OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Chemnitz
You pretty well hit the nail on the head in your analysis of dispensational error.
You pretty well hit the nail on the head in your analysis of dispensational error.
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dispensationalism
- Thread starter ascund
- Start date
I missed that post, OR. Where was it? So far, all I saw from Chemnitz was faulty argumentation, and faulty use of Scripture. In fact, in one post on the previous page, he actually contradicted himself.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
To be valid, an exposition must have the following elements:Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The philosophy of history is “a systematic interpretation of universal history in accordance with a principle by which historical events and successions are unified and directed toward ultimate meaning.”
[Karl Lowith, Meaning in History (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1949), 1 in Renald E. Showers, There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), 1.]
_1. It must contain an ultimate purpose for history and the end to which all history moves.
_2. It must recognize distinctions.
_3. It must have a proper concept of the progress of revelation.
_4. It must have a unifying principle which ties the distinctions and progressive stages and directs them toward the fulfillment of the purpose of history.
_5. It must give a valid explanation of why things have happened, the way they are, and the why things happen.
It is my supposition that only dispensationalism can provide the necessary view.
Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]I am curious as to what Scripture supports your 5 points of exposition noted above, or was this a new revelation?
Regarding your point #3 above
This is certainly inconsistent with the views of dispensationalist Herman Hoyt in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, page 43, who writes “The dispensationalist interprets the New Testament in light of the Old Testament.” If revelation is progressive then the Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament. Hebrews [1:1,2] tells us3. It must have a proper concept of the progress of revelation.
Regarding your point #4 above1. God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2. has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
The claim by dispensationalists, which Charles Ryrie [quoting from Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism] calls the sine qua non of dispensationalists is that4. It must have a unifying principle which ties the distinctions and progressive stages and directs them toward the fulfillment of the purpose of history.
This enduring difference between peoples of God can hardly be calledThe dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”
Actually dispensationalism is an elitest doctrine and cannot be derived from a natural reading of Scripture. When one reads the Bible he reads of God's covenants not dispensations.a unifying principle.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
As far as I am aware perfection dwelt in only one man, and it wasn't Darby or Scofield.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I missed that post, OR. Where was it? So far, all I saw from Chemnitz was faulty argumentation, and faulty use of Scripture. In fact, in one post on the previous page, he actually contradicted himself.
??? This had nothing to do with my question. I said nothing about DArby or Schofield. You said Chemnitz "pretty well hit the nail on the head in your analysis of dispensational error" and I was just asking where he did this. I missed it, and would like to see it.As far as I am aware perfection dwelt in only one man, and it wasn't Darby or Scofield.
This enduring difference between peoples of God can hardly be calledThe claim by dispensationalists, which Charles Ryrie [quoting from Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism] calls the sine qua non of dispensationalists is that
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”
</font>[/QUOTE]You are conflating two things, and in the process misrepresenting dispensationalism (as is often typical of those who try to refute it). DT has three sine qua non. 1) fundamental distinction between Isreal and the church; 2) consistent use of literal or normal hermeneutic; 3) God's pursuit of his own glory as the underlying purpose of history.a unifying principle.
In your comment, you confused or conflated 1 and 3. They are distinct. God's underlying purpose is history is the pursuit of his own glory. In that, he has a purpose for Israel as a nation, and a purpose for the church as Christ's body.
OR, Don't confuse things by misrepresenting them. The "unifying principle" is God's glory. It is worked out in different ways with different people and different times.
I have seen this before, but never seen it substantiated. It seems a baseless charge with no underlying facts to support it. There is nothing elitist about dispensationalism. There is, however, as you have demonstrated, a lot of confusion about it.Actually dispensationalism is an elitest doctrine
Actually, it is very easily derived from the natural reading of Scripture. Naturally, when you see the word "Isreal" you think of the nation. Only an unnatural reading would lead one to think of "the church."and cannot be derived from a natural reading of Scripture.
How are these distinct? In Scripture, you see several covenants: Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New. These are adequately dealt with only in dispensationalism. Covenant theology talks of a covenant of works and covenant of grace, but Scripture never does. In fact, no Covenant theologian has ever successfully shown a covenant of works or grace in Scripture. Which is significant for this reason. They often make the charge that these "dispensations" can't be found in Scripture. But they rely on covenants that can't be found in Scripture. They are inconsistent on this point.When one reads the Bible he reads of God's covenants not dispensations.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Pastor LarryOriginally posted by Pastor Larry:
I missed that post, OR. Where was it? So far, all I saw from Chemnitz was faulty argumentation, and faulty use of Scripture. In fact, in one post on the previous page, he actually contradicted himself.
