Dispensationalism - yea or nay.

[John of Japan]

Really, I should think that you said that I had been quite harsh, John of Japan.

Precisely. That means what you said was harsh, not that you are a harsh person. That's English 101. If I had meant you are a harsh person, I would have said that: "You are harsh."

In fact, looking back, what I said was "This is really harsh." That makes it even more clear that I was referring to what you said, not to you in a personal way. Then in #71 I said, "Well, you've already been quite harsh." So once again, that is about what you said, not you personally.

 

[church mouse guy]

Precisely. That means what you said was harsh, not that you are a harsh person. That's English 101. If I had meant you are a harsh person, I would have said that: "You are harsh."

In fact, looking back, what I said was "This is really harsh." That makes it even more clear that I was referring to what you said, not to you in a personal way. Then in #71 I said, "Well, you've already been quite harsh." So once again, that is about what you said, not you personally.

Okay, then, your words have been quite over the top. Your words tried to make a mountain out of a molehill. I never wanted a debate with you, as you said that it was. I asked for someone to refute Smith, which you said that you did not want to do and then your words were that Smith was not important in this instance and that you preferred more recent scholarship. Then your words seem to indicate that dispensationalism did not exclusively teach a pre-trip rapture, which I consider incredulous. But let me make it clear to you that I do not care to debate with you because it would be, to quote you, a lose-lose situation for me because I am not a Fundamentalist, nor do I subscribe to Covenant Theology. So once again, that is about what you said, not you personally.

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, then, your words have been quite over the top. Your words tried to make a mountain out of a molehill. I never wanted a debate with you, as you said that it was. I asked for someone to refute Smith, which you said that you did not want to do and then your words were that Smith was not important in this instance and that you preferred more recent scholarship. Then your words seem to indicate that dispensationalism did not exclusively teach a pre-trip rapture, which I consider incredulous. But let me make it clear to you that I do not care to debate with you because it would be, to quote you, a lose-lose situation for me because I am not a Fundamentalist, nor do I subscribe to Covenant Theology. So once again, that is about what you said, not you personally.

Well, glad we got that all sorted out.

But I didn't "seem to say," I thought I was very plain that dispensationalism does not require a belief in a pre-trib rapture. If you disagree, please give me a quote from a recognized dispensational author that proves your point. Just to be clear, dispensationalism is not about eschatology, though that is a part of it. It is a theology of the glory of God in history.

Here is the intro of my second lecture in my class:
INTRODUCTION: The number one purpose for the existence of Mankind is the glory of God. This one fact undergirds all of dispensational theology and should be the key point of all of our theology. Thus, dispensational theology fits best of all theologies the stated purpose in the Bible for our very existence. We say that dispensationalism is a doxological theology, as opposed to soteriological or Christological theologies.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, glad we got that all sorted out.

But I didn't "seem to say," I thought I was very plain that dispensationalism does not require a belief in a pre-trib rapture. If you disagree, please give me a quote from a recognized dispensational author that proves your point. Just to be clear, dispensationalism is not about eschatology, though that is a part of it. It is a theology of the glory of God in history.

Here is the intro of my second lecture in my class:
INTRODUCTION: The number one purpose for the existence of Mankind is the glory of God. This one fact undergirds all of dispensational theology and should be the key point of all of our theology. Thus, dispensational theology fits best of all theologies the stated purpose in the Bible for our very existence. We say that dispensationalism is a doxological theology, as opposed to soteriological or Christological theologies.

To me, the defining part of its theology was on how it views the dinstinction between Israel and the Church, as that would mandate much of what entials afterwards in both CT and DT viewpoints as to what the Bible teaches!

 

[John of Japan]

To me, the defining part of its theology was on how it views the dinstinction between Israel and the Church, as that would mandate much of what entials afterwards in both CT and DT viewpoints as to what the Bible teaches!

Ryrie has this difference between the church and Israel as a sine qua non of dispensational theology. You can't be a dispensationalist without distinguishing the two.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ryrie has this difference between the church and Israel as a sine qua non of dispensational theology. You can't be a dispensationalist without distinguishing the two.

