Dispensationalism/Covenant Theology

[Me4Him]

So that justifying faith in the Old Testament was in Messiah, was in Christ as sin bearer, and they were expecting His coming, whereas the New Covenant, looks back upon the finished work of Christ, the Messiah. That is a fundamentally Protestant point of view about saving faith in the Old Testament. And Dispensationalism tends to take issue with it.

Jews don't believe in a "HUMAN SACRIFICE" to appease an angry God, or fulfill any "law".


To the Jew, God just simply "FORGIVES" sin, when you're obedient.

To the Jew, "Messiah" is a "MAN", like Moses, not "God in the flesh".

The Jews were not, still don't, expect the Messiah that came, the reason Jesus is not accepted.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Jews don't believe in a "HUMAN SACRIFICE" to appease an angry God, or fulfill any "law".


To the Jew, God just simply "FORGIVES" sin, when you're obedient.

To the Jew, "Messiah" is a "MAN", like Moses, not "God in the flesh".

The Jews were not, still don't, expect the Messiah that came, the reason Jesus is not accepted.

I am using your response here to reply to you and in general to the whole thread.

I read through most of this thread. And to the dispensationalists I would like to say that from the perspective of someone who didn't buy into the dispy beliefs to begin with, hearing the explainations on this board make someone like me more convinced that it isn't true. The beliefs that arise out of the dispy camp are strange indeed.

The reason, biblically, Jesus was not "accepted" by the whole of Israel (many thousdands did "accept" him and still do; there will always be a remnant) is because it was ordained of God to be so.

Romans 11
"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day. v7-8

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! v.32-33

However you interpret prophecy, whether dispensationally or coventally, no one can change this text to say anything other than what it says---that God is the one who concluded them all in unbelief.

And the only proper reasoning out of this is what is written in the Scripture itself "O the depth of the riches of both the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments,a nd his ways past finding out!"

Amen.

 

[Pastor Larry]

And to the dispensationalists I would like to say that from the perspective of someone who didn't buy into the dispy beliefs to begin with, hearing the explainations on this board make someone like me more convinced that it isn't true. The beliefs that arise out of the dispy camp are strange indeed.

As a dispensationalist, I grieve over some of the nonsense spoken here by what I am sure are well-meaning dispensationalists. Dispensationalism itself does not inherently contain these things. A distinction must be made between what dispensationalism holds, and what some dispensationalists believe. If I didn't know dispensationalism better, these people would convinced me not to believe it. I have the benefit of knowing better however.

The reason, biblically, Jesus was not "accepted" by the whole of Israel (many thousdands did "accept" him and still do; there will always be a remnant) is because it was ordained of God to be so.

Dispensationalism doesn't disagree with this.

However you interpret prophecy, whether dispensationally or coventally, no one can change this text to say anything other than what it says---that God is the one who concluded them all in unbelief.

Indeed, and it is important to note how contradictory this is to covenantalism. It is "Israel" that was blinded. If Israel is the church (as covenantalists typically believe), this passage says that God blinds his church. The same problem exists with Romans 11:25 where a partial hardening has happened to Israel. This passages make clear (as do other passages) that "Israel" is not the church. It is national Israel and they were hardened by God just God told Isaiah in Isaiah 6.

 

[canadyjd]

Indeed, and it is important to note how contradictory this is to covenantalism. It is "Israel" that was blinded. If Israel is the church (as covenantalists typically believe), this passage says that God blinds his church. The same problem exists with Romans 11:25 where a partial hardening has happened to Israel. This passages make clear (as do other passages) that "Israel" is not the church. It is national Israel and they were hardened by God just God told Isaiah in Isaiah 6.

It is clear that Paul uses the term "Israel", at times, to refer to Jews. There are times when Paul refers to "Israel" as those who are part of the children of promise (including both Jews and Gentiles).

When Paul is speaking of "Israel" being blinded, it is clear he is referring in general to the Jewish nation of Israel, not the children of promise.

peace to youraying:

 

[Me4Him]

The reason, biblically, Jesus was not "accepted" by the whole of Israel (many thousdands did "accept" him and still do; there will always be a remnant) is because it was ordained of God to be so.

Then you, and Calvin, have a big problem.

If God had ordained/predestined Israel to reject Jesus,

and Jesus made the offer to Israel, "I would, you wouldn't",

then that offer was either "Against the ordained/predestine" will of God,

Or Jesus's offer wasn't "VALID", he really didn't means "I would".


Take your pick.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It is clear that Paul uses the term "Israel", at times, to refer to Jews. There are times when Paul refers to "Israel" as those who are part of the children of promise (including both Jews and Gentiles).

When Paul is speaking of "Israel" being blinded, it is clear he is referring in general to the Jewish nation of Israel, not the children of promise.

peace to youraying:

Amen. I am surprised that distinction is not plain to all....

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Then you, and Calvin, have a big problem.

If God had ordained/predestined Israel to reject Jesus,

and Jesus made the offer to Israel, "I would, you wouldn't",

then that offer was either "Against the ordained/predestine" will of God,

Or Jesus's offer wasn't "VALID", he really didn't means "I would".


