Questions for Dispensationalists

[Grasshopper]

6. Physical. What exactly is "heavenly" land -- and how could Abraham have conceived of it?

JDale

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

 

[swaimj]

Was the mission of the Messiah not mentioned by the Prophets?

You tell me. Where did the Prophets mention that the mission of the Messiah was to begin the church? I am not aware of a passage like this.

Are you aware that Dispie Theologians say the New Covenant has not yet been made? Since you disagree with Ryrie and others then you do believe the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

Some dispensationalists say the NC has not yet begun and other dispensationalists disagree. I think the NC HAS been inaugurated though not all of its features have been fulfilled. This question is not a defining feature of dispensationalism.

 

[swaimj]

Grasshopper, did God promise Abraham a physical land?

 

[Grasshopper]

You tell me. Where did the Prophets mention that the mission of the Messiah was to begin the church? I am not aware of a passage like this.

What is life in the church like? Is it not what the prophets predicted?

John Gill commenting on a portion of Acts 3:25:

have likewise foretold of these days; of the days of the Messiah, of his person, office, incarnation, obedience, sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension, the pouring down of the Spirit, the times of refreshing, the Gospel dispensation, the conversion of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and the gathering in all the elect of God.


Again, why does Paul quote from the OT so much if it speaks nothing of the Church?

Some dispensationalists say the NC has not yet begun and other dispensationalists disagree. I think the NC HAS been inaugurated though not all of its features have been fulfilled. This question is not a defining feature of dispensationalism.

It is fundamental to dipsensationalism, though many can't see why. If the New Covenant has been established dispensationalism crumbles. Glad to see you believe the New Covenant of Jer. 31 has been established.

Now perhaps you can show me where the prophets or Jesus ever taught the New Covenant was to be inaugurated but not fulfilled nor would it be for 1000s of years.

Grasshopper, did God promise Abraham a physical land?

Yes, and he dwelt there:


Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Yet the writer of Hebrews says they never recieved the promise:

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

We live where Abraham longed to be:



Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

 

[Marcia]

Grasshopper, are we redeemed physically? I'm sure you will say yes. But is this manifested now? No, otherwise our bodies would not be aging and we would not have physical death.

The Kingdom was established by Jesus, as was the New Covenant, but the fulfillment of both of these has not been seen yet. The promise in Jer. 31 was offered to the Jews who rejected it (for the most part) but one day when "all Israel will be saved" they will be part of this new Covenant.

I see parallels of the Kingdom and the new Covenant with redemption: present and not yet -- not totally fulfilled physically.

At least this is where I am now; I am still studying and meditating on eschatology.

 

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper, are we redeemed physically? I'm sure you will say yes. But is this manifested now? No, otherwise our bodies would not be aging and we would not have physical death.

Is physical redemption part of the New Covenant promises?

The Kingdom was established by Jesus, as was the New Covenant, but the fulfillment of both of these has not been seen yet. The promise in Jer. 31 was offered to the Jews who rejected it (for the most part) but one day when "all Israel will be saved" they will be part of this new Covenant.

Again, on what scripture do you base your belief that the New Covenant would be fulfilled 1000s of years after its establishment? When God establishes a Covenant does it not begin immediately? Secondly where does it state in scripture that the New Covenant was dependent on Jewish acceptance?

 

[Humblesmith]

2. You say Jesus did come to make a New Covenant and you say he succeded in doing so. Are you aware that Dispie Theologians say the New Covenant has not yet been made? Since you disagree with Ryrie and others then you do believe the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

A bit of a clarification. Darby taught that there was only one new covenant and it applied only to Israel. Chafer taught that there was two new covenants, one with Israel and one with the church. I know of no one today that teaches either view. So whitewashing all dispensationalists with these views is incorrect. All dispensationalists today that I know of believe the same as Walvoord, Hoekma, Poythress, and Geisler, who all teach that there is one new covenant, made with Israel, applied to the church, which is applied with the church and will be completed in the future with Israel. I believe Scofield and Ryrie hold to this view, but I'd have to check.

So the statement that dispies hold that the new covenant "has not yet been made" is not precise. They all hold that it has been made. A few of the old ones (none of the current ones) hold that it does not apply to the church, and all hold that it will be completed in the future.

I'm not sure what your last sentence means.

 

[Grasshopper]

Humblesmith]All dispensationalists today that I know of believe the same as Walvoord, Hoekma, Poythress, and Geisler, who all teach that there is one new covenant, made with Israel, applied to the church, which is applied with the church and will be completed in the future with Israel. I believe Scofield and Ryrie hold to this view, but I'd have to check.