I will concede one error in Chemnitz's post. He said in item 3:
3. Dispensational premillennialism tends to regard the glory of God as the center of theology, rather than the mercy of God revealed, and yet hidden, in the suffering and death of Jesus on the cross for the sins of the world.
I realize that dispensational theologians claim to regard the Glory of God as the center if its theology. However I disagree. It does not glorify God to claim that Jesus Christ failed in His mission and that God established the Church as a "parenthesis" or "intercalculation" depending on the person writing.
Dispensationalism denies that the church is included in prophecy. Rather, the claim is made that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews, that they rejected Him, and that He established the Church instead [Herman Hoyt, a dispensationalist, in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88]. The Church is often referred to as the ‘mystery parenthesis’ form of the Kingdom; mystery in that there is no prophecy in the Old Testament regarding the Church and parenthesis in that God found it necessary to interrupt His program for the Jews because their leaders rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah and He was unable to establish the Messianic kingdom.
Lewis Sperry Chafer writes: “In fact, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inacurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalculation.” [Systematic Theology, 4:41]
John F Walvoord writes: “the evidence if interpreted literally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine.” [Millennial Kingdom, 230]
J Dwight Pentecost writes: “The church is manifestly an interruption of God’s program for Israel.” [Things to Come, 201]
Charles C. Ryrie writes: “The Church age is not seen in God’s program for Israel. It is an intercalculation.” [Basis of Premillennial Faith, 136]
IT would be unfortunate for you to conclude that the church was a change of plans. God, who knows all things exhaustively, was not surprised by Isreal's rejection. In fact, he prophesied it (Isa 6) and I would say even caused it, in a sense.
The "parenthesis" is often used in a derogatory way, but should not so be. It simply recognizes that God made promises that he intends to fulfill, yea, even has to fulfill because he is God. He cannot simply ignore those promises or change them and give them to the church. To be a faithful and true God, he must fulfill them with the people to whom he made them. Peter recognized this in ACts 3:19ff when he talked of the "restoration," referring to the OT promises to come. Paul recognized this in Rom 9-11 when he talked of Israel not being rejected. These NT references, as well as others, shows the continuing validity of hte promises, which leads inevitably to, at the very least, premillennialism.
That actually was one of hte more minor errors of his post. He was exactly correct that DT regadrs the glory of God as the central, unifying point of human history. He wrongly identified God's mercy as that point.
Every single one of his 10 points contained problems, either in representation, understanding, or both. Some of them were factually wrong, some theologically wrong, and some were just poorly argued.
The "parenthesis" is often used in a derogatory way, but should not so be. It simply recognizes that God made promises that he intends to fulfill, yea, even has to fulfill because he is God. He cannot simply ignore those promises or change them and give them to the church. To be a faithful and true God, he must fulfill them with the people to whom he made them. Peter recognized this in ACts 3:19ff when he talked of the "restoration," referring to the OT promises to come. Paul recognized this in Rom 9-11 when he talked of Israel not being rejected. These NT references, as well as others, shows the continuing validity of hte promises, which leads inevitably to, at the very least, premillennialism.
That actually was one of hte more minor errors of his post. He was exactly correct that DT regadrs the glory of God as the central, unifying point of human history. He wrongly identified God's mercy as that point.
Every single one of his 10 points contained problems, either in representation, understanding, or both. Some of them were factually wrong, some theologically wrong, and some were just poorly argued.
Hey OldRegular
But God was willing to set up a parenthesis Israelite nation. When the Israelites had pressed God's patience (is this actually possible), God responded by telling Moses that he would consume the rebells and make a parenthesis nation from Moses (Ex 32:10).
What is your rub now that God would allow us Gentiles to partake of Israel's root stock of blessings? God will make an end of sins and seal up prophecy (Dan 9:24).
Your "either/or" hermeneutic suffers greatly.
Lloyd
But God was willing to set up a parenthesis Israelite nation. When the Israelites had pressed God's patience (is this actually possible), God responded by telling Moses that he would consume the rebells and make a parenthesis nation from Moses (Ex 32:10).
