Messianic Kingdom

[dragonfly]

God deals with man through Covenants, not dispensations!

So you say. I could say the moon is make of green cheese, it doesn't make it so. I also don't see why covenants negates dispensations, do you?

 

[swaimj]

Of course I disagree but you are entitled to be wrong.

So, another words you are not going to discuss it. Suits me. See ya!

 

[OldRegular]

So you say. I could say the moon is make of green cheese, it doesn't make it so. I also don't see why covenants negates dispensations, do you?

Sure do. Show me one place in Scripture where God talks about dispensations in His dealing with man.

Covenant with Adam

Genesis 2:16, 17
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.

Covenant with Noah [Universal Covenant]

Genesis 9:8-19

8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

Covenant with Abraham

Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Genesis 16:2-5

2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Covenant with Isaac

Genesis 26:2-4

2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Covenant with Jacob

Genesis 28:13-17

13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;
14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.
16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.
17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.

Covenant with Israel

Exodus 19:5,6
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:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

New Covenant

Jeremiah 31:31-34

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

New Covenant for the Church

Hebrews 8:6-11

6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Now show me the Scriptural reference to dispensations.

 

[OldRegular]

So, another words you are not going to discuss it. Suits me. See ya!

If you can't answer my simple question with Scripture?????:BangHead:

 

[OldRegular]

In other words you can not refute the passage given because the context validates the Dispy position. Deal with the passage and context surrounding it. Jesus was teaching them about the Kingdom and then they asked if it was going to be restored again now. In the OP you asked asked a question, and it has been answered. Both case and thread should be closed.


Jesus Christ in Matthew 13:10-16 spoke to His disciples concerning the blindness of the Jews as prophesied in Isaiah.

Dispensationalism is based on the false teaching of John Darby, apparently influenced by a new revelation given to Margaret MacDonald, and propagated by the Scofield Bible.

Well, you are are incorrect and have been proven 'wrong' (even by using your own sourse). So it isn't ignorance anymore but willful and sinful misinformation. Dispensationalism goes all the way back the first century Church and is even found in scripture - look it up "dispensation". :thumbs:

Premillennialism goes back to the first century. Dispensationalism goes back to Darby. :tonofbricks:

So now you are saying the Southern Baptists are unsaved. And yes that is 'exactly' what you are saying. That goes against BB Policy/Rules. Read the passage you quote and note that it is about unbelievers NOT believers. Keep them in context and stop taking scripture out of it to make it say what it never has. Besides, the apostle Paul would be more disgusted with your misuse/abuse of scripture than he would peoples understanding of future things.

That is because you choose not see. I can post verses, and some whole chapters but even then it will not persaude you. I gave what you asked for "One" scripture which proves...

It can not be any plainer than the fact the Jesus was specifically teaching them of the Kingdom and they all asked the same question to Him. Lord, will you restore again the Kingdom to Israel now? To which He stated (paraphrased) that is God's business as to when He will restore it because He is the one who will do it. You must do what you are to be doing because it is 'your' business to tend to. He did not correct them, nor did He not answer them but specifically answered their question posed to Him concerning His previous teachings.

This passage has reference to the future. I asked a question regarding the first coming of Jesus Christ and you can't answer it. Why not admit it?

I will bow out here. You seem to have no real interest in research of the context of scripture nor of exegetical study concerning the passages given to see it they are true or not. You may believe whatever want that is your to do so. Could I be wrong? possibly - I am not infallable. Could you? Yep. But will tell you what, if we die before the coming of Christ and then know the truth there. I will make it a point to find you and either appologize for my understanding of scripture or I will await your.. or we could both be wrong and then just laugh about it.

You obviously cannot post one verse of Scripture that answers the question:

Can someone or anyone show one passage of Scripture where Jesus Christ definitively offered an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews?

The reason. There is none.:tonofbricks:

 

[Pilgrimer]

Jesus did not ignore them nor did He give them a non-answer as some presume. He told them that the Kingdom being restored is the Fathers business but theirs (and ours) was to worry about what we have been given the power/authority to do - be His witnesses, and not worry about 'when' the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel will be. It will come when God deems it is time according to His plan when it shall be restored again to Israel.