So the statement that dispies hold that the new covenant "has not yet been made" is not precise. They all hold that it has been made. A few of the old ones (none of the current ones) hold that it does not apply to the church, and all hold that it will be completed in the future.

Where does scripture say it will be completed in the future? What is left to be completed in your view?

I'm not sure what your last sentence means.

My last sentence:

Since you disagree with Ryrie and others then you do believe the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

Jer 31:31 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:

Perhaps someone with a Ryrie Study Bible can tell us exactly what his comments are but if memory serves me right, he says this is a future event. Is this a different New Covenant that what Jesus established?

 

[Marcia]

Is physical redemption part of the New Covenant promises?

I was using that as an analogy.

Again, on what scripture do you base your belief that the New Covenant would be fulfilled 1000s of years after its establishment? When God establishes a Covenant does it not begin immediately? Secondly where does it state in scripture that the New Covenant was dependent on Jewish acceptance

The New Covenant could not be made with Israel because they rejected the Messiah. It was applied to the church (as Humblesmith says) and will be made (completed) in the future with Israel.

If you believe a New Covenant was made with Israel and Judah, then when and how was this NC made? Do you say that the church is Israel or replaces it?

 

[Grasshopper]

The New Covenant could not be made with Israel because they rejected the Messiah. It was applied to the church (as Humblesmith says) and will be made (completed) in the future with Israel.

Since when does God need the approval of man to make a covenant? Where does scripture ever state the New Covenant was dependent on Jewish acceptance? By the way the early Church was Jewish

If you believe a New Covenant was made with Israel and Judah, then when and how was this NC made?

Jesus made the covenant with His blood.

Luk 22:20 In like manner, also, the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup is the new covenant in my blood, that for you is being poured forth.

Heb 12:24 and to a mediator of a new covenant--Jesus, and to blood of sprinkling, speaking better things than that of Abel!

Read Hebrews 8.

Do you say that the church is Israel or replaces it?

The Church is the fulfillment of the promises made to Old Covenant Israel.


Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[swaimj]

Some responses:

Where did the Prophets mention that the mission of the Messiah was to begin the church?

Grasshopper, this is one of my original questions to you. You have not answered it. Please answer this question.

have likewise foretold of these days; …the conversion of the Jews…

Grasshopper, this is part of your quote from John Gill. I ask you, have the Jews been converted? I think not!

It is fundamental to dipsensationalism,

Humblesmith has answered you very well in response to your notion that an unfulfilled NC is essential to dispensationalism. As H said, you will have a difficult time finding any living, published dispensational writer who holds this view which you say they must hold.

Yes, and he dwelt there

Abraham did dwell within the boundaries of what God promised him, but the nation of Israel has NEVER completely possessed the land God promised Abraham. Either God has yet to fulfill this promise or God is a liar. Is there any other option?

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Church does not replaced Israel. Israel is expanded. Because God grafted Gentiles into tree join with Jews, SO, all Israel is saved- please read whole Romans chapter 11.

Grasshopper is right. Christ already made new covenant with many by his Blood - Calvary 2000 years ago. Even, Jeremiah chapter 31 already fulfilled by Calvary.

I suggest you to read throughout Hebrews chapter 8 thru chapter 10 did talking about covenant.

The new covenant is already under effected since Calvary, not suppose waititng till Second Advent.

New Covenant is not just for Jews only, also, include Gentiles, that means it is for us all.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[Grasshopper]

Some responses:Grasshopper, this is one of my original questions to you. You have not answered it. Please answer this question.

You are correct, nowhere in the OT does a Prophet say " the Messiah will come and establish the Church". Now answer my questions that I asked of you:

1. What is life in the church like? Is it not what the prophets predicted?

2. Again, why does Paul quote from the OT so much if it speaks nothing of the Church?

3. Where does scripture teach what you think:

"I think the NC HAS been inaugurated though not all of its features have been fulfilled."


Please answer.

Grasshopper, this is part of your quote from John Gill. I ask you, have the Jews been converted? I think not!

That would be a suprise to the early church since they were all Jews. Tell us, who living today are directly linked to Old Covenant Jews to whom you believe are the recepients of this New Covenant?

Humblesmith has answered you very well in response to your notion that an unfulfilled NC is essential to dispensationalism. As H said, you will have a difficult time finding any living, published dispensational writer who holds this view which you say they must hold.

Could be, they keep changing. Progressive Dispensationalism is now the flavor of the month.

Abraham did dwell within the boundaries of what God promised him, but the nation of Israel has NEVER completely possessed the land God promised Abraham. Either God has yet to fulfill this promise or God is a liar. Is there any other option?