This is one of the primary divisions that decides if one is a holder to Covenant or to Dispy theology.

I am now a Covenant theology premil, who still see hope for national Israel at time of the second coming of Christ.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Since this is a fellowship thread, I'll not get too far into this, except to say, (1) This passage is a good example of how all through the whole book of Romans Paul carefully distinguishes between Israelite & Gentile. That's the context of 9-11.

With respect, this just isn't so. In fact the opposite is true. The whole of the letter is showing that Jew and Gentile alike are under sin and in need of a Saviour. Romans 3:9ff. 'What then? Are we [Jews] any better than they [Gentiles]? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written...…….. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh [i.e. neither Jew nor Gentile] will be justified in His sight...…… for all [ Jew and Gentile alike]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace...…….. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes of the Gentiles only, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.'

You need to understand one thing here. Granting the typology, Romans is not the place to study ecclesiology. The only place in the whole book that ekklesia occurs is three times in ch. 16, all three to what art clearly local churches. You do have "the body of Christ" in Rom. 7:4, but that's it, and that's not in 9-11. So to find the universal church in 9-11 is, to me, impossible.

[/QUOTE]
This really troubles me. Please go back and read through my post #51 and tell me where the word 'church' (with a big C or a small c) appears. It doesn't. You seem to be trying to avoid a discussion by inserting a red herring.

You seem, rather egregiously, to have overlooked verses 24-26.

Not a problem. The distinction between Jews and Gentiles continues there. And not a word of the church!

Once again, I never mentioned any 'church.' But Romans 9:24-26. '.....Even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. As He says in Hosea, "I will call them my people [Jews] who were not My people [Gentiles] and her beloved who was not beloved." And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, You are not My people," there they shall be called sons of the living God.' Jew and Gentile together, one people-- the people of God.

The Bible doesn't use the term "incoming" there. (Is the church a battlefield? "Incoming! Hit the dirt!!" )

Perhaps you would like to explain how Romans 9:24-26 does not speak of the Gentiles coming in to the kingdom of God.

Any mention of the church is inserted there, not found in the text.

And again, there is no church there. The Jews who believe are true Jews, and the Gentiles can join them as believers. That's what the text says--nothing about the church at all, much less that it replaces Israel.

Again, this is not a debate thread, so I'm trying to be non-combative (maybe failing ).

One of us keeps talking about the 'church,' but it isn't me. You mentioned 'church' seven times in your last post, I not at all in my post #51..
Look, JoJ. I don't mind if you don't want to discus with me, but if you do discuss, I expect you to take me seriously as I do you. It's a matter of respect, and I have lost some of mine for you.

I have asked the mods to transfer this thread to a discussion forum. If they don't, I am happy to open a new thread. But if you would rather not discuss with me, just say. I have plenty of other things to do with my time.

 

[Yeshua1]

With respect, this just isn't so. In fact the opposite is true. The whole of the letter is showing that Jew and Gentile alike are under sin and in need of a Saviour. Romans 3:9ff. 'What then? Are we [Jews] any better than they [Gentiles]? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written...…….. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh [i.e. neither Jew nor Gentile] will be justified in His sight...…… for all [ Jew and Gentile alike]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace...…….. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes of the Gentiles only, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.'

This really troubles me. Please go back and read through my post #51 and tell me where the word 'church' (with a big C or a small c) appears. It doesn't. You seem to be trying to avoid a discussion by inserting a red herring.


Once again, I never mentioned any 'church.' But Romans 9:24-26. '.....Even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. As He says in Hosea, "I will call them my people [Jews] who were not My people [Gentiles] and her beloved who was not beloved." And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, You are not My people," there they shall be called sons of the living God.' Jew and Gentile together, one people-- the people of God.

Perhaps you would like to explain how Romans 9:24-26 does not speak of the Gentiles coming in to the kingdom of God.

One of us keeps talking about the 'church,' but it isn't me. You mentioned 'church' seven times in your last post, I not at all in my post #51..
Look, JoJ. I don't mind if you don't want to discus with me, but if you do discuss, I expect you to take me seriously as I do you. It's a matter of respect, and I have lost some of mine for you.

