Featured Pre-Trib Rapture and the Early Church Fathers.

It seems that Enns got his material on Poiret from Ryrie's Dispensationalism Today, pages 71-76.

A much more interesting study with plenty of references is the other link I gave you:
http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf

He compares Scofield with Watts and pretty much leaves Darby out of the picture.

 

Thanks. I'll check it out later.

Of course the truthfulness of Dispensationalism does not rest on when or by who it was systematized, but on it's conformity to scripture. Of course you'll disagree, but I believe dispensationalism clearly fails that test.

 

You need to read some of dispensationalist author, Dr. Thomas Ice's writings regarding the revelation Darby claimed during his convalescence from falling off a horse. I know, I know you will not accept what he says but ????????

 

I have said repeatedly that dispensational doctrine does not flow naturally from the study of Scripture, therefore, to must be taught. Scripture teaches that God deals with man through Covenants, not dispensations.

 

The concept that God replaced isreal with the Church, or else that the Church is spiritual Isreal does not "flow naturally" from reading the scriptures though either!

 

Yep

Reread Galatians. In a translation you aren't used to.

 

What translation are you using here?

 

You mean on this board? I typically post using the NASB or HCSB.

When I study I mainly use the NASB but compare it with the HCSB, ESV, and KJV.

 

That is your opinion. I believe it is wrong. I believe the opposite is true. The covenants were given to Israel. The only covenant given to NT believers is our relationship with Christ. It stops there. The church and Israel are separate entities. One is not an extension of the other. And one certainly does not replace the other.

 

The Noahic Covenant was to Israel? That was a covenant with all creation. Israel according to the flesh didn't even exist yet!
The Abrahamic Covenant is to Israel? Gal 3 clearly says that the One who inherits the promises of that covenant is the Lord Jesus himself along with those who are united to Christ by faith.
The Davidic Covenant was to Israel? It was a covenant personally made to David that his son would sit on his throne and reign. Typologically fulfilled in Solomon and spiritually fulfilled in Christ.
The New Covenant is only for Israel? It is for all those who receive forgiveness through the shed blood of Christ.

The ONLY Covenant given to ONLY Israel was the Mosaic. And that Covenant has been fulfilled, completed, and vanished away.

And Romans 11 and Ephesians 2 clearly refute your idea that we are not an extension of faithful Israel. One tree, we've been grafted in. One new body, with the partition broken down.

 

The Church does not replace Spiritual Israel, it is a continuation of Spiritual Israel. If you would understand the parable of the olive tree in Romans you would understand that truth. Also you might consider what Scripture teaches in the following:

Romans 2:28, 29
28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Philippians 3:3. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Colossians 2:10, 11
10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

 

Excellent response. And then there is what some call the Adamic Covenant of Genesis 3:14-21. However, the promise in Genesis 3:15 is what I believe to be the initiation in time of the Covenant of Grace. Genesis 3 vividly demonstrates the Grace of God in redemption.

 

Thank you.

I'm uncertain about an Adamic covenant, but I do know what you mean. Also the Covenant of Grace is one place where we disagree brother.

 

I anticipated such an answer. Yes there were covenants before Abraham. We are not referring to those covenants.
The Bible does not contradict itself:

Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
--The covenants pertain to Israel. They started with Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation.

Your other NT references simply support my view, or are taken out of context. There are only three references in the NT that refer to "covenants."
Romans 9:4--specifically to Israel.
Gal.4:24--specifically to the NT believer as I have already pointed out.
Eph.2:12--again referring to Israel, but a reference taken entirely out of context.

Gal.4:24: Paul is using an allegory.
Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
--He specifically states that this is a figure of speech, a comparison.
It was Sarah and her promised seed that came to Jerusalem; It was Hagar and Ishmael that opposed them.
The law was given at Mount Sinai. Though holy, it could never be kept. The law was bondage. It could not set them free.
Now, Hagar and Ishmael were cast out. We are no longer under the law. We are made free from the law.

As Hagar brought forth a slave under the law, so Sarah brought forth a son, the child of promise.
We are heirs to that child of promise.
The promise is twofold. It is the promise of the millennial Kingdom,
It is a personal promise of a personal relationship with Christ. We are free from the law.

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
--I simply ask you to read this chapter carefully without prejudice.
He is writing to the local church in Ephesus. He is writing about unity.
He is writing to Jewish believers and Gentile believers. The Gentile believers indeed were without hope, alienated from Israel, and from the covenants, etc.
Now in Christ both Jewish believers and Gentile believers are one in Christ. The wall between THEM is broken down. There was to be no more prejudice, not more division. They were one in Christ.

 

Herein is your problem:
Parables do not teach doctrine. They only illustrate doctrine that already has been taught. If you base your doctrine on parables then you are clearly wrong.

 

The New Covenant superceded/rendered obsolate the Old One God had established with Israel, so there is no continuation going on, but that there is a new creation called the church where jews/Gentiles now made one in Christ...

That does NOT negate though the promises God made to one day restore nation Israel back to land, and to become nation of God under Messiah again!

 

Actually we are, because even the Noahic covenant finds it ultimate fulfillment in Christ. If there is an Adamic Covenant, then it too finds it fulfillment in Christ.

No one is denying that at all. Yes the covenant with Abraham applied physically to Israel, and of course the Mosaic Covenant was made with Israel, and of course the Davidic Covenant was made with an Israeli king. But that doesn't mean the covenants never expand beyond those that a physically jews. They were the type, the physical fulfillment. The New Testament is loud and clear that Christ is the complete fulfillment of all he covenants and those who are identified with him receive the promises. Read the next couple verses and you see that "not all Israel is Israel" and that the "children of promise" are the true seed.

Every time anyone tries to point to you the passages that explain the expansion of the scope of the covenants, you run to this verse as if it alone disproves the others. It does not.

You're dreaming if you think those are the only references to the covenants.

This has nothing to do with the millennial Kingdom. I don't know how on earth you get that. Paul is contrasting the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant. The Christians are heirs according to the promise and receive the better Covenant that frees us from bondage. But this says nothing about who inherits the covenant promises given to Abraham.

If you go one chapter earlier you will clearly see that it is those who have the faith of Abraham, that is Christians, who receive the promises.

EXACTLY! We are one! We are one household! You are wrong however to say that this is only dealing with the believers in Ephesus. That's lunacy. How could something like this apply only there and not to every other local church and the universal church? We Gentiles were cut off from the covenants, but now we are brought in to the household of God. How do you not see then that in this one new body, the church, not only is there no division (Which you deny with your two people of God system) but that all in this one new body receives the promises?

 

You base that on Scripture of course... 2 Coronas 3:16???

How about when Jesus explained why he taught in parables... to REVEAL and conceal (not illustrate). Matt. 13 was some brand new doctrine. Not just illustrations.

 

DHK is right on this , as parables should NOT be used to build a theological point on, use the Epistles for that!

 

The Covenant made by Jesus, New One, has granted to us all of the spiritual promises/provisions, but the physical promises are to the actual physical descendants of Abraham!