Has dispensationalism contributed to mistaken worldviews, or is it the truth ?

[Iconoclast]

I think you missed my point that God is able to bring things from heaven to earth.
My fault - it was unclear - it was not to establish when.
If God desires to bring the holy place to earth from heaven during the millennium (if it exists) He is able.
If He can bring the whole city of the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven then the holy place should not be a problem.

HankD

I think you missed my point that God is able to bring things from heaven to earth.
My fault - it was unclear - it was not to establish when.
If God desires to bring the holy place to earth from heaven during the millennium (if it exists) He is able.
If He can bring the whole city of the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven then the holy place should not be a problem.

HankD

Thanks for the clarification HankD.
You speak.of God bringing down this Heavenly Holy place.....
Can you see it as our prayers and worship ascend now during this long period of time that we can look at as the Millennium......where the Heavenly authority comes down or extends and overtakes the kingdoms of this world through the gospel proclamation?
What are your three main objections to this idea?
The question is not limited to HankD.
Premillenial person's feel free to.offer your verses or links at this time.

 

[HankD]

Thanks for the clarification HankD.
You speak.of God bringing down this Heavenly Holy place.....
Can you see it as our prayers and worship ascend now during this long period of time that we can look at as the Millennium......where the Heavenly authority comes down or extends and overtakes the kingdoms of this world through the gospel proclamation?

Yes I can visualize that in my mind as a viable interpretation and at the end of the day(to quote a cliche) it just might be true and indeed in a limited way today it is true.

Ephesians 2:6 And (God) hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

What are your three main objections to this idea?

I have no objections just a preference of choice to a different interpretation.

All who have believed the gospel- that Jesus Christ (God - the Logos come in the flesh) was crucified, died buried and resurrected for our forgiveness of sin and the promise of eternal life are my brethren.

IMO, Eschatology, doesn't make or break the effectiveness of the gospel.

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

I still hold that Israel and the church are distinct, not separate but distinct.

I still hold the only distinction made is between Israel and Israel:

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: Ro 9

I still hold that otherwise there is no distinction made, in fact, the emphasis is on UNITY, not SEPARATENESS:

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: Ro 10

12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man`s house: Acts 11

9 and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Acts 15

22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; Ro 3

28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. Gal 3

13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10

14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2

15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Gal 6

11 where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all. Col 3

 

[HankD]

I still hold the only distinction made is between Israel and Israel:

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: Ro 9

I still hold that otherwise there is no distinction made, in fact, the emphasis is on UNITY, not SEPARATENESS:

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: Ro 10

12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man`s house: Acts 11

9 and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Acts 15

22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; Ro 3

28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. Gal 3

13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10

14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2

15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Gal 6

11 where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all. Col 3

For this the church age I agree wholeheartedly K.

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

For this the church age I agree wholeheartedly K.

So you hold to the notion of the parenthesis Church? That God is going to undo this present arrangement called the Israel of God (the true Israel of Ro 9:6):

15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Gal 6

.... and there will a return to the old creature of two flocks instead of one?

 

[John of Japan]

I grew up as a dispensationalist and believed with every fiber of my being that God had two distinct plans for the human race. God’s primary plan centered around the salvation of national Israel and the Jewish people. This, I thought, was God’s main purpose and everything else (including the salvation of the Gentiles) was kind of a sideshow.

By this, you were taught a false view of dispensationalism. The real teaching is that there is one plan for the human race, and that is the glory of God through Christ. "To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself" (Dispensationalism, Charles Ryrie, 48). Dispensationalism is a God-centered theology, not a man-centered one.

Any view of dispensationalism (or any other theology) which does not make the glory of God primary is very wrong.

 

[HankD]

So you hold to the notion of the parenthesis Church? That God is going to undo this present arrangement called the Israel of God (the true Israel of Ro 9:6):

No I do not hold to a notion of the church as a "parenthesis" just a difference in the God's expectations and requirements of the citizens of the kingdom of God (or heaven) on earth. The church age will end when the times of the gentiles are fulfilled.