What is your rub now that God would allow us Gentiles to partake of Israel's root stock of blessings? God will make an end of sins and seal up prophecy (Dan 9:24).
Your "either/or" hermeneutic suffers greatly.
Lloyd
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You correcctly state that God set up Israel as a parenthesis nation. And what was that purpose? It was solely in order to provide a vessel, a woman, who would bring the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ into the world. Through His death Jesus Christ would defeat Satan and make atonement for the sins of His people, thus fulfilling the promise made in Genesis 3:15. Israel's part in God's purpose of redemption was complete, period.Originally posted by ascund:
Hey OldRegular
But God was willing to set up a parenthesis Israelite nation. When the Israelites had pressed God's patience (is this actually possible), God responded by telling Moses that he would consume the rebells and make a parenthesis nation from Moses (Ex 32:10).
If you desire to learn more read the following, rather long, post. Otherwise be content with knowing that you now know the truth as revealed in the Word of God, not as revealed by Darby/Scofield.
The Purpose of the call of Israel.
The Bible begins with the story of God’s creative activity. The culmination of that creation was the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. When God created Adam and Eve he created them upright, or righteous, fully capable of freely choosing between good and evil. God made a special place, a garden called Eden, in which this first man and his wife would live. There God would fellowship with this first family. When God placed Adam and Eve in Eden He gave instructions as to their responsibility.
Genesis 2:15-17, KJV
15. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
We do not know how long the blessed fellowship between God and the first family continued, Scripture does not indicate. It appears from the above Scripture that man, body and soul, physically and spiritually, was created to live forever. Because God created man righteous he [Adam and Eve] had the ability to to keep God’s instructions perfectly, even in the face of temptation. He also had the ability to freely choose between good and evil. Sadly he chose evil. Man rebelled against God; Eve yielded to temptation, Adam disobeyed with deliberate intent [Genesis 3: 1-6].
After Adam and Eve sinned in Eden God took the initiative, sought out Adam and Eve, and, in His grace, provided a covering for their nakedness, an atonement for their sin. That covering, that atonement, required the shedding of innocent blood, in this case the blood of animals. This atonement, however, was only provisional, foreshadowing the perfect sacrifice that was to come. God then gives mankind the initial promise of a redeemer, that perfect sacrifice, the seed or offspring of woman alone who would bruise the head of Satan, that is defeat him.
Genesis 3:14-15, KJV
14. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
This initial promise, the initial revelation and the initiation in time of the Covenant of Grace, is veiled to say the least and could not be understood without the continuing revelation of God. But God does not leave us without hope. As the Biblical history of man unfolds so does God’s purpose of redemption.
If the Redeemer was to be born of a woman and that birth was to take place in history the way must be prepared. The Redeemer must be identified with God since He was to reconcile sinful man to God and since He was a man, the seed of a woman, He must be identified with the people of God. It was necessary, therefore, that God call out a people for His Name. Unto that people would be given the oracles of God [Romans 3:2] and through that people would come the promised Redeemer.
In due time God called out of idolatry a man named Abram [Genesis 12:1-3], changed his name to Abraham [Genesis 17:5] and promised that in his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed [Genesis 22:18]. God’s covenant with Abraham is frequently designated an unconditional covenant [Open Bible, page 14]. It is true that this covenant is unilaterally imposed by God but it is conditional upon the faith of Abraham and the fruit of faith, his obedience.
The Apostle Paul tells us that seed of Abraham through which all the nations of the earth would be blessed was Jesus Christ.
Galatians 3:16, KJV
16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
As time passed the lineage of the seed of woman was further defined: Abraham’s son Isaac to the exclusion of Ishmael [Genesis 17:18-22], Isaac’s son Jacob to the exclusion of Esau [Genesis 28:10-15]. Out of Jacob would come twelve sons and the infant nation Israel which God, consistent with His promise to Abraham [Genesis 15:12-16, moved to Egypt. In Egypt the lineage of the seed of woman was further defined: Jacobs son Judah to the exclusion of the eleven [Genesis 49:8-10].
Under God’s providential care that nation of some 70 people [Genesis 46:27] which emigrated to Egypt grew to a great nation of several hundred thousand people. In time these people were placed in servitude to the Egyptians [Exodus 1:8-14], a servitude that caused them to cry out to God for deliverance [Exodus 2:23-25]. Under the leadership of Moses the children of Israel returned to Canaan, the land of promise, after residing in Egypt for about 400 years.