Take your pick.

Perhaps your more familiar with John Calvin's theology on this subject than I am. What have you read of his commentary on the text of Scripture I quoted? Frankly, I am not that familiar with Calvin, although I have read a little bit of his stuff.

As for your "objection" here, it is fallicous. And has been dealt with numerous times in the calvinism/arminianism debate. i.e. the offer of the Gospel (or any offer) is not sincere if predestination is true. Does the response need to be repeated again?

Aside from that, you haven't even addressed the Scripture I shared. Please do so.

 

[J.D.]

Amen. I am surprised that distinction is not plain to all....

Dispensationalists are willing to bifurcate the Church, but they're never willing to bifurcate Israel as the Bible does.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is clear that Paul uses the term "Israel", at times, to refer to Jews. There are times when Paul refers to "Israel" as those who are part of the children of promise (including both Jews and Gentiles).

When Paul is speaking of "Israel" being blinded, it is clear he is referring in general to the Jewish nation of Israel, not the children of promise.

Don't you have to admit that this is not an exegetical distinction (one arising from the text), but a theological one (one arising from your system). I agree that if you start with your presupposition, you can easily reach that conclusion. But I submit that if you don't start with that conclusion, you can't get there from the text itself. There is not one place in the NT, to my knowledge, that "Israel" conclusively means anything other than ethnic Jews. Every instance of Israel being read as church involves a theological presupposition that is not a part of the text.

Dispensationalists are willing to bifurcate the Church

What do you mean by "bifurcate the church"?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Amen. I am surprised that distinction is not plain to all....

I think it is plain only to those who start with a certain position. It is not an exegetical conclusion by any means, so far as I can tell.

 

[J.D.]

What do you mean by "bifurcate the church"?

Bifurcate - split - the Church into two distinctive groups: 1) believing Jews, 2) believing Gentiles. But I see from your post on the other thread that you believe the believing Jew inherits the blessings of the Church. See my question about that there.

 

[J.D.]

I think it is plain only to those who start with a certain position. It is not an exegetical conclusion by any means, so far as I can tell.

It is very plain and requires the normal understanding of the language. There are times when the Bible speaks of "Israel" as the one body of God's faithful people, and other times as the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and the twelve patriarchs. One must discern by context which Israel is in mind.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bifurcate - split - the Church into two distinctive groups: 1) believing Jews, 2) believing Gentiles. But I see from your post on the other thread that you believe the believing Jew inherits the blessings of the Church.

I know what bifurcate means, but I am still not sure what you mean by dispensationalists who bifurcate the church. Can you explain who you are talking about and what they believe ...

 

[Me4Him]

Perhaps your more familiar with John Calvin's theology on this subject than I am. What have you read of his commentary on the text of Scripture I quoted? Frankly, I am not that familiar with Calvin, although I have read a little bit of his stuff.

I'm only as familar as what I see posted, I've never read his work either.

As for your "objection" here, it is fallicous. And has been dealt with numerous times in the calvinism/arminianism debate. i.e. the offer of the Gospel (or any offer) is not sincere if predestination is true. Does the response need to be repeated again?

You're right, If predestination is true, Jesus's offer wasn't a valid offer, and Jesus lied, "I would" didn't committed Jesus to "keeping his word".

Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Does Jesus/God make offers they have no intentions of "keeping"???

I'd like to read that explanation, got a link???

Aside from that, you haven't even addressed the Scripture I shared. Please do so.

Next post.

 

[Me4Him]

It is very plain and requires the normal understanding of the language. There are times when the Bible speaks of "Israel" as the one body of God's faithful people, and other times as the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and the twelve patriarchs. One must discern by context which Israel is in mind.

Yep, I agree.

"Ephraim" was to be the father of a "multitude of nations". (Gentiles)

Ge 48:18 And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.

19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

Isa 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim.

Isa 7:7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria,

The Assyrian king conquered/carried off the northern Tribes.

When the "Southern tribes" returned, some of the Northern tribes (Ephraim) returned and resettled back in "SAMARIA".

The "Samaritan woman" at the well made it clear "Jacob" was her ancestor. (Father)

Joh 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well,

Of course the Samaritans (Ephriam) accepted Jesus, and the people whom God had previously made "NOT A PEOPLE" became the "people of God" to make Israel jealous.

Ro 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Ro 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

The story of Joseph/Ephraim prefigures the "cycle" of God dealing with the "natural born Jews" and the "Spiritual Born again, "JEWS".

 

[OldRegular]

Yep, I agree.

"Ephraim" was to be the father of a "multitude of nations". (Gentiles)

Ephraim was not the father of the Gentiles.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I'm only as familar as what I see posted, I've never read his work either.




You're right, If predestination is true, Jesus's offer wasn't a valid offer, and Jesus lied, "I would" didn't committed Jesus to "keeping his word".

Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Does Jesus/God make offers they have no intentions of "keeping"???

I'd like to read that explanation, got a link???



Next post.