Jesus, speaking to his disciples at the Last Supper:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all truth . . ." John 16:12-13

Allan, I don't think it is a very good idea to pin your theological understanding on a question the disciples (students) posed to Jesus before they were saved and had received the Spirit to teach them the meaning of Scripture. You should base your understanding on what these men said about Jesus' kingdom after they were saved and became Apostles (teachers). After all, just before his crucifixion they tried to stop him from fulfilling the very purpose for which he had come into the world . . . to lay down his life a ransom. So clearly they did not have sufficient understanding before Pentecost to take their every word as doctrine. They were disciples because they were still learning. They did not become apostles until after Pentecost, and the very first sermon they preached, on the day of Pentecost, Peter cleared away all the misconceptions by stating that it was this Jesus of Nazareth whom God had raised up from the loins of David to sit on the throne of his kingdom. Acts 2:25-36

But before that, the question the disciples posed was based on the messianic doctrines of Rabbinic Judaism which they had been taught all their lives. These "traditions," which Jesus warned against, were based on a very literal interpretation of messianic prophecy, which is why Christian Premillennial doctrine and Rabbinic Messianic doctrine have so very much in common.

As Christians we should take very careful and serious note that it was these very same messianic doctrines which led so many of the Jewish people, and particularly their leaders who taught these doctrines, to reject Jesus. Their interpretation of messianic prophecy had led them to envision a messiah and a messianic kingdom of a very earthly sort, much as premillennialism envisions. And it was this false vision that blinded them to the truth about Jesus and led them to reject and to crucify Him. And in the end, so deluded them that they revolted against Rome in a vain attempt to establish their earthly messianic kingdom and instead brought upon themselves and their nation their own destruction. All of this, from beginning to end, was exactly what the Scriptures had foretold.

Old Regular asked a question that deserves a Christian's utmost thought and study and prayer, not simply knee-jerk reactions to defend a favored view. Just what kind of "kingdom" did Jesus die to open to men the way into? A re-established earthly kingdom of Israel? Or the heavenly kingdom of God . . . of which the kingdom of Israel was but a shadow?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[OldRegular]

As Christians we should take very careful and serious note that it was these very same messianic doctrines which led so many of the Jewish people, and particularly their leaders who taught these doctrines, to reject Jesus. Their interpretation of messianic prophecy had led them to envision a messiah and a messianic kingdom of a very earthly sort, much as premillennialism envisions. And it was this false vision that blinded them to the truth about Jesus and led them to reject and to crucify Him. And in the end, so deluded them that they revolted against Rome in a vain attempt to establish their earthly messianic kingdom and instead brought upon themselves and their nation their own destruction. All of this, from beginning to end, was exactly what the Scriptures had foretold.

Old Regular asked a question that deserves a Christian's utmost thought and study and prayer, not simply knee-jerk reactions to defend a favored view. Just what kind of "kingdom" did Jesus die to open to men the way into? A re-established earthly kingdom of Israel? Or the heavenly kingdom of God . . . of which the kingdom of Israel was but a shadow?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Thank you Pilgrimer. You make some very good points and ask some serious questions that must be seriously addressed.

I believe I asked a serious question also which has been brushed aside and has not been answered by Scripture.

 

[Allan]

Jesus, speaking to his disciples at the Last Supper:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all truth . . ." John 16:12-13

Now who is pinning their theology on 'one verse'

Allan, I don't think it is a very good idea to pin your theological understanding on a question the disciples (students) posed to Jesus before they were saved and had received the Spirit to teach them the meaning of Scripture.

First, who said I was pinning anything on 'one verse'? Not I.
I merely gave one verse as requested that can prove a second earthly kingdom to be and I did just that.

You should base your understanding on what these men said about Jesus' kingdom after they were saved and became Apostles (teachers). After all, just before his crucifixion they tried to stop him from fulfilling the very purpose for which he had come into the world . . . to lay down his life a ransom. So clearly they did not have sufficient understanding before Pentecost to take their every word as doctrine. They were disciples because they were still learning. They did not become apostles until after Pentecost, and the very first sermon they preached, on the day of Pentecost, Peter cleared away all the misconceptions by stating that it was this Jesus of Nazareth whom God had raised up from the loins of David to sit on the throne of his kingdom. Acts 2:25-36