In delivering the children of Israel, the Hebrew nation, from bondage in Egypt God brought the entire nation into a covenant relation with Himself. As with Abraham the covenant was unilaterally imposed by God with the promise:
Exodus 19:5, KJV
5. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:
and the requirement:
Exodus 19:6a KJV
6. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.
To assist the Hebrew nation to become a holy nation in a pagan world God gave them the Ten Commandments, the Ark of the Covenant, and the tabernacle with its ordinances. The remainder of the Old Testament Scripture shows the utter failure of the nation Israel to meet the requirements of the covenant. Yet Scripture also shows that for ~1800 years this people, a chosen vessel through which the ‘seed of woman’ is to be born, were under the providential care of God. Within that nation Israel there was at all times a people faithful to God, spiritual Israel, the Church in the wilderness [Acts 7:38].
In all this the lineage of the seed of woman was preserved and further defined eventually leading to David, a man after God’s own heart. As the lineage was further defined so was the mission and identity of the seed. He would be born of a virgin, fulfilling the promise made in Eden:
Isaiah 7:14, KJV
14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
He would establish a kingdom that would stand forever [not a kingdom that would last only one thousand years]:
Daniel 2:44, KJV
44. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Daniel 7:13,14, KJV
13. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.
And He would suffer for the sins of His people:
Isaiah 53:4-6, KJV
4. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5. But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Now all this was prophesied to take place in history and did take place in history. The Apostle Matthew writes:
Matthew 1:21, KJV
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Luke tells us that the virgin conceived through the power of God and that the fruit of her womb, this seed of woman, was the promised redeemer, the Son of God.
Luke 1:26, 27, 35, KJV
26. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.
35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians writes:
Galatians 4:4, KJV
4. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
The promised Redeemer, the Son of God, the seed of woman promised in Eden, is born of the virgin Mary and rejected and crucified by national Israel. Israel’s action in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was according to the eternal purpose of God Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:[Acts 2:23, KJV]. The Kingdom they mistakenly thought was exclusively for them was taken away and given to another people:
Matthew 21:43, KJV
43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church. However, for evidence we turn to Scripture. We read in the Gospel of Luke:
Luke 12:32, KJV
32. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
The little flock is the Church, the called out ones, who would bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom. For those who would insist that the Church cannot be identified as a nation we turn to the writings of the Apostle Peter:
1 Peter 2:9, KJV
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:
There is no Scripture in the New Testament that indicates that the judgment pronounced against Israel in Matthew 21:43 was or ever will be revoked. Therefore, it still stands. The Kingdom belongs to the little flock, the Church .
The mission of the nation Israel in God’s purpose of redemption had been accomplished. The elect of Israel will be brought into the Kingdom just as the elect of the Gentiles.
I skipped the article, but surely you are not serious that the sole purpose of Israel was to provide a Savior. That was one purpose, perhaps, but he certainly needed no nation for that. There was clearly more to it, as the Bible declares.
Here is just one problem with your post: Matthew 21:43, KJV
43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church. The church is not a nation. That is a reference to end time Israel, the nation that will bring forth the fruits of repentance in fulfillment of Zech 12:10. The Bible tells us that Israel will be the nation to whom the kingdom is given. If not, then is is hard to see how God was not dishonest or unfaithful to his promises. God made them ... Surely he will keep them.
Here is just one problem with your post: Matthew 21:43, KJV
43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church. The church is not a nation. That is a reference to end time Israel, the nation that will bring forth the fruits of repentance in fulfillment of Zech 12:10. The Bible tells us that Israel will be the nation to whom the kingdom is given. If not, then is is hard to see how God was not dishonest or unfaithful to his promises. God made them ... Surely he will keep them.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You should have read the entire post. Then you would have learned why God needed a people, call it a nation, to bring Jesus Christ into the world. You really don't believe that God could have just dropped the Incarnate Son down in the middle of a pagan people do you?Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I skipped the article, but surely you are not serious that the sole purpose of Israel was to provide a Savior. That was one purpose, perhaps, but he certainly needed no nation for that. There was clearly more to it, as the Bible declares.
Here is just one problem with your post: Matthew 21:43, KJV
43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church. The church is not a nation. That is a reference to end time Israel, the nation that will bring forth the fruits of repentance in fulfillment of Zech 12:10. The Bible tells us that Israel will be the nation to whom the kingdom is given. If not, then is is hard to see how God was not dishonest or unfaithful to his promises. God made them ... Surely he will keep them.
You would also have learned that the Church is called a nation by the Apostle Peter.This initial promise, the initial revelation and the initiation in time of the Covenant of Grace, is veiled to say the least and could not be understood without the continuing revelation of God. But God does not leave us without hope. As the Biblical history of man unfolds so does God’s purpose of redemption.
If the Redeemer was to be born of a woman and that birth was to take place in history the way must be prepared. The Redeemer must be identified with God since He was to reconcile sinful man to God and since He was a man, the seed of a woman, He must be identified with the people of God. It was necessary, therefore, that God call out a people for His Name. Unto that people would be given the oracles of God [Romans 3:2] and through that people would come the promised Redeemer.
To avoid confusion look at the passage in context:What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church. However, for evidence we turn to Scripture. We read in the Gospel of Luke:
Luke 12:31, 32, KJV
31. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
32. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
The little flock is the Church, the called out ones, who would bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom. For those who would insist that the Church cannot be identified as a nation we turn to the writings of the Apostle Peter:
1 Peter 2:9, KJV
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:
1 Peter 2:1-10
1. Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2. As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3. If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5. Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
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.
Notice that the Apostle Peter applies some of the same descriptive names the the Church that were applied to Israel in the Old Testament. Of course some dispensationalists don't think too much of Peter!
I do declare, you may also note that verse 6 is prophetic of the Church of which of Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Solely was perhaps a poor choice of words but it was used in the following contextOriginally posted by Pastor Larry:
I skipped the article, but surely you are not serious that the sole purpose of Israel was to provide a Savior.
When Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled in time it was necessary that there exist a people of God. Israel was that chosen people. As a people of God they received the oracles of God and when obedient worshipped and glorified God. They were also to be a witness to God among the Gentiles.If the Redeemer was to be born of a woman and that birth was to take place in history the way must be prepared. The Redeemer must be identified with God since He was to reconcile sinful man to God and since He was a man, the seed of a woman, He must be identified with the people of God. It was necessary, therefore, that God call out a people for His Name. Unto that people would be given the oracles of God [Romans 3:2] and through that people would come the promised Redeemer.
OR,
Theologically, the article was very weak. It is the worst kind of proof-texting, just stringing verses together.
But even at that, the promises of the OT were made to a nation, and those promises are yet unfulfilled. Isn't God shown to be unfaithful if he doesn't fulfill them?
Theologically, the article was very weak. It is the worst kind of proof-texting, just stringing verses together.
But even at that, the promises of the OT were made to a nation, and those promises are yet unfulfilled. Isn't God shown to be unfaithful if he doesn't fulfill them?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
It is a common practice when one is unable to respond adequately to accuse the other of proof-texting, therefore, avoiding the necessity to provide any refutation from Scripture.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
OR,
Theologically, the article was very weak. It is the worst kind of proof-texting, just stringing verses together.
But even at that, the promises of the OT were made to a nation, and those promises are yet unfulfilled. Isn't God shown to be unfaithful if he doesn't fulfill them?
Dispensationalists claim to believe in progressive revelation. The Apostle Paul tells us, here I go proof-texting again, in Romans 9:6: Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
How do you know which promises were to be fulfilled in the nation Israel and which were to be fulfilled in the believing remnant, the olive tree of Romans 11, into which the believing Gentiles were grafted? I believe it has been called the Church for the last 2000 years.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Pastor Larry
Ref your post of September 21, 2005 11:21 AM
The reason dispensationalists can't see the Covenant of Grace in Scripture is that they have splintered it instead of "rightly dividing it".
As for the Glory of God what could be more edifying to God than the demonstration of His Grace in the redemption of His Creation?
Also I misrepresented nothing. I am well aware that there are three sine qua non of dispensationalism. Ryrie lists all three in his book Dispensationalism, page 38f.
As for dispensationalism being elitist Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism [page 52], inadvertently perhaps, admits such when he writes: “The average dispensationalist has been SCHOOLED to designate the second economy as Conscience.”
There I go, proof-texting again.
Ref your post of September 21, 2005 11:21 AM
The reason dispensationalists can't see the Covenant of Grace in Scripture is that they have splintered it instead of "rightly dividing it".
As for the Glory of God what could be more edifying to God than the demonstration of His Grace in the redemption of His Creation?
Also I misrepresented nothing. I am well aware that there are three sine qua non of dispensationalism. Ryrie lists all three in his book Dispensationalism, page 38f.
As for dispensationalism being elitist Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism [page 52], inadvertently perhaps, admits such when he writes: “The average dispensationalist has been SCHOOLED to designate the second economy as Conscience.”
There I go, proof-texting again.
IF I say that the Scripture permits stealing and cite Ephesians where it says "Let him that stole steal," it is worthy of response? There are some proof texts that merit no response. In this case, all you have done is string texts together without showing any connection between them. It is no question about my ability to respond adequately. In fact, I have put way too much time in this already to say what I have said. You have responded to virtually none of it.It is a common practice when one is unable to respond adequately to accuse the other of proof-texting, therefore, avoiding the necessity to provide any refutation from Scripture.
Well, when you cite Rom 9:6, you should also indicate what the context teaches. The context is clearly one of national Israel, not the church. When he says that not all Israel are Israel, He is saying that not all physical Israel is saved. He is not saying that there are some in Israel who are not Jews. That would be absurd. He is saying that saved Jews are only a small portion of Jews.Dispensationalists claim to believe in progressive revelation. The Apostle Paul tells us, here I go proof-texting again, in Romans 9:6: Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
How do you know which promises were to be fulfilled in the nation Israel and which were to be fulfilled in the believing remnant, the olive tree of Romans 11, into which the believing Gentiles were grafted? I believe it has been called the Church for the last 2000 years.
When you ask about which promises will be fulfilled in the nation of Israel, the answer is simple: All of them. God always fulfills promises with the people to whom he made them. The fact that Gentiles are included in God's big plan does not mean that those promises are now null and void. They are still good, and God is faithful. He will keep his promises.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by OldRegular:
It is a common practice when one is unable to respond adequately to accuse the other of proof-texting, therefore, avoiding the necessity to provide any refutation from Scripture.
Your response consisted of saying I was just proof texting. That could not have taken very long.Response by Pastor Larry:
IF I say that the Scripture permits stealing and cite Ephesians where it says "Let him that stole steal," it is worthy of response? There are some proof texts that merit no response. In this case, all you have done is string texts together without showing any connection between them. It is no question about my ability to respond adequately. In fact, I have put way too much time in this already to say what I have said. You have responded to virtually none of it.
Originally posted by OldRegular:
Dispensationalists claim to believe in progressive revelation. The Apostle Paul tells us, here I go proof-texting again, in Romans 9:6: Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
How do you know which promises were to be fulfilled in the nation Israel and which were to be fulfilled in the believing remnant, the olive tree of Romans 11, into which the believing Gentiles were grafted? I believe it has been called the Church for the last 2000 years.
Did I say otherwise? If so please show me where.Response by Pastor Larry:
Well, when you cite Rom 9:6, you should also indicate what the context teaches. The context is clearly one of national Israel, not the church. When he says that not all Israel are Israel, He is saying that not all physical Israel is saved. He is not saying that there are some in Israel who are not Jews. That would be absurd. He is saying that saved Jews are only a small portion of Jews.
Originally posted by OldRegular:
How do you know which promises were to be fulfilled in the nation Israel and which were to be fulfilled in the believing remnant, the olive tree of Romans 11, into which the believing Gentiles were grafted? I believe it has been called the Church for the last 2000 years.
You conveniently avoided the question which wasResponse by Pastor Larry:
When you ask about which promises will be fulfilled in the nation of Israel, the answer is simple: All of them. God always fulfills promises with the people to whom he made them. The fact that Gentiles are included in God's big plan does not mean that those promises are now null and void. They are still good, and God is faithful. He will keep his promises.
Pastor LarryHow do you know which promises were to be fulfilled in the nation Israel and which were to be fulfilled in the believing remnant?
Please don't put yourself out responding to my posts. We have exchanged remarks before and I understand that any exchange between us is fruitless, especially when your response is simply the accusation that I am proof-testing. In truth dispensationalists are the worst of all at proof-texting. You take one verse of Scripture from Daniel 9 and develop an entire false exchatology around it. But then all your doctrine is false. Fortunately some dispensationalists are climbing out of the hole they have dug. I believe they are called progressive dispensationalists.
May I say that I am in agreement with point #1 of the 3 point sine qua non of dispensational theology as presented by Ryrie A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct.
Thank God, I have never confused national Israel with the Church. However, I believe that, consistent with the discussion of the olive tree in Romans 11 the Church of the New Testament is one with Spiritual Israel of the Old Testament.
Again may I say: don't "waste any time responding to my posts" since I have no intention of wasting my valuable time in responding further to your non response.
Truth is, if you were charged to find the "covenant of grace" in Scripture, you would find it right next to the verse on the dispensation of conscience ... You have to be "schooled" to find it. The problem is that a change in dispensations can be substantiated; the covenant of grace cannot be. Neither is explicitly referenced.The reason dispensationalists can't see the Covenant of Grace in Scripture is that they have splintered it instead of "rightly dividing it".
Everything else that he does. I don't think it is a matter or "more glory" or "less glory." It is a matter that God's glory comes from more than just redemption.As for the Glory of God what could be more edifying to God than the demonstration of His Grace in the redemption of His Creation?
Yes, but you misrepresented it by conflating # 1 and 3.Also I misrepresented nothing. I am well aware that there are three sine qua non of dispensationalism. Ryrie lists all three in his book Dispensationalism, page 38f.
Which has nothing to do with elitism.As for dispensationalism being elitist Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism [page 52], inadvertently perhaps, admits such when he writes: “The average dispensationalist has been SCHOOLED to designate the second economy as Conscience.”
Like much of your responses, you have no texts here. THat is certainly one way to avoid prooftexting.There I go, proof-texting again.
My charge of proof texting was based on the fact that you do not take any of those verses in context, showing how they relate. You simply cite them. The same is not true with Dan 9. The dispensationalist takes the full context and explains it word by word. That, by definition, is not proof texting. You have never been able to answer Daniel 9.
You say that I conveniently avoided the question which was How do you know which promises were to be fulfilled in the nation Israel and which were to be fulfilled in the believing remnant? I didn't avoid that. I answered it. The believing remnant is teh end time nation of Israel. The answer to the question is that all the promises will be fulfilled to the nation, the believing remnant.
The reason this discussion is so often fruitless is because of the difference in how we approach Scripture. I maintain a rigidly high view of Scripture and refuse to subject it to a convenient theology. I take the text for what it says. When others do not, conversation is fruitless.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Other Christian Denomination
Dispensationalism (Page 4)
Pastor Larry: "It would be unfortunate for you to conclude that the church was
a change of plans. God, who knows all things exhaustively, was
not surprised by Isreal's rejection. In fact, he prophesied it
(Isa 6) and I would say even caused it, in a sense."
Amen, Pastor Larry -- Preach it!
Dispensationalism (Page 4)
Pastor Larry: "It would be unfortunate for you to conclude that the church was
a change of plans. God, who knows all things exhaustively, was
not surprised by Isreal's rejection. In fact, he prophesied it
(Isa 6) and I would say even caused it, in a sense."
Amen, Pastor Larry -- Preach it!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
God did cause the rejection of Jesus Christ by most Jewish leaders as confirmed by Jesus Christ in Matthew 13 and the Apostle Paul in Acts 28 but apparently the premier dispensationalist theologians? are unable to understand that so they describe the Church as follows:Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Other Christian Denomination
Dispensationalism (Page 4)
Pastor Larry: "It would be unfortunate for you to conclude that the church was
a change of plans. God, who knows all things exhaustively, was
not surprised by Isreal's rejection. In fact, he prophesied it
(Isa 6) and I would say even caused it, in a sense."
Amen, Pastor Larry -- Preach it!
Lewis Sperry Chafer writes: “In fact, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inacurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalculation.” [Systematic Theology, 4:41]
John F Walvoord writes: “the evidence if interpreted literally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine.” [Millennial Kingdom, 230]
J Dwight Pentecost writes: “The church is manifestly an interruption of God’s program for Israel.” [Things to Come, 201]
Charles C. Ryrie writes: “The Church age is not seen in God’s program for Israel. It is an intercalculation.” [Basis of Premillennial Faith, 136]
Those who argue that there is no prophecy of the Church in the Old Testament should read:
Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Romans 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
1 Peter 2:6-10
6. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
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.