Romans 11:25 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.

15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

This is a corollary of Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Only those of Israel who were circumcised in heart (born again) and had become a new creature under the law were the Israel of God, the rest were those circumcised in the flesh only - national Israel.

.... and there will a return to the old creature of two flocks instead of one?

No, one flock, two different breed varieties of sheep (Jew and Gentile).


B-a-a-a-a-a-h (oy vey)!
B-a-a-a-a-a-h (mama mia)!



HankD

 

[Iconoclast]

By this, you were taught a false view of dispensationalism. The real teaching is that there is one plan for the human race, and that is the glory of God through Christ. "To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself" (Dispensationalism, Charles Ryrie, 48). Dispensationalism is a God-centered theology, not a man-centered one.

Any view of dispensationalism (or any other theology) which does not make the glory of God primary is very wrong.

I agree with this statement......I was quoting from men who were former dispensatiopnalists there, but the post was too long, so it got cut off from the main portion....
I did not get home as planned so I did not get my hands on my premill books so I am scrambling to find some online things until I can quote direct source material.
I am enjoying the discussion so far and hope it proves edifying.....

 

[Iconoclast]

http://biblecentre.org/home.php

What, then, is the sine qua non of dispensationalism? The answer is threefold.

1 A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct . This is stated in different ways by both friends and foes of dispensationalism. Fuller says that "the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity"[39] A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.[40] Chafer summarized it as follows:

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 ... Over against this, the partial dispensationalist, though dimly observing a few obvious distinctions, bases his interpretation on the supposition that God is doing but one thing, namely the general separation of the good from the bad, and, in spite of all the confusion this limited theory creates, contends that the earthly people merge into the heavenly people; that the earthly program must be given a spiritual interpretation or disregarded altogether.[41]
[41] Chafer, Dispensationalism, 107.

This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.[42]

Though God's purpose for Israel and God's purpose for the church receive the most attention in Scripture, God has purposes for other groups as well. He has a purpose and plan for the angels, which in no way mixes with His purposes for Israel or the church (2 Peter 2:4; Rev. 4:11). He has a purpose for those who reject Him, which also is distinct from other purposes (Prov. 16:4). He has a plan for the nations, which continues into the New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:2), and those nations are distinct from the bride of Christ. God has more than two purposes even though He reveals more about His purposes for Israel and His purpose for the church than He does about the other groups.

Progressive dispensationalists seem to be blurring this distinction by saying that the concept is not in the same class as what is conveyed by the concepts of Gentiles, Israel, and Jews. What this means is not completely clear. (See the more complete discussion in chapter 9.) However, it does seem to imply that the classic Israel/church distinction is less clear.

2 This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the matter of historical-grammatical hermeneutics. The word literal is perhaps not as good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation often does. The spiritualizing may be practiced to a lesser or greater degree, but its presence in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.[43]

Consistently literal, or plain, interpretation indicates a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture. And it is this very consistency -- the strength of dispensational interpretation -- that seems to irk the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule.[44] To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is.. This does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation.

3 A third aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is a rather technical matter that will be discussed more fully later (see chapter 5). It concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world . The covenant theologian, in practice, believes this purpose to be salvation (although covenant theologians strongly emphasize the glory of God in their theology), and the dispensationalist says the purpose is broader than that; namely the glory of God . Progressives have a Christological center, apparently to undergird their emphasis on the Davidic covenant and on Christ as the already reigning Davidic ruler in heaven.

To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself. Scripture is not man-centered as though salvation were the main theme, but it is God-centered because His glory is the center.

The Bible itself clearly teaches that salvation, important and wonderful as it is, is not an end in itself but is rather a means to the end of glorifying God (Eph.. 1:6, 12, 14). John F. Walvoord, Chafer's successor at Dallas Theological Seminary, puts it this way: "The larger purpose of God is the manifestation of His own glory To this end each dispensation, each successive revelation of God's plan for the ages, His dealing with the non-elect as with the elect . . . combine to manifest divine glory."[45]
45] John F. Walvoord, "Review of Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, by George E. [add," Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (January 1953): 3-4.



In another place he says:

All the events of the created world are designed to manifest the glory of God. The error of covenant theologians is that they combine all the many facets of divine purpose in the one objective of the fulfillment of the covenant of grace. From a logical standpoint, this is the reductive error -- the use of one aspect of the whole as the determining element.[46]

[46] John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1959), 92.


The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispensationalist's consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is Charles Ryrie;
http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=813

The mention of the word dispensationalism usually evokes an immediate reaction.

For many Christians it reminds them of the help and blessing the ministries and writings of dispensational Bible teachers have been to them. They recall Bible conferences, prophecy conferences, special meetings, or books that awakened in them their first real interest in studying the Bible seriously and in depth.

For others, however, dispensationalism is something to be avoided like the plague. Perhaps they do not even begin to understand what it is, but, if they have heard about it, it has been in a negative way. Indeed, they may have been told that dispensational teaching is heretical. Nevertheless, dispensationalists have occupied a significant place in the history of the church, and they continue to be an important group of earnest believers today.
Opposition has also developed from those who are premillennial but not dispensational. (Generally they are covenant premillennialists who believe in a posttribulational Rapture.) Their point is that dispensational premillennialism is not historical but that premillennialism without dispensationalism is. Therefore, their attack centers on dispensational distinctives: "The present upsurge of Historical Premillennialism has challenged the Dispensational theory of a Pretribulational Rapture of the Church out of the world. Belief in a Pretribulational Rapture is... a deviation. "[3]

These various attacks range from mild to severe. Philip Mauro, a premillennialist who abandoned the dispensational position, is bitter in his denunciation:

Indeed, the time is fully ripe for a thorough examination and frank exposure of this new and subtle form of modernism that has been spreading itself among those who have adopted the name "fundamentalists." For evangelical Christianity must purge itself of this leaven of dispensationalism ere it can display its former power and exert its former influence.... The entire system of "dispensational teaching" is modernistic in the strictest sense.[4]

Only slightly more mild than Mauro's charge of modernism is the conclusion of Oswald Allis that dispensationalism is a "danger" and is "unscriptural."[5] Daniel Fuller reached a similar conclusion, namely, that dispensationalism is "internally inconsistent and unable to harmonize itself with the Biblical data."[6]

John Bowman, in a practically unrestrained attack on the original Scofield Bible and its dispensational teachings, said, "This book represents perhaps the most dangerous heresy currently to be found within Christian circles."[7] In a more temperate manner the editor of Presbyterian Journal, in answer to a reader's question, called dispensationalism "a conservative 'heresy'" since, in his own words, "whatever else you may say about a dispensationalist, one thing you can say about him with great assurance: he is conservative in theology."[8]

More recently reconstructionists (also known as dominion theologians or theonomists), who are postmillennial, have joined the fray. One calls dispensationalism "unbelief and heresy"[9] whereas another labels premillennialism "an unorthodox teaching, generally espoused by heretical sects on the fringes of the Christian Church."[10]

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is a man who denies the Covenant is for Christians;

The New Covenant and Christians?
Christians are not party to a covenant of any form—new or old. The very concept of covenants is exclusively associated with God's dealings with His earthly people Israel.

The apostle Paul says of his fellow countrymen, “my kinsmen, according to flesh; who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the law-giving, and the service, and the promises; whose are the fathers; and of whom, as according to flesh, is the Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen” (Rom.9:3-5). Covenants are for Israel. Christ according to the flesh was for Israel. We Christians “if even we have known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer” (2 Cor.5:16). Covenants are no more for Christians than Christ according to the flesh! To the contrary, any who have come from Gentile origins were and are “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise” (Eph.2:12). Gentiles were not brought into the commonwealth of Israel or made party to the covenants of promise. Instead they, with believing Jews, were brought near to God by the blood of Christ.

This is not merely a national nearness of formal outward position formerly known by Israel; but a personal, real intimacy. Gentiles were not brought onto old Jewish ground, but both Jew and Gentile having been set aside and removed from the eye of God in judgment at the cross, have been “in Himself” (in Christ) formed into one new man. This is the plain teaching of Ephesians 2. It lifts us to heights never contemplated in the new covenant—but, this not being our present theme, we must return.

Christians are not party to the new covenant. The new covenant is not made with the church. But we dare not say the new covenant has nothing to do with us. The blessings promised to Israel under the new covenant have been secured by the blood of Christ. There are blessings material and blessings spiritual. But those blessings which are spiritual in character are also the property of believers in Christ today. We have been blessed “with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ”. There is not one spiritual blessing we miss out on!

In connection with spiritual blessings, that which the blood of Christ has secured for Israel (His earthly people) under the new covenant has likewise been secured for us, His heavenly people. And further, whilst we have not come to earthly things, and whilst we have not come to the new covenant, amongst the heavenly things we have come to, listed in Hebrews 12, we have come to “Jesus, mediator of a new covenant”. We haven't come to the new covenant—but we have come to the One who is its Mediator! Infinitely greater and more precious to have a personal relationship to Him!

We will next consider the various New Testament passages that mention the new covenant, and seek to understand what bearing the new covenant has on Christians.

http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=1029

 

[Iconoclast]

His error continues;

The New Covenant and Christianity
From the Scriptures already considered it is clear that the new covenant is to be made in a future day with the reunited house of Israel and house of Judah. It is to this people that the concept of “covenant” has relevance—see Romans 9:3-5, “my kinsmen, according to flesh; who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the law-giving, and the service, and the promises; whose are the fathers; and of whom, as according to flesh, is the Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”

Gentiles, who in the ways of God were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise” (Eph.2:12), were not introduced onto the Jewish ground of covenants when they became Christians. Rather, all that characterised both Jew and Gentile was removed from before the eye of God on the cross, and instead of the re-establishment of either, He has formed “the two in himself into one new man” (Eph.2:15).

If then Christians are not under the new covenant—if the new covenant is not made with Christians—why, in the New Testament are there several significant references to the new covenant? Evidently we must not think that the new covenant has nothing to do with Christians.

We have not come to the new covenant; but we have come to Christ, and He is the Mediator of the new covenant (Heb.12:24). In this function He has blessings in store for Israel which have been secured by the shedding of His blood. And some of these blessings are the common property of all who are redeemed by that same precious blood. Israel waits for a future day to experience all these blessings—but in some, those of a spiritual character, we Christians participate here and now.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree with this statement......I was quoting from men who were former dispensatiopnalists there, but the post was too long, so it got cut off from the main portion....
I did not get home as planned so I did not get my hands on my premill books so I am scrambling to find some online things until I can quote direct source material.
I am enjoying the discussion so far and hope it proves edifying.....

Please let us know who you are quoting from. It is impossible to find out from your post #87, for example, since that is a file on your own hard drive. Sourcing a quote is basic.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a man who denies the Covenant is for Christians;

http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=1029

You say simply, "the Covenant." Do you understand which covenant he means? Do you understand that he is opposing covenant theology? (There is more than one extra-Biblical covenant in covenant theology, so to say "the covenant" is misleading.) Are you yourself an adherent of covenant theology?

 

[HankD]

One of the objections to dispensational theology is the use of the term "parenthesis" being applied to the church as kyredneck has indicated and indeed I heard this teaching while in Bible college.

The objection being that in its definition is the supposed idea that the church is "an afterthought" on God's part.
Do a Google

https://www.google.com/#q=define+parentheses

pa·ren·the·sis
noun

1. a word, clause, or sentence inserted as an explanation or afterthought into a passage that is grammatically complete without it, in writing usually marked off by curved brackets, dashes, or commas.

This is why I personally reject the terminology myself.

I don't know of any dispensationalist who would say that the church was/is an afterthought on God's part.

I don't think those who invented the terminology did either and I think it is unfair to make those accusations.

To know before hand but reveal at a later time is not an afterthought.

Christ and His church - the Bride of Christ is a mystery - unrevealed in ages past but revealed by Christ and the apostles.

Ephesians 5:22ff - concerning Christ and His bride the church.

Ephesians 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.


HankD

 

[kyredneck]

just a difference in the God's expectations and requirements of the citizens of the kingdom of God (or heaven) on earth.

Got some scripture that outlines God's 'different expectations' from His children here on earth? I'd really like to see some scriptural proof that Jews are judged differently from Gentiles, especially when it's abundantly clear from scripture that there is no such differences within the kingdom:

11 where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all. Col 3

How are Jews judged differently from the rest of us?

15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

This is a corollary of Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Only those of Israel who were circumcised in heart (born again) and had become a new creature under the law were the Israel of God, the rest were those circumcised in the flesh only - national Israel.

That's just wrong Hank. Ro 9:6 is NOT about physical Jews only, the contrast is children of the flesh (physical Jews) vs. children of promise (spiritual Jews, those born from Jerusalem above, Jew and Gentile):

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
7 neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. Ro 9

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Gal 4

The church age will end when the times of the gentiles are fulfilled.

'The Church Age' is NOT a distinctly Gentile arrangement. It was Jews that were the first Christians! It was Jews who were Her foundation stones!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/


John MacArthur says;

Typical MacArthur

 

[HankD]

Got some scripture that outlines God's 'different expectations' from His children here on earth? I'd really like to see some scriptural proof that Jews are judged differently from Gentiles, especially when it's abundantly clear from scripture that there is no such differences within the kingdom:

Not within but differences under the law vs grace for instance:
Different dietary expectations before the church as opposed to after its inception.

where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all. Col 3

How are Jews judged differently from the rest of us?

They are not.

That's just wrong Hank. Ro 9:6 is NOT about physical Jews only, the contrast is children of the flesh (physical Jews) vs. children of promise (spiritual Jews, those born from Jerusalem above, Jew and Gentile):

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
7 neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. Ro 9

I disagree - I believe Romans 9:6 is concerned with Israel's past.

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Gal 4

OK, no problem, that was then this is now

'The Church Age' is NOT a distinctly Gentile arrangement. It was Jews that were the first Christians! It was Jews who were Her foundation stones!

Agreed but still the gentiles are the emphasis and the greater harvest of the Great Commission:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Acts 13:
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Acts 18
5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

Acts 28
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

2 Corinthians 3:15
15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

History itself attesting that the church is the promise to Abraham that in his seed shall all nations be blessed.

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

This is a corollary of Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Lol, so Paul pronounces in one sentence "neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision" and then the next sentence pronounces peace and mercy on the circumcision only.

Dispy chop suey.

I disagree - I believe Romans 9:6 is concerned with Israel's past.

You've a real problem with the Church being the 'Israel of God', don't you? Worded another way but means the same:

3 for we are the circumcision [the Israel of God], who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

2 Ye know that when ye were Gentiles ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might led. 1 Cor 12

If Gentile Christians are no longer considered to be Gentiles what are they?

THE ISRAEL OF GOD.

 

[Yeshua1]

His error continues;

God always has saved sinners thru faith alone, grace alone, and was based upon the person and work of Jesus at the cross...

He just administered that grace in differing aspects ways/ as more progressive revelation brought in more of the fullness...

Now under new Covenant, BOTh Jews/gebriles saved by Jesus, both now in the Church, but the saved jews comprise Spiritual israel now also..

At His Second Coming, God finally fulfills promise to them to have national israel reborn!