I have asked the mods to transfer this thread to a discussion forum. If they don't, I am happy to open a new thread. But if you would rather not discuss with me, just say. I have plenty of other things to do with my time.[/QUOTE]
I have just this thought in my mind of jesus looking at your posts on this and JoJ, and smiling saying"too bad that they are both wrong in some areas"

 

[loDebar]

Are people saying that verses like this only apply to the Christians ?

Eze 29:21

In that day will I cause the horn of the house of Israel to bud forth, and I will give thee the opening of the mouth inthe midst of them; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Misquotation alert in my post #87.
My quotation of Romans3:29 should of course read, 'Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.':

Apologies for any confusion.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are people saying that verses like this only apply to the Christians ?

Eze 29:21

In that day will I cause the horn of the house of Israel to bud forth, and I will give thee the opening of the mouth inthe midst of them; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

The context decides. The time spoken of in vs. 17-20 is in the lifetime of Ezekiel, when Nebuchadnezzar was prophesied to attack Egypt, so it can hardly be about NT times.

 

[loDebar]

sorry,, how about this type of verses from Zech.

Zec 12:6

In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, glad we got that all sorted out.

But I didn't "seem to say," I thought I was very plain that dispensationalism does not require a belief in a pre-trib rapture. If you disagree, please give me a quote from a recognized dispensational author that proves your point. Just to be clear, dispensationalism is not about eschatology, though that is a part of it. It is a theology of the glory of God in history.

Here is the intro of my second lecture in my class:
INTRODUCTION: The number one purpose for the existence of Mankind is the glory of God. This one fact undergirds all of dispensational theology and should be the key point of all of our theology. Thus, dispensational theology fits best of all theologies the stated purpose in the Bible for our very existence. We say that dispensationalism is a doxological theology, as opposed to soteriological or Christological theologies.

Thanks for not answering the question.

 

[John of Japan]

This really troubles me. Please go back and read through my post #51 and tell me where the word 'church' (with a big C or a small c) appears. It doesn't. You seem to be trying to avoid a discussion by inserting a red herring.

I was under the impression that, like others in covenant theology and other theologies (amil, postmil, etc.), you believe that the church is the fulfillment of prophecies about Israel, which prophecies are therefore not to be taken literally, but to be applied to the church. If prophecies about Israel are not to be applied to Israel, but to the church, that makes such prophecies about ecclesiology.

Forgive me for misunderstanding. Apparently you do not believe that prophecies of Israel are fulfilled by the universal church.

I have asked the mods to transfer this thread to a discussion forum. If they don't, I am happy to open a new thread. But if you would rather not discuss with me, just say. I have plenty of other things to do with my time.

Whether I debate you in another thread would depend on how the OP is phrased.

God bless.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for not answering the question.

I just read your Post #82 and saw no question mark, no interrogative sentence. In fact, you said that you prefer not to debate me.

So please inform me. What question did I not answer?

 

[Covenanter]

I was under the impression that, like others in covenant theology and other theologies (amil, postmil, etc.), you believe that the church is the fulfillment of prophecies about Israel, which prophecies are therefore not to be taken literally, but to be applied to the church. If prophecies about Israel are not to be applied to Israel, but to the church, that makes such prophecies about ecclesiology.

Forgive me for misunderstanding. Apparently you do not believe that prophecies of Israel are fulfilled by the universal church.

John, I will answer from my understanding -
We believe "fulfilment theology" not "replacement theology."

"Literally" needs qualifying - the prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus & the Gospel as real, living, born again from above, come into the whole New Covenant family of God by repentance & faith in Jesus. Believers form a "holy nation" that transcends earthly divisions. That "holy nation" is called "the church."

A distinction between the Jewish/Israeltite believers in Christ, & the unbelievers is necessary to avoid confusion. The use of "church" effectively begins in Acts 2, where it is comprised entirely of Jews & proselytes.

The Biblical term "church" includes a local gathering of Christians (as in all the letters to churches) & also includes believers in general when referring to what you refer to as "the universal church." (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:32, 12:28, throughout Ephesians, Col. 1:18, 24, Heb. 12:23)

Many thousands of Israelites welcomed the Gospel, beginning with John, and continuing through the Gospels, including Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. From Pentecost onwards the true, believing Israelites turned in repentance to Jesus. To avoid confusion, these believers were called in Scripture "the church." They were, however the true Israel, the believing people of God, "my people" (e.g. Zec. 2) called out from the sinful nation that rejected their Messiah. In Romans 11:1-6 God owns these believers as a faithful remnant.

It is clear from Peter's Pentecost sermon & his sermon in Acts 3 that The OC promises & prophecies to Israel were being fulfilled by Christ in his FINISHED work, and in the Gospel of salvation preached in Jesus' name.

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.​

Thus it is clear that the promises to Israel are indeed fulfilled to the believing Israelites who formed the church. The Gospel was never closed to the scattered Israelites, & Paul made it his priority to preach to them in every synagogue he visited.

BUT, because the Jewish leaders rejected the Gospel, the term "Church" became used for Christians in general, as well as local congregations. Paul could hardly write his letters to the Israelites or Jews, who continued in unbelief.

 

[1689Dave]

Jesus was Amillennial. = no millennium. He taught the kingdom was then present and spiritual. And said his kingdom is not of this world. Nor did it come with observation. If we make Revelation 20 conform to this, it takes on proper meaning. But to read Jewish ideas of a physical kingdom into it, adds to the Book of Revelation. It is safer to stick with Jesus' kingdom definitions.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I will answer from my understanding -
We believe "fulfilment theology" not "replacement theology."

"Literally" needs qualifying - the prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus & the Gospel as real, living, born again from above, come into the whole New Covenant family of God by repentance & faith in Jesus. Believers form a "holy nation" that transcends earthly divisions. That "holy nation" is called "the church."

A distinction between the Jewish/Israeltite believers in Christ, & the unbelievers is necessary to avoid confusion. The use of "church" effectively begins in Acts 2, where it is comprised entirely of Jews & proselytes.

The Biblical term "church" includes a local gathering of Christians (as in all the letters to churches) & also includes believers in general when referring to what you refer to as "the universal church." (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:32, 12:28, throughout Ephesians, Col. 1:18, 24, Heb. 12:23)

Many thousands of Israelites welcomed the Gospel, beginning with John, and continuing through the Gospels, including Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. From Pentecost onwards the true, believing Israelites turned in repentance to Jesus. To avoid confusion, these believers were called in Scripture "the church." They were, however the true Israel, the believing people of God, "my people" (e.g. Zec. 2) called out from the sinful nation that rejected their Messiah. In Romans 11:1-6 God owns these believers as a faithful remnant.

It is clear from Peter's Pentecost sermon & his sermon in Acts 3 that The OC promises & prophecies to Israel were being fulfilled by Christ in his FINISHED work, and in the Gospel of salvation preached in Jesus' name.

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.​

Thus it is clear that the promises to Israel are indeed fulfilled to the believing Israelites who formed the church. The Gospel was never closed to the scattered Israelites, & Paul made it his priority to preach to them in every synagogue he visited.

BUT, because the Jewish leaders rejected the Gospel, the term "Church" became used for Christians in general, as well as local congregations. Paul could hardly write his letters to the Israelites or Jews, who continued in unbelief.

You are teaching me nothing here, clarifying nothing. I already knew what you believe and disagree with all of my heart. But I will stop there since this is not a debate thread.

 

[Covenanter]

You are teaching me nothing here, clarifying nothing. I already knew what you believe and disagree with all of my heart. But I will stop there since this is not a debate thread.

I wasn't debating - I was clarifying the reasons for believing that the "Church" is the Scriptural name for the continuing, believing Israel that welcomed their Messiah & the Gospel. Thus the prophecies & promises to Abraham & Israel are fulfilled in & by the LORD Jesus Christ, in the Church.

 

[John of Japan]

I wasn't debating.

If I had answered you I would have been debating.