I think you are very mixed up here. You seem to assume that Jesus could not and was not not able to reveal any truth to these disciples especially after His resurrection. If what you are presuming is true then Jesus was doing nothing but wasting his breath and time talking to the disciples and specifically explaining the Kingdom of God. And sorry, they were not called disciples because they 'still' learning they were called disciples because they were followers of Christ who assisted in teaching Christ's truths and ways to others. Also - Yes, they DID have understanding but you must go back to what Jesus said concerning them and the Spirit to actaully grasp why they needed him. The Holy Spirit was to 'empower' them that they 'will be' His witnesses. According to Jesus it had nothing to do with you assumption of still needing more understanding. The Holy Spirit was to still continue leading them (the apostles) into truth, jsut as He will all believers, as we note in many instances of scriptures.. like with Peter and the eating of unclean meats which correlated with the Gentiles and even when Paul has to rebuke Peter for shunning the gentiles due to Jewish legalists. and so on and so forth..

And yes, Peter did clear up the misunderstanding in that Jesus was the one God had raised up to sit on the throne of "David's Kingdom". Yet I do not find anywhere in scripture that He has sat down on 'Davids' throne to rule the Kindom of David - which is known as the land of Israel or that land which God has given to the Jewish people. I know you state that He has sat down at His throne but that throne is not Davids nor has God's throne ever been described as God's throne. Scripture plainly states exactly what you posted here:
"this Jesus of Nazareth whom God had raised up from the loins of David to sit on the throne of his kingdom. Acts 2:25-36"
Who's Kingdom? Davids.

But before that, the question the disciples posed was based on the messianic doctrines of Rabbinic Judaism which they had been taught all their lives. These "traditions," which Jesus warned against, were based on a very literal interpretation of messianic prophecy, which is why Christian Premillennial doctrine and Rabbinic Messianic doctrine have so very much in common.

You are quite incorrect here and sadly so. The question they posed was directly after Jesus was teaching them about the Kingdom of God. The answer Jesus gave did not correct them but affirmed that this kingdom is indeed coming but in God timing because it is His to worry about. Their thoughts needed to be focused upon what was in their power and that was the proclaimation of the gospel message.
Secondly, Jesus did not teach against literal interpretation since that is how they we know they came about. We can see them literally happening. They might not always come about in manner we think because we sometimes fill in the gaps with our own assumptions. But I have not yet found any prophesy of the OT speaking of Christ not come true and be validated unless it was taken literally. The Jews were correct just as Premill in early Christianity is. The problem was not in the literal understanding it was that they added to what was written and so they were looking for the wrong thing at the wrong time but primarily it was because the nation as whole was under God's judgment so they (as a nation) would not come to know Him yet but they will (Rom 11).

As Christians we should take very careful and serious note that it was these very same messianic doctrines which led so many of the Jewish people, and particularly their leaders who taught these doctrines, to reject Jesus. Their interpretation of messianic prophecy had led them to envision a messiah and a messianic kingdom of a very earthly sort, much as premillennialism envisions.

Now this is just garbly-gook and speculation. Seriously, who has filled your head with such things? They rejected Jesus not because of a literal interpretation of scripture but because 'some' were looking for the wrong thing first, a ruler and a conquerer. In this He would be bringing all the nations into subjection and freeing God's chosen people of Old - the Nation of Israel and fulfill His promise to 'them' that they would finally live in peace under their true and rightful King. Some however knew who He was (Jewish leaders) but Jesus was not going to be doing what they wanted and was not teaching in a manner that exhalted them and their view of religion. Some did not look at scripture literally (Saducees - sp?) but took a more allegorical approach missed the truth because they would take the texts in context nor at face value.

And it was this false vision that blinded them to the truth about Jesus and led them to reject and to crucify Him. And in the end, so deluded them that they revolted against Rome in a vain attempt to establish their earthly messianic kingdom and instead brought upon themselves and their nation their own destruction. All of this, from beginning to end, was exactly what the Scriptures had foretold.

Wow, you have a messed up view of what actually happened historically or better why things happened historically. They did not rebel against Rome for you claim. That is the worst speculation set forth that I have ever read. They rebelled against Rome to try to free themselves in the hopes of re-establishing their Kingdom. However this is not and can not be tied to their understanding of prophesy because the messiah is to be the one leading them in that battle and is someone who Israel claims as her messiah. They were trying to re-establish their kingdom but NOT to fulfill prophesy as you have wrongly presummed. There is not support in this if one understands the Jewish views of the Messiah and coming re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel and the subjection of the whole world that peace might finally reign forever.