Either your not very good with the English language, or your trying some form of literary sarcasm. I have not agreed with you friend, so why do you say "I am right" and then describe something I disagree with and oppose? Weird.

I will be glad to share an explaination of the biblical doctrine of predestination, foreknowledge, and election in light of the free offer of the Gospel, but first I would like to hear from you. Since you are countering this idea, that God has ordained the salvation of His elect before the world began by saying it makes Jesus a liar in His offer the Gospel to those who may not be elect, let me ask YOU...

Under your own theology, does Jesus offer the Gospel to mankind He knows will reject it? I assume you believe election is God's choosing of those He foreknew would believe, making man's choice antecedent to God's. In other words, God foreknew who would believe, and therefore chose them, and certainly this knowledge was God's before the world began.

This is the modern "arminian" view of election, as I understand it. I disagree with it. God's choice (HIS will) is antecedent to man's. Nevertheless, I ask you...how do YOU explain God's offer of the Gospel to those He already knew would not beleive? Perhaps He needed to offer the Gospel to them, knowing they would reject it, so He could damn them for rejecting Christ? How do YOU explain this, because the objection you raised to me against the Reformed doctrine of predestination/election is no less of a question to you in your current theology.

In other words, the same apparent insincere offer exists in your own theology based on the foreknowledge of God.

Here are some observations on your comments:

1. Predestination is true. It is a biblical doctrine. To question whether predestination is true is to deny the Scripture itself. We may understand predestination differently at the moment, or election, et. But if both of us are committed to the authority of Scripture, neither of us can deny that predestination, election, and foreknowledge are biblical doctrines.

2. I just want to clarify...I have read some of John Calvin's work. And a suggestion...before you associate a brother in Christ with John Calvin, perhaps you should know something of the man and his work. I would suggest you read at least something of Calvin. What you read on discsussion boards may be misquoted, et. Study it for yourself and be more knowledge concerning it, and you will not be so easily dismissed.

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yep, I agree.

"Ephraim" was to be the father of a "multitude of nations". (Gentiles)

Ge 48:18 And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.

19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

Isa 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim.

Isa 7:7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria,

The Assyrian king conquered/carried off the northern Tribes.

When the "Southern tribes" returned, some of the Northern tribes (Ephraim) returned and resettled back in "SAMARIA".

The "Samaritan woman" at the well made it clear "Jacob" was her ancestor. (Father)

Joh 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well,

Of course the Samaritans (Ephriam) accepted Jesus, and the people whom God had previously made "NOT A PEOPLE" became the "people of God" to make Israel jealous.

Ro 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Ro 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

The story of Joseph/Ephraim prefigures the "cycle" of God dealing with the "natural born Jews" and the "Spiritual Born again, "JEWS".

Could you explain how this address the Scripture I shared and the conlusion I drew from the text?

 

[Me4Him]

Either your not very good with the English language, or your trying some form of literary sarcasm. I have not agreed with you friend, so why do you say "I am right" and then describe something I disagree with and oppose? Weird.

My post isn't always "directed" at the one to whom I'm replying, others read these post as well.

Sorry if you mistook it that way.

I will be glad to share an explaination of the biblical doctrine of predestination, foreknowledge, and election in light of the free offer of the Gospel,

1. Predestination is true. It is a biblical doctrine. To question whether predestination is true is to deny the Scripture itself. We may understand predestination differently at the moment, or election, et. But if both of us are committed to the authority of Scripture, neither of us can deny that predestination, election, and foreknowledge are biblical doctrines.

"foreknowledge" is not "predestination" by "Sovereign will".

God, "Foreknew" but by "HIS WILL" didn't predestinate "ANY" to perish.

Nothing occurs contrary to the "predestined Sovereign will of God", so God's will that none perish, which many do,

couldn't have been "predestined", nor could their perishing have been the "Sovereign will of God".


When God's will is taken out of the picture, that only leaves man's will.

The Gospel is preached, we hear it, some have faith in it, some don't,

Those who "CHOSE" to believe, conform to God's will and are saved,

those who "CHOSE" to remain "unbelievers" are contrary to God's will, not save.

I see the following verse "misinterpreted" quite often between the meaning of Foreknew and Predestination.

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Only the saved are "predestined" to "conform to Jesus image", it's not about God predestine any to be saved/lost, only God's plan for those who are saved.

2. I just want to clarify...I have read some of John Calvin's work. And a suggestion...before you associate a brother in Christ with John Calvin, perhaps you should know something of the man and his work. I would suggest you read at least something of Calvin. What you read on discsussion boards may be misquoted, et. Study it for yourself and be more knowledge concerning it, and you will not be so easily dismissed.

RB

Calvin's doctrine is like every other doctrine, there are variations from person to person, one size doesn't fit all.

I have hundreds, if not a thousand, of friends who are "Calvinist", and sometimes it's a "headache" just trying to sort out where each is "Coming from". :tonofbricks:

I can't address a particular point unless the point is specified.

 

[Me4Him]

Ephraim was not the father of the Gentiles.:smilewinkgrin:

But it does give new meaning to:

Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written,

:laugh: :laugh: