Dispensationalism

Finally, for the person who started this thread, you can see for yourself the incredible emphasis dispensationalists put on the separation of Israel from the church. This despite the fact that true Israel and believing gentiles make up the church and carry forward the plan of God for his people - the "one" people of God spoken of by Paul in Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 2, as well as in Galatians 3.

The gospel was announced in advance to Abram in Genesis 12:1-3. This failure on the part of dispensationalists like Larry results in a gross distortion of the people of God. It is this failure on their part that creates a hyper dichotomy of "Israel" and the "church." While it still isn't necessary to hold to a pre-trib rapture with this dichotomy in place, one can readily see how it came about in the 1800s.

Larry will never change his view on the rapture until he realizes that God has one people, not two.

That's it for now, Larry. Blessings on you and yours.

 

The wierd thing is that I agree with this statement, and can point out places where you clearly violate it (such as Romans 11). The "one people of God" is shown false by simple reading the text and trying it out. REad Rom 11:26ff and pretend that Israel and the church are the same thing. You will find yourself laughing at how absurd it is. Eph 2 and Gal 3 both talk about unity in the church. They do not in anyway equate Israel and the church. Your presupposition, and failure to acknowledge the recipient of Paul's writing has led you to a false conclusion. Gal 6:16 is a clear distinction between Isreal and the church, as is Rom 9-11 where Paul cries out for his "kinsmen after the flesh," which is Israel. To try to make "Israel" the church renders the passage absurd.

The Scripture has to be the final authority, and when that is such, the issues become much clearer. Because I am not saddled with your presuppositions, I read the text differently and can read it for what it says. 2 Thess 1-2 say what it says, and I have no argument with that whatsoever. My argument is with your reading into it things that aren't there.

Take care ... Enjoyed the discussion.

 

Kaiser called it "promise theology." But today it goes by the name of "progressive dispensationalism." This is also very close to historic premillenialism which is post-trib.

Progressive dispensationalists are both post-trib and pre-trib, with the majority being pre-trib because they are coming out of traditional dispensationalism and because they serve in schools/churches where that position is expected.

The short answer: post-trib progressive dispensationalism. IMO the result of a consistent application of the literal historical-grammatical hermeneutic.

 

Hey, BibleAnswerKid,

You've read the discussion on your post. What do you think? Did you learn anything?

 

Thanks, a new kid on the block Can't keep up with things anymore.

"and because they serve in schools/churches where that position is expected."

Hummm, the ethics of that could be another thread

 

The wierd thing is that I agree with this statement, and can point out places where you clearly violate it (such as Romans 11). The "one people of God" is shown false by simple reading the text and trying it out. REad Rom 11:26ff and pretend that Israel and the church are the same thing. You will find yourself laughing at how absurd it is. Eph 2 and Gal 3 both talk about unity in the church. They do not in anyway equate Israel and the church. Your presupposition, and failure to acknowledge the recipient of Paul's writing has led you to a false conclusion. Gal 6:16 is a clear distinction between Isreal and the church, as is Rom 9-11 where Paul cries out for his "kinsmen after the flesh," which is Israel. To try to make "Israel" the church renders the passage absurd.

The Scripture has to be the final authority, and when that is such, the issues become much clearer. Because I am not saddled with your presuppositions, I read the text differently and can read it for what it says. 2 Thess 1-2 say what it says, and I have no argument with that whatsoever. My argument is with your reading into it things that aren't there.

Take care ... Enjoyed the discussion. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Larry,

Progressive dispensationalists do not believe that Israel and the church are the same group, only that there is some overlap between the two groups.

Israel means ethnic Israel consisting of believing and nonbelieving Jews. So when Paul references Israel in Romans 11:26ff, the context bears out that he is addressing nonbelieving ethnic Israel.

The church consists of believing Jews (true Israel) and Gentiles.

Therefore, true Israel is in the church, the people of God (Romans 9-11).

At no time have I said that Israel is the church, nor do I have to try making Israel the church.

Israel is Israel, and the church is the church, but the remnant of Israel (true Israel/believing Jews) are in the church, which also consists of believing Gentiles. Therefore, there is only "one" people of God. And this is why Paul can plead for his ethnic people Israel to be saved and be grafted back into the "olive tree" which is the one people of God. Ethnic Israel has been cut off because of unbelief.

 

Dr Tim spells it out quite sufficiently.

Using his terminology, I would be a "Mild Dispensationalist"

 

That is true in teh church age. Every dispenstionalist agrees with that. But the dispensationalist position is that there is still a future for national Israel based on the unfulfilled promises of the God who cannot lie.

Ethnic Israel has been cut off for unbelief for now. But as Jer 31 makes clear, that is not a permanent cutting off. The nation will be restored.

 

So do Progressive Dispensationalists. The promises given to Abraham will be fulfilled to ethnic Israel, believing ethnic Israel.

The New Covenant of Jeremiah was fulfilled with True Israel - the remnant that believed. Gentile believers have been grafted in and now participate in the joy of the New Covenant that was made with Israel (the remnant that believed).

At the end of the tribulation, one third of ethnic Israel will look on Jesus and believe and enter the millenium as the head of the nations! (see Zechariah 12-14). Two-thirds of ethnic Isreal will apparently not believe and be cut off.

The restored nation of Israel that rules as the head of the nations in the millenium consist of believing Jews that convert at the end of the tribulation when they see Christ returning to earth.

In any event, the New Covenant that the "Gentile believers" enjoy is only possible today because Jesus instituted the New Covenant with his ethnic people - the remnant of Israel. Therefore, there can be no "Gentiles" in the church without there also being "Jews" in the church. The New Covenant was for Israel and for all who believe (Acts 2).

The parenthesis theory is untenable.

 

The New covenant of Jeremiah and Ezekiel is for national Israel. The church participates in its benefits as a sort of overflow in this age. But the church was not a party to the NC.

 

Larry,

Do you actual understand what 'new covenant' is talking about??

Also, do you actual understand what the purpose of Calvary??

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Wow,we need another thread on this alone. So this age benefits in the overflow of a New Covenant that has not been made yet?

You believe there are 2 New Covenants?

 

Is it not truly amazing that someone cannot understand that the New Covenant instituted by Christ to ethnic Israel as represented by his disciples also includes believing Gentiles who have been grafted in (Romans 9-11, Eph. 2)?

The New Covenant is to Israel - True Israel! the remnant!

And the Jewish disciples are the founders of the first church at Pentecost - a church that was primarily Jewish! but included those who were "far off" (Acts 2:39)! for all whom the Lord our God will call!

The New Covenant instituted with the disciples resulted in the church - the people of God consisting of the remnant of ethnic Israel and belieivng Gentiles!

Therefore, Gentile believers don't just benefit from the overflow, they are included from the beginning by God's design!

Gentiles participate in the New Covenant by God's own choosing!

 

I wonder what Peter would have thought of this comment when he preached on Pentecost! The Jewish remnant of Israel, the disciples, are the church!

 

Yes, I have studied it in depth.

Yes, I have studied that in depth as well.

Yes. The NC has been inaugurated at the cross. But those who read the text of Scripture, it is very easy to see who it is made with and to recognize that its promises are not yet here. If the NC was here, Israel would be restored to the land in peace as the NC promises.

No. However, some do. I disagree with them. I believe Chafer did, but I can't remember. Haven't read him in a while.

He agreed with me, as he indicates in 3:19-21. To think that Pentecost somehow changed the meaning of the NC is something that doesn't derive from Scripture.

True Isreal, the remnant, is national Israel. There are no Gentiles in "true Israel." AS Rom 9-11 indicate, Israel refers to the nation, not the church.

Here is a place where that heremenuetical issue comes to the fore. When you read the NC passages, it is clear that it is for national Israel, and involves restoration to the land. The NC itself is never applied to the Gentiles.

Half right and half wrong. The first church members were Jews, but the NC is with Israel as a nation, not with Israelites that a part of the church. The NT consistently makes that distinction, and I believe we should as well.

Yes, in the blessings of the NC, but not in teh NC itself. You will not find one place in Scripture where the NC is applied to anyone but national Israel. You will have to go outside the Bible to find that. The closest passage is Hebrews 8 which is specifically about the forgiveness aspect of the NC, not about the entire NC.

This is really where the hermeneutical issues we talked about start playing themselves out. A "literal grammatical historical" hermeneutic cannot arrive at the conclusion that the NC is for the church. IT is impossible. You have to add to the NC, or redefine the words of the NC to get that outcome. Or I suppose one could redefine "literal grammatical historical hermeneutic" and get there as well. It is far easier just to let the NC speak for itself and conclude that what Jeremiah said about it was what God intended us to understand about it.

There is an article in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 8 (Fall 2003) that gives a good discussion of the pertinent issues.

 

Here's something Larry can't answer. Are the original disciples of Christ part of the church or part of national Israel. They can't be both in Larry's dispensational system.

If they are part of the church, then the disciples lose out on the ethnic national inheritance promised to Israel. As "Christians" they are no longer part of national Israel. They will be raptured before the tribulation and never experience the "land" promises for themselves.

If they are part of national Israel, they will not be raptured with the church. They are the founders of the church without ever being in the church. They died for Christ without ever being Christians. They are Jewish believers in the Messiah who will remain dead and in the grave during the rapture. They will rise from the dead with the rest of the OT Saints.

Which group do they belong to? The church or national Israel?

 

"Here's something Larry can't answer. Are the original disciples of Christ part of the church or part of national Israel. They can't be both in Larry's dispensational system."

Just curious why you speak to the group rather than Larry since you seem to be crossing swords with him - just wondering. Seems somewhat showy to arrogant - in my opinion of course

 

Because this is a discussion thread started by someone asking about dispensationalism. So ultimately, even though I'm debating with Larry, because others, like you, apparently aren't capable of discussing this issue, the ultimate person being addressed is the thread starter.

Get it?

 

Thanks for responding, but not necessarily the response

"because others, like you, apparently aren't capable of discussing this issue"

That would be in your opinion, right?