Old Regular asked a question that deserves a Christian's utmost thought and study and prayer, not simply knee-jerk reactions to defend a favored view. Just what kind of "kingdom" did Jesus die to open to men the way into? A re-established earthly kingdom of Israel? Or the heavenly kingdom of God . . . of which the kingdom of Israel was but a shadow?

Agreed, but it is one that will reject any answer that is not in line with their favored view no matter how biblcally based and historically accurate it is. The answer is both.. a heavenly and earthly Kingdom.

 

[OldRegular]

I merely gave one verse as requested that can prove a second earthly kingdom to be and I did just that.

You are mistaken. Read the OP again. I asked nothing about a second earthly kingdom though I would be happy to discuss that on another thread. The question I asked had to do with the dispensational doctrine regarding the incarnation.

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’ or “intercalculation?” 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.

 

[Amy.G]

You are mistaken. Read the OP again. I asked nothing about a second earthly kingdom though I would be happy to discuss that on another thread. The question I asked had to do with the dispensational doctrine regarding the incarnation.

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’ or “intercalculation?” 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.

This sounds like the church was plan B for God. Did I read that correctly?

I think it was God's plan from before the foundation of the world to take the Jews and the Gentiles and make one new man through Jesus Christ. There are no plan b's in God's plan. Just MHO.

 

[OldRegular]

This sounds like the church was plan B for God. Did I read that correctly?

I think it was God's plan from before the foundation of the world to take the Jews and the Gentiles and make one new man through Jesus Christ. There are no plan b's in God's plan. Just MHO.

You are correct Amy. There was no plan B.

 

[Me4Him]

Dispensationalists argue that Jesus Christ came to offer the earthly Messianic Kingdom, that His offer was rejected and that He instituted the parenthesis form of the Kingdom, the Church, instead. Can someone or anyone show one passage of Scripture where Jesus Christ definitively offered an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews? Or am I just:BangHead: :BangHead:

Old Regular, Good to see you and "ED" are still "alive and kicking". :wavey:

Jesus was sent only the "lost sheep of the house of Israel", now suppose they had not rejected him, what do you suppose would have occurred???

Would Jesus have gone back to heaven to remain there, or would he have stayed on the earth, and established a literal kingdom with him reigning???


God chose Israel to be a "light to the world", but they rejected that offer when they rejected Jesus, but suppose they had accepted him, would the church today be the "light of the world" or would Israel be that light???

Speculation about what "might have been" is just that "Speculation", but the possibility existed or Jesus would have never made the offer.

God's "Foreknowledge" allows him to plan things within the "context" of what he knows is going to occur, Calvinist interpret this as "predestination", but then Jesus couldn't have made the offer against what God had "predestined" not to occur.

Personally, I think Jesus would have stayed on the earth and Israel would have filled the role the church plays today.

During the Mill reign people will still refuse to keep the "feast of tabernacles" and no rain will fall on them, so "SIN" can/will exit even with Jesus physically reigning here on earth.

Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Zec 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


Did I get close to answering your question???

 

[OldRegular]

Me4Him

I am still looking for that one passage of Scripture where Jesus Christ definitively offered an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews?

 

[Me4Him]

Me4Him

I am still looking for that one passage of Scripture where Jesus Christ definitively offered an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews?

Mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Lu 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Do you see any differences in these "KINGDOMS"??

We will be "IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN", while the "KINGDOM OF GOD IS IN US".

One is a "Literal Kingdom", while the other is a "Spiritual Kingdom".

Mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Does that answer your question???

 

[Amy.G]

The kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are the same Kingdom. There are not two kingdoms. Furthermore, the term "kingdom of heaven" is only used in the book of Matthew.
These verses prove they are the same.

Mar 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
Mar 4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:


Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:


These are Jesus' words. He considered them the same kingdom.

 

[Me4Him]

The kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are the same Kingdom. There are not two kingdoms. Furthermore, the term "kingdom of heaven" is only used in the book of Matthew.
These verses prove they are the same.

Mar 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
Mar 4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:


Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:


These are Jesus' words. He considered them the same kingdom.

Israel doesn't accept God as being Jesus, because in their mind they are "Different", however they are the "SAME".

But the confusion can go both ways, You don't see any difference between them,

but the "Spiritual Kingdom" was never promised to Israel, Jesus/church is a "Mystery" to Israel,

Only a "literal Kingdom" was ever promised to Israel, and that is what Jesus offer to them.

The "TRINITY" principle, the differences, yet being the same, is used to explains a lot more than just "GOD/Jesus".

 

[Allan]

This sounds like the church was plan B for God. Did I read that correctly?

I think it was God's plan from before the foundation of the world to take the Jews and the Gentiles and make one new man through Jesus Christ. There are no plan b's in God's plan. Just MHO.

Amy, that is Old Regs definition and poor understanding of Dispy and of course is not close (if ever) to what they 'actually' believe and hold.

Read some actaul Dispys like McArthur, or Ryrie or a host of others that are main line and not hyper-dipsy like those Hal Linsey, 700 Club, and so on and so forth.

Also, the term "dispensation" simply means the manner in which God dealt with men at different times (which is the same manner in which Paul the apostle used it). It isn't talking about a plan A and a plan B but that God has One Plan in which He has set forth differently (regarding methods not means - as in by grace through faith) at different times.
A quote from MacArthur when asked "what is Dispensationalism:

Dispensationalism is a system of biblical interpretation that sees a distinction between God’s program for Israel and His dealings with the church. It’s really as simple as that.

A dispensation is the plan of God by which He administers His rule within a given era in His eternal program. Dispensations are not periods of time, but different administrations in the eternal outworking of God’s purpose. It is especially crucial to note that the way of salvation–by grace through faith–is the same in every dispensation. God’s redemptive plan remains unchanged, but the way He administers it will vary from one dispensation to another.

Dispensationalists note that Israel was the focus of God’s redemptive plan in one dispensation. The church, consisting of redeemed people including Jews and Gentiles, is the focus in another. All dispensationalists believe at least one dispensation is still future–during the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, known as the millennium, in which Israel will once again play a pivotal role.

 

[Allan]

Here is another where MacArthur was asked about the differences between biblical Dispensationalism and popular dispensationalism (which is called hyper-dispensationalism and or 'old Dispinsationalism'):
The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-13, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright 1992 by John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.

Question

Could you define biblical dispensationalism and contrast that with (if there’s any contrast to be made)…with popular dispensationalism?

Answer

Yes, biblical dispensationalism as compared to popular dispensationalism. Popular dispensationalism isn’t very popular…any more. But the old popular dispensationalism--and some of you know that the word “dispensation” simply refers to stewardships--and the idea was that God functioned, through the history of redemption, in different ways.

For example, the old dispensations were innocence. In other words, there was a time before the fall when man was innocent. And God mediated His rule on earth to man in an innocent condition and treated him as innocent. Then came sin, and then you had conscience. The dispensation of conscience meant that God was working with man, who now had a conscience that could tell right from wrong. That’s why he made clothes, covered himself, hid in the garden--he had a guilty conscience.

Then, in order to control man, God brought in the next dispensation, which I think was human government. And God ordained certain systems of government to control this sinful being--to wrap him up, tie him down…and part of that human government had to do with capital punishment, which was really the first criminal law that God instituted: if people take life, you better take their life as well, and that will preserve the dignity of man and respect for the image of God in created men. So, then you have human government. Human government was then followed by the dispensation of law, which is followed by the dispensation of grace, which is followed by the dispensation of the kingdom, which is followed by the dispensation of the eternal state--the new heavens and the new earth. All in all, there were seven dispensations that somebody figured out and laid them all out that way.

That’s fine. I mean, I can look at that, you can look at that, right, and you can say, “Well, that’s fine, I can see God working with Adam before the fall, working with Adam after the fall…God working with Moses before the cross, during the time of the law, God working after the cross, through the new covenant in Christ. I can see God working uniquely in the kingdom and then finally in the eternal state.” We all can see that.

It’s what you do with those categories that becomes problematic. Some of the old-fashioned dispensationalists made those categories too hard and fast. And they also assumed that maybe God saved people different ways in different times. There were people who believed that there was no grace in the Old Testament and there’s no law in the New Testament. And they drew these hard and fast lines. That kind of dispensationalism has really been refined and there are only vestiges of it hanging on today--it’s being very often redefined. It’s not that it’s wrong to see those ways in which God operated; it’s just wrong to put too much into them: to come up with different means of salvation and all kinds of different covenants by which God saves…it gets too complex and you can’t support it scripturally.

That’s what made, for example, people say, “The book of Matthew has nothing to do with the church. The book of Matthew is irrelevant to us. It has the sermon on the mount, for example: it’s all about the kingdom age, it’s all about the millennium--it tells people how to live in the millennium…don’t pay any attention to it now, it’s not for us.” That’s a form of dispensationalism.

In fact, when I wrote the book, The Gospel According to Jesus, some people, one very prominent Bible teacher came to me and said, “What do we care what the gospel according to Jesus was? We’re not in that dispensation. That was the dispensation of the New Testament. We’re in the dispensation of the church that started at Pentecost” (they’ve got that dispensation; I should have added that one) “We’re in the dispensation of the church. Jesus lived in the prior dispensation; what He taught is only relevant to His dispensation and the kingdom to come when He’ll return, and it isn’t relevant to us, so your arguments about the gospel according to Jesus don’t matter to us. The sermon on the mount tells us how to live in the kingdom age or the future, or how to live in the past when Jesus is on earth; it says nothing about the church.”

That’s the danger in dispensationalism: it begins to hack the Bible up and cut it into pieces. And then there’s all kinds of forms of that known as hyper-dispensationalism, Bullingerism, the Campbellites, and all those people who just got carried away. They eliminated baptism, they eliminated the Lord’s table because they said that stuff is in the past dispensation, not the present dispensation…you start chewing the Bible up and splitting it into little pieces.

Now, what is a proper dispensational viewpoint? I’ll put it to you very simply. The whole of my dispensationalism can be stated in one sentence: it is a distinction between the Church and Israel. Period. That is it. That’s really all you need. And in the new book called Faith Works, “the Gospel According to the Apostles” is a chapter on dispensationalism, which will answer your question. And, I think all we need to do is keep the church and Israel distinct. And, secondly, if you just wanted a little corollary, see more continuity between the old covenant and the new covenant. There is more continuity there than the old dispensationalists who said there is discontinuity. At the end of the old covenant, whack! You have the end of law, you start the new--it’s all grace. I see there’s much more of a flow. There’s grace in the old, there’s law in the new. In the old, they were saved by grace; Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, did he not? And that’s how he was redeemed. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Salvation was always by grace through faith, even in the dispensation of law, the age of law. And today, we’re under grace. We’re not under law as a means of salvation, but we’re obligated to keep the law out of obedience to God.

The overlap if very clear. So, I see more continuity there (and I don’t want to get too technical here) than the old dispensationalists, but maintaining the clear distinction between Israel and the church, which is a hermeneutical issue. If the Bible says that God is going to give a kingdom to Israel, I believe He means Israel and not the church. So, we have to maintain that hermeneutical distinction. And, beyond that, you really don’t need to go. If you just distinguish between the church and Israel, you’re going to be safe. That’ll carry you all the way from the past clear through eschatology and you won’t lose your moorings.

 

[OldRegular]

The kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are the same Kingdom. There are not two kingdoms. Furthermore, the term "kingdom of heaven" is only used in the book of Matthew.
These verses prove they are the same.

Mar 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
Mar 4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:


Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:


These are Jesus' words. He considered them the same kingdom.

Amy

You are 100% correct. The Gospel of Matthew normally speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven while the remaining three Gospels speak of the Kingdom of God. A comparison of the parables in the four Gospels clearly shows that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are identical. There is only one God and one Kingdom whether it is called the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Jesus Christ [Colossians 1:13]. Furthermore there is only one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ [Mark 1:1; Acts 20:24; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 9:12; Galatians 1:8]. Perhaps it will be worthwhile to note a few of these passages.

Mark 1:1, 14
1. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
14. Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

Romans 1:16
16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Galatians 1:8
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

[OldRegular]

Here is another where MacArthur was asked about the differences between biblical Dispensationalism and popular dispensationalism (which is called hyper-dispensationalism and or 'old Dispinsationalism'):
The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-13, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright 1992 by John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.

I think that I posted on this thread earlier that God deals with man through Covenants. One cannot read the Scripture and come up with the so called dispensations, they are the invention of Darby/Scofield.

I admire MacArthur and have half dozen of his books. He is very good in his discussion of most Scripture. Unfortunately he is incorrect in his dispensationalism. MacArthur claims to believe in literal interpretation [though his definition is somewhat different than Ryrie] but when it comes to the interpretation of John 5:28, 29, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, he forgets literal interpretation and states basically that "an hour" does not mean "an hour". Sad.:tear: