For all dispensational brethren to consider

[beameup]

Except he is arguing that the one "to whom we should listen to [sic]" is Paul not Jesus.

Jesus revealed to Paul the "mystery" of the Gentile Bride of Christ
which had been hidden in times past (not found in the O.T.).

The Jews have been "cut off" and we have been "grafted in"
until the "fullness of the Gentiles be come in".

And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed
in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I [Gentiles] might be graffed in.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in:
for God is able to graff them in again.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;
that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Romans 11 excerpts

 

[ituttut]

The elements of the gospel have been know and taught by God from the beginning.

All was not available, and all not known. We were innocent.

The works of man's hands (fig leaves) cannot be used as a covering for sin and death.

We agree, but they didn't know this for this information was not available to them.

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Genesis also tells us God made the first sacrifice for mankind, by shedding the blood of an animal. Shedding of blood became known at this time. God showed them how to do it, and told them this was to be done.

A Deliverer/Savior would come from the "seed" (virgin birth) of Eve's progeny who would destroy the serpent and his works.

Who knew such as this back then? Why didn't God have some to tell them all this, back then? Evidently God had not purposed such to be known back then. All God asked of man at that time was to believe me, and do this one thing. Make a blood sacrifice. By faith they were to obey, and in this way they were justified.

NKJV Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."

You have read the Book now knowing what this reference means. There is no way they could comprehend the depth of what you quote

All those who believed, longed for and looked for this Savior were saved by grace through faith in God's promise of a Messiah/deliverer/redeemer of believing mankind.

Hebrews, chapter 11 should be believed, and understood by all Christians.

Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

This a good place for us to notice what is not covered above. There has to be something to go with our believing in God. We are to FEAR HIM. God tests us, and Abraham proved his metal. God provided the Ram for Abraham to slay. Back then God said man will use his hands, for it will please me. Back then, and for many years later God said I require you to have blood on your hands. Some that knew of this did, and some did not.

We should also not ignore the necessity of God's people to shed some of their own blood. Moses was on the border of being slain, and I believe he was lackadaisical, a result of his being pampered in his formative years.

Genesis 49
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:
12 His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.

Shiloh came, and they refused Shiloh. His people, they of Israel have the wrath of God to look forward to, along with others. We in the Body of Christ are sitting in the ejection seat to be sent with haste up into the air.

Job 19:23
25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

God's people knew a lot about their God, but did not know the whole story. Comb through Job, and his friends, and you will not see they don't know what we today know.

Isaiah 53
...
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


And many others. HankD

Hank, what you are showing in your post is the foreknowledge of God. God has furnished us a Book, and it contains information from ages past to ages future. By their faith, and by work of their hands, they all were Justified. God foreknew, but not they. His Grace has always been, and in this age He has the everlasting blood that was not available in times past. The Body of Christ was not known until He told us.

 

[gloopey1]

Hello Iconoclast

You are right; We had better nail this down first before going on.
--------------------------------------------------
You asked..........
“Are you trying to say...that you believe all jewish people throughout time have to be saved????”

Yes and no!
That is like asking someone.....
“Are you trying to say...that you believe every Christian throughout time has been saved????”

Yes, “all” Jewish people just like “all” Christians are saved;
But just as everyone who calls themselves a Christian isn’t necessarily a Christian;
So also everyone who calls themselves a Jew isn’t necessarily a Jew.

But yes, the Jews are still God’s people.
--------------------------------------------------
You also asked...........


No.....God says it!

In the Bible, there are thousands of passages, that tell us this; and in my last post on this thread, there are a dozen or so places, where God says that the Jews are His people and will always be.
--------------------------------------------------
But the bigger problem you have to deal with is......
First: (Why do you think they aren’t saved?)
Second: (Why do you doubt God’s Word, that says they are?)

Stilllearning:
I am a Dispensationalist; however, I don't believe that anyone who rejects Jesus as his Savior will go to Heaven. The "salvation" spoken of in Romans 11 is not individuals from Hell, but the Jews as a whole. There is a difference between individual salvation and national salvation. The Bible is very clear that there is no name given under Heaven whereby men can be saved except the name of Jesus. Jesus said if anyone tried to come some other way, he was the same as a thief or robber.

While Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology is an interesting debate, let us not fall into the trap of saying that God has made some other way for people to be saved other than Jesus.

 

[Iconoclast]

Stilllearning:
I am a Dispensationalist; however, I don't believe that anyone who rejects Jesus as his Savior will go to Heaven. The "salvation" spoken of in Romans 11 is not individuals from Hell, but the Jews as a whole. There is a difference between individual salvation and national salvation. The Bible is very clear that there is no name given under Heaven whereby men can be saved except the name of Jesus. Jesus said if anyone tried to come some other way, he was the same as a thief or robber.

While Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology is an interesting debate, let us not fall into the trap of saying that God has made some other way for people to be saved other than Jesus.

well said:thumbs::thumbs::applause::applause:

 

[stilllearning]

Hello gloopey1 and welcome to the Baptist board.

You said.......

“I am a Dispensationalist; however, I don't believe that anyone who rejects Jesus as his Savior will go to Heaven. The "salvation" spoken of in Romans 11 is not individuals from Hell, but the Jews as a whole. There is a difference between individual salvation and national salvation. The Bible is very clear that there is no name given under Heaven whereby men can be saved except the name of Jesus. Jesus said if anyone tried to come some other way, he was the same as a thief or robber.

While Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology is an interesting debate, let us not fall into the trap of saying that God has made some other way for people to be saved other than Jesus.”

Very well said. And I agree....with an explanation!

I agree that salvation by Grace, has always been the “only” way to be saved.
And that Salvation is only found in trusting Jesus as your savior.
But it is God that saved us; We don’t save ourselves or keep ourselves saved.

With that said, the Jews in the Old Testament were saved.(By grace.)
(But from almost the very beginning, most of them were disobedient, because of a lack of faith.)

Over and over again, God chastened them and then when they repented He would forgive them.
And many times, God would send prophets to them, to try to bring them to repentance and back to God. Some of them were stoned & some were imprisoned & others were simply killed.
--------------------------------------------------
Then 2000 year ago, God sent His Son(with the same purpose), to bring His people back to Him.
(But there was more to it this time!)
Jesus was the chief cornerstone of God’s plan of salvation; But they(most of them), did not believe this.

Now, God knew this was going to happen and He had a plan in place;
But the Jews were still His people by covenant, and as I have already posted in this thread, God is not a man, that He would lie and go back on his promise to the Jews.

Which brings us to Romans 11:, where God wonderfully explains to us what He was going to do.
He is giving the Jews a time-out, and is blinding them as a nation, until the midpoint of the tribulation, where we learn(in Revelation), that the nation of the Jews will then “trust Christ” as there Savior.

Now, I have said earlier that these Jews will be saved and go to Heaven, even though they are not part of the Body of Christ.

This is where people get confused; Thinking that I am talking about another way to get saved and I am not saying that.

One example that I gave above, is that of babies who die.
No baby will go to hell, therefore every baby will go to heaven.
But.....they will not have trusted Christ as their savior!?!?!

Therefore.....there will be several groups of people in heaven. (By the grace of God.)
But “we” will be the “bride of Christ”.

Every individual that fails to trust Christ before the rapture, will miss out on being part of the bride of Christ. But the book of Revelation tells us that not only the Jews but many Gentiles will be saved during the tribulation period.
--------------------------------------------------
One more thing:
Anyone that “rejects the Gospel”, before the rapture, WILL NOT BE ABLE, to be saved during the tribulation period........
2 Thessalonians 2:11
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:”



I am very glad you posted your challenge to my view.
Typing the above paragraphs, has forced me to “make sure” that I am in line with the Bible.

I am always open, to a Biblical argument, that just might correct me.

 

[HankD]

All was not available, and all not known. We were innocent.
We agree, but they didn't know this for this information was not available to them. Genesis also tells us God made the first sacrifice for mankind, by shedding the blood of an animal. Shedding of blood became known at this time. God showed them how to do it, and told them this was to be done. Who knew such as this back then? Why didn't God have some to tell them all this, back then? Evidently God had not purposed such to be known back then. All God asked of man at that time was to believe me, and do this one thing. Make a blood sacrifice. By faith they were to obey, and in this way they were justified. You have read the Book now knowing what this reference means. There is no way they could comprehend the depth of what you quote Hebrews, chapter 11 should be believed, and understood by all Christians.This a good place for us to notice what is not covered above. There has to be something to go with our believing in God. We are to FEAR HIM. God tests us, and Abraham proved his metal. God provided the Ram for Abraham to slay. Back then God said man will use his hands, for it will please me. Back then, and for many years later God said I require you to have blood on your hands. Some that knew of this did, and some did not.

We should also not ignore the necessity of God's people to shed some of their own blood. Moses was on the border of being slain, and I believe he was lackadaisical, a result of his being pampered in his formative years. Shiloh came, and they refused Shiloh. His people, they of Israel have the wrath of God to look forward to, along with others. We in the Body of Christ are sitting in the ejection seat to be sent with haste up into the air. God's people knew a lot about their God, but did not know the whole story. Comb through Job, and his friends, and you will not see they don't know what we today know.

Hank, what you are showing in your post is the foreknowledge of God. God has furnished us a Book, and it contains information from ages past to ages future. By their faith, and by work of their hands, they all were Justified. God foreknew, but not they. His Grace has always been, and in this age He has the everlasting blood that was not available in times past. The Body of Christ was not known until He told us.

Believe what you will...

Pay attention and read again what I said, I didn't say that they knew every detail, I used the terminology "elements of the gospel" - the truth of the coming Messiah/Savior/Deliverer is as old as the word of God.

Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."​

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.​

The first elements of the gospel goes back to the "seed" of the woman.​

Shiloh was the first dwelling place of God in a tabernacle...

Shiloh speaks of "God tabernacling with us" - The incarnation - "and the word became flesh and dwelt among us".

HankD​

 

[Greektim]

Amazing Paul called Gen. 12:3 the gospel. Talk about continuity!!! And Jesus simply piggybacks off of the Isaianic message of the suffering servant spreading the news of the reign of God. That is where the term "euangelion" comes from - Isaiah 52:7 LXX. This is why this word was chosen to speak of the 4 accounts and the "gospel of God" (Mk 1:14-15). THe gospel is all about continuity (something Dispos don't like).

 

[ituttut]

Except he is arguing that the one "to whom we should listen to [sic]" is Paul not Jesus.

Hello Greektim. I see Beameup has answered you, and I will answer in another way.

I know Beameup, just as I, speak of Paul and his Epistles, perhaps more than some others may. If you notice my signature you will see what I believe, and I see others that may be of the same ilk.

If I dismiss what Paul was told to tell me, then I would fall into the category as pointed out in Galatians 4:25. Paul tells us that the law, and the ordinances have been nailed to the Cross. Jesus lived under the Law, but those laws and ordinances died with Him. But we know He arose, and ascended to His Father. The Body of Christ then became available. This was unknown before. I believe Abram was preached the Gospel of Messiah.

 

[HankD]

Hello Greektim. I see Beameup has answered you, and I will answer in another way.

I know Beameup, just as I, speak of Paul and his Epistles, perhaps more than some others may. If you notice my signature you will see what I believe, and I see others that may be of the same ilk.

If I dismiss what Paul was told to tell me, then I would fall into the category as pointed out in Galatians 4:25. Paul tells us that the law, and the ordinances have been nailed to the Cross. Jesus lived under the Law, but those laws and ordinances died with Him. But we know He arose, and ascended to His Father. The Body of Christ then became available. This was unknown before. I believe Abram was preached the Gospel of Messiah.

I believe we are all on the same page now brother ituttut.

Paul was allowed to put the finishing touches and give the full revelation of the one and only gospel of grace through faith in the death burial and resurrection of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Know by different terms in the OT: Seed of the woman (Genesis), Shiloh (Genesis), Suffering Servant (Isaiah), Redeemer (Job).

Actually we don't know exactly what the content of that revelation of the gospel which was revealed to Abraham.

It may very well be he was given a revelation of the crucifixion, death burial and resurrection of his Seed (Shiloh-God incarnate) which was to come.


HankD

 

[HankD]

Amazing Paul called Gen. 12:3 the gospel. Talk about continuity!!! And Jesus simply piggybacks off of the Isaianic message of the suffering servant spreading the news of the reign of God. That is where the term "euangelion" comes from - Isaiah 52:7 LXX. This is why this word was chosen to speak of the 4 accounts and the "gospel of God" (Mk 1:14-15). THe gospel is all about continuity (something Dispos don't like).

While I don't like the term "dispensationalism", I identify with it because it gives people a hook to hang my coat upon.

I agree and am the one who (in this thread) used this passage to identify the gospel as being revealed to Abraham.

The reason I don't like the term Dispensationalism as such is because so much craziness has been held by many of those who claim it.

The essence of healthy dispensationalism is that God makes a distinction between Redeemed Israel and the Church of the Firstborn.

Galatians

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.​

Acts 15

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.​

Distinct but not separate, one in essence (we have been graffed into the tree) as indicated by Revelation in the eternal state of the New Jerusalem.​

Revelation 21
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.​

Genesis 22 (The promise to Abraham):

16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations (goyee-goyim) of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.​

HankD​

 

[Greektim]

While I don't like the term "dispensationalism", I identify with it because it gives people a hook to hang my coat upon.

I agree and am the one who (in this thread) used this passage to identify the gospel as being revealed to Abraham.

The reason I don't like the term Dispensationalism as such is because so much craziness has been held by many of those who claim it.

The essence of healthy dispensationalism is that God makes a distinction between Redeemed Israel and the Church of the Firstborn.

Galations

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

​

Seems hard to make that distinction when Heb. 3:6 puts both into "one house". Further the continuity of the testaments as it relates to the gospel makes it difficult as well. Now I should clarify that I do not believe the church today is Israel so much as redefined Israel. I believe part of what Jesus did to get him killed by the Jews was redefine what it was to be the people of God. This was all in the wake of remnant theology from the prophets.

 

[HankD]

Seems hard to make that distinction when Heb. 3:6 puts both into "one house". Further the continuity of the testaments as it relates to the gospel makes it difficult as well. Now I should clarify that I do not believe the church today is Israel so much as redefined Israel. I believe part of what Jesus did to get him killed by the Jews was redefine what it was to be the people of God. This was all in the wake of remnant theology from the prophets.

Hi Tim,

I agree and believe that the one house (dwelling place) is the New Jerusalem of which (Revelation 21 both redeemed Israel (signified by the twelve tribes) and the church of t)he firstborn (signified by the twelve apostles) will dwell together as distinct but not separate for eternity with the Lamb of God.

HankD

 

[Greektim]

Hi Tim,

I agree and believe that the one house (dwelling place) is the New Jerusalem of which (Revelation 21 both redeemed Israel (signified by the twelve tribes) and the church of t)he firstborn (signified by the twelve apostles) will dwell together as distinct but not separate for eternity with the Lamb of God.

HankD

Not surprising that you over-literalized the concept of "house." It is clearly not a reference to NJ. Heb 3:6 says "we are his house" as in a reference to the people of God. It was the very house that Moses was a servant and Jesus a son.

 

[thomas15]

I believe part of what Jesus did to get him killed by the Jews was redefine what it was to be the people of God. This was all in the wake of remnant theology from the prophets.

Last time I checked in my Bible, it was the Roman governor that tried Jesus in his court, the same Roman governor who pronounced the death sentence, it was Roman military men who carried out the sentence using Roman tools of punishment and then Jesus was placed in a grave guarded by Roman guards.

 

[Greektim]

Last time I checked in my Bible, it was the Roman governor that tried Jesus in his court, the same Roman governor who pronounced the death sentence, it was Roman military men who carried out the sentence using Roman tools of punishment and then Jesus was placed in a grave guarded by Roman guards.

And who brought Jesus to the Romans? Last time I checked my Bible, the Jews had their own trials for Jesus. They needed Roman approval to carry out the death penalty. Read Jn 5:18 & 7:1.

But what I was getting at was why there would even be animosity from the Jews toward Jesus. It would not be because he claimed to be the Messiah. They wanted that. It was because he judged the current religious establishment of Israel and redefined the people of God as those who followed Jesus solely. This among other things as well.

 

[HankD]

Not surprising that you over-literalized the concept of "house." It is clearly not a reference to NJ. Heb 3:6 says "we are his house" as in a reference to the people of God. It was the very house that Moses was a servant and Jesus a son.

True it is an opinionated choice but it is scriptural.
"house-oikos" has a wider scope than our english word "house" i.e. dwelling place, tabernacle...

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.​

Ephesians 2
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:​

Revelation 21
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.​

HankD​

 

[Greektim]

True it is an opinionated choice but it is scriptural.
"house-oikos" has a wider scope than our english word "house" i.e. dwelling place, tabernacle...

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.​

Ephesians 2
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:​

Revelation 21
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.​

HankD​

But all you've done is cited random Scripture that speaks of "heavenly" or the NJ ("heavenly" calling hardly equates house with the NJ... that is a stretch even for dispos). The context of Heb. 3:1-6 is that "house" does not refer to an actual dwelling place but has a figurative meaning referring to those that make up the people of God (i.e. the house of Israel). The AoH is probably playing off of the concept of the house of Israel when referring to this house in Heb. 3. Therefore, he is referring to us as Israel (the people of God).

 

[thomas15]

And who brought Jesus to the Romans? Last time I checked my Bible, the Jews had their own trials for Jesus. They needed Roman approval to carry out the death penalty. Read Jn 5:18 & 7:1.

But what I was getting at was why there would even be animosity from the Jews toward Jesus. It would not be because he claimed to be the Messiah. They wanted that. It was because he judged the current religious establishment of Israel and redefined the people of God as those who followed Jesus solely. This among other things as well.

The point I was trying to make, which seems to be lost on you due to doctrinal considerations is that Jesus was sent to the cross by sinful man, both Jew and Gentile are guilty in this.

 

[Greektim]

The point I was trying to make, which seems to be lost on you due to doctrinal considerations is that Jesus was sent to the cross by sinful man, both Jew and Gentile are guilty in this.

No... I get your point... you just didn't make it well until now. And theologically speaking, I completely agree that it was because of the sins of mankind that Jesus died. However, through secondary causation, it was the Romans enticed by the Jews of Jesus day who actually put him to death.

But I'm thinking historically for a sec. What would Jesus do to cause the Jews to want to kill him and the Romans to ok it? I don't think the dispensational Jesus adequately answers that.

 

[AresMan]

I consider myself closer to New Covenant Theology than anything else.

I believe the modern incarnation of Covenant Theology errs in that it tries to figure out how to port ordinances of the Old Covenant into the New Covenant where Scripture does not dictate such. It does not recognize the fundamental difference between the Old and New covenants.

I believe dispensationalism errs in that it tries to force a distinction between "Israel" and the "church" as two separate believing peoples of God with separate eternal destinies. This also has to go against the grain of the epistles of the New Testament and explain why there are two "kingdoms" and two "churches" among other things.

This is not to say that any commands of God have been abrogated per se, in that they are simply "removed." I believe that all the OT outward ordinances are fulfilled in the Person and Work of Christ. Take, for example, the animal sacrifices that were a "prophecy" of Christ. I just believe that all the outward ordinances of the OT law were prophetic in the same way.
I "letter" kills, but the "spirit" gives life. The whole law is established, and it is done through the fulfillment of the New Covenant, which is a full and present reality in regeneration. God has written his law ("torah" = "instruction") in our hearts and put His spirit within us so that all seek the Lord from the least to the greatest. This is "not like the covenant I made with your fathers," which was a covenant of outward laws written on tables of stone and family-based, which meant that there could be members of the Old Covenant who were not saved. The New Covenant is one of regeneration and the fulfilled law is present in the spirit in each individual who worships God in spirit and in truth. Under the New Covenant all members are saved, and only those who are regenerated are supposed to partake of any "signs" of the covenant.