ignored in the dispensationalism textbooks I have mentioned?

Hello John
I believe it to be relevant in that we read Hosea1:10.....2:23.......quoted I. 1 pet 2:10.......who in time past were no people, but now are the the people of God.
This fact must be accounted for when we explain to new converts who they are in Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

Because Israel has not yet mourned over Yeshua, their greiving over Him will lead them to repent and believe unto Him for salvation...

God turned to the Gentiles to wotk with them in Acts, but Romans makes it quite clear that He is not yet done with Israel!

The early church was primarily jewish....
Jews living now never saw Jesus.....those living in the future did not crucify Jesus.....why would they mourn?
Those at Pentecost were among those who did want Jesus crucified.....they mourned, but the fountain was opened at that time as per Joel 2-3.

 

[Iconoclast]

Please explain further. How is it relevant? If it is relevant, why is the issue largely ignored in the dispensationalism textbooks I have mentioned?

I am still trying to link to you articles.....have not found them yet....I am looking forward to trying to work through this giving a fresh look.
What I am looking for is how they answer 2 Pet 2.....
How they answer Romans 11:23
If future Israel repents.....they are grafted into the same olive trees that they were broken off from. That olive trees has Gentiles in it already,which I believe shows gentile Christians as the Israel of God in the new Covenant.
Until I read the sources you offer.....I could only speculate why they do not deal with the issue of the new Covenant. I suspect they have not faced these positions openly as they would not see the answer without looking at the dreaded Covenant theology.......if I see they deal honestly with these other verses that would be a nice surprise.
My wife told me she found my copy of things to come.....we had moved...and many of my books were still in totes...lol

 

[Iconoclast]

I just found an interview with Dr. KRIEDER

Ericredmond.wordpress.com

 

[John of Japan]

Hello John
I believe it to be relevant in that we read Hosea1:10.....2:23.......quoted I. 1 pet 2:10.......who in time past were no people, but now are the the people of God.
This fact must be accounted for when we explain to new converts who they are in Christ.

Hosea 1:10 is a reiteration of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is not the new one. 2:23 doesn't mention the new covenant, so I don't see your point (unless you think God's covenant with the animals in v. 18 is the new covenant ). 1 Peter 2:10 also does not mention the new covenant ("covenant" appears nowhere in Peter), so you are making a leap of logic there to apply the passage to the new covenant.

 

[John of Japan]

I am still trying to link to you articles.....have not found them yet....I am looking forward to trying to work through this giving a fresh look.

I don't recall mentioning articles to you. I mentioned books.

What I am looking for is how they answer 2 Pet 2.....
How they answer Romans 11:23
If future Israel repents.....they are grafted into the same olive trees that they were broken off from. That olive trees has Gentiles in it already,which I believe shows gentile Christians as the Israel of God in the new Covenant.

Until you prove that these passages refer to the new covenant, your argument is dead in the water.

Until I read the sources you offer.....I could only speculate why they do not deal with the issue of the new Covenant. I suspect they have not faced these positions openly as they would not see the answer without looking at the dreaded Covenant theology.......if I see they deal honestly with these other verses that would be a nice surprise.

Even if you read the books I listed you won't know why they do not deal with the new covenant. They simply don't discuss it, and you can't read their minds. But I'll simply say again, it's not an issue in dispensationalism, or they would have discussed it and I would have taught it. (It has never even crossed my mind to teach on it in my class. It simply doesn't matter to dispensationalism. As long as you pursue the matter, you are marginalizing your objection to dispensationalism.

It's as if I criticized someone's 1965 Shelby Cobra, saying, "I hate that it doesn't have WIFI."

My wife told me she found my copy of things to come.....we had moved...and many of my books were still in totes...lol

Great. Happy studying.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hosea 1:10 is a reiteration of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is not the new one. 2:23 doesn't mention the new covenant, so I don't see your point (unless you think God's covenant with the animals in v. 18 is the new covenant ). 1 Peter 2:10 also does not mention the new covenant ("covenant" appears nowhere in Peter), so you are making a leap of logic there to apply the passage to the new covenant.

Thanks for your response.
One problem that is constantly resurfacing in this discussion is you and others suggesting that if a Covenant is not mentioned by name, or it is not described by using the term.......it is a leap of logic......no, not really.
I had recently dealt with this kind of objection......in this manner....

What sport is being described by these component parts.......

A home run.
A stolen bases.
The pitchers mound.
The batters box
A pitcher
A catcher
An earned run average.....
A batting average....
The world series.....

Does it take a leap of logic, or do you know exactly what sport it is......even if it is not named here?

In the same way there are biblical words that have a biblical meaning.....
The people of God......is one such term.......oath, promise,my people, are used in such a way. To deny this is quite foolish.....the quotes from Hosea are very clear.....as is 2 cor6:14- 7:1

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for your response.
One problem that is constantly resurfacing in this discussion is you and others suggesting that if a Covenant is not mentioned by name, or it is not described by using the term.......it is a leap of logic......no, not really.
I had recently dealt with this kind of objection......in this manner....

What sport is being described by these component parts.......

A home run.
A stolen bases.
The pitchers mound.
The batters box
A pitcher
A catcher
An earned run average.....
A batting average....
The world series.....

Does it take a leap of logic, or do you know exactly what sport it is......even if it is not named here?

In the same way there are biblical words that have a biblical meaning.....
The people of God......is one such term.......oath, promise,my people, are used in such a way. To deny this is quite foolish.....the quotes from Hosea are very clear.....as is 2 cor6:14- 7:1

But there are only three mentions of the phrase "new covenant" in the whole Bible, and those are: Heb. 8:8 8:13 and 12:12. And in 8:8 it is clearly between "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." So the new covenant is with Israel--not "spiritual Israel," but Israel. After all, it is (wait for it) the book of Hebrews.

So how do you prove that the new covenant is for anyone other than Hebrew people? You can't. All you can do is resort to allegorical interpretation, which I deeply oppose. God said what He meant and meant what He said.