The other option is you are wrong.

Jos 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

How would those who take the Bible "literally" interpret the above passage?


What did Jesus come to do? If the Church was not spoken of by the prophets then clearly that was not what the Messiah came to establish, yet the Church was established. We are left with the fact that Jesus failed to accomplish what He came to do,evidently because of Jewish rejection. What was the will of the Father? Did Jesus accomplish the will of the Father? Jesus certainly thought He did.

 

[skypair]

Grasshopper is right. Christ already made new covenant with many by his Blood - Calvary 2000 years ago. Even, Jeremiah chapter 31 already fulfilled by Calvary.

You are speaking, of course, of Dan 9:27 so please lay out the "week" for us.

• If you take the cross to be "caus[ing] the sacrifice and the oblation to cease," then you must be saying that He made the covenant when He was baptized by John 3 1/2 years earlier, no? Does that make sense to you?
  
• And if that is the point at which Jesus or God "confirmed" the covenant, how come during Jesus ministry NNE was indwelt with the Holy Spirit by the covenant of Jer 31???
  
• However, if Jesus "confirmed" the covenant at the cross, then the "midst of the week" is 3 1/2 years later and ... what?? The temple was destroyed 37 years later! And what happened 3 1/2 years after "midweek" of the "one week" confirmed covenant which, if God or Christ made it, would designate yet another event happening! I mean, you do know that God KEEPS His covenants, don't you? He didn't confirm the NC for only 1 week and He didn't confirm the OC at all in 7 years.

Y'all, I will understand if you don't/can't respond. You have believed a HUMAN scheme that is not well thought out but IS "plugged into" scripture to subvert the innocent.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Jos 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

How would those who take the Bible "literally" interpret the above passage?

It leaves out of the promise 1) "thou" meaning Abraham will one day possess the land and 2) "thy seed forever" which means not just those who entered after Egypt but all Israel of all ages will possess the land (Hence Isa 49:20).

What did Jesus come to do? If the Church was not spoken of by the prophets then clearly that was not what the Messiah came to establish, yet the Church was established.

He came to set up His earthly kingdom. John the Baptist, Jesus, 12 disciples and 70 disciples were sent out to proclaim just that!

We are left with the fact that Jesus failed to accomplish what He came to do,evidently because of Jewish rejection.

Apparently it hasn't been pointed out to you at what point Jesus was rejected and began to speak of a SPIRITUAL kingdom instead. Having given the "laws" of the kingdom He came to establish in Mt 5-7, He was rejected in Mt 12 and declared His spiritual kingdom in called "the kingdom of heaven" in Mt 13. See, this is where you could really profit from a dispensational perspective of God's plan.

What was the will of the Father? Did Jesus accomplish the will of the Father? Jesus certainly thought He did.

The will of the Father is being revealed to Christ dispensationally as well. The Father exists in "eternity" -- seeing all things all the time, "supra-temporally." The Son exists temporally -- in time. God revealed His rejection to Jesus in point-of-time in Mt 12. The trinity still exists as 3 distinct Persons.

skypair

 

[Humblesmith]

So many interesting questions. I'll do my best.

Regarding Joshua 21:43: It must be that he was speaking of the boundaries made with Moses in Numbers 34, and not the boudaries made with Abraham. This is because right after this, in Judges 1, they were still trying to drive out the inhabitants of the land. Further, In Jer. 11 and Amos 9 both repeat prophecies about the land, which would indicate the land promises were not totally fulfilled in Joshua. And in Romans 11:25 ff, Paul still speaks of it as future.

Next, we must distinguish between the kingdom and the covenant, for they are not one and the same. The new covenant is indeed in effect today, as has been pointed out here. It is a new covenant in Jesus blood, which He initiated at the upper room, and 2 Cor. 3 and Hebrews says applies to believers today. However, the messianic kingdom has both a current spiritual application (My kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36); The kingdom is within you (Lk 17:20-21)) and it has a future literal fulfillment (when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, and the apostles sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, Matt. 19:28). This is true because of the following:
--The disciples were still asking about it in Acts 1, and Jesus didn't correct them;
--Peter was still offering a literal kingdom in Acts 3:19-26 (When Jesus comes He will "restore everything")
--2 Tim 4:1 implies Jesus will appear and restore His kingdom;
--Many passages in the OT speak of a literal, national kingdom, with a government, borders, tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, etc. To make these mean different than what they literally say is to wrench the text.

So, most of the statements about whether the NC is currently established or still future are confusing the current NC with the future messianic kingdom.

Regarding the question "Why does Paul quote from the OT so much if it speaks nothing of the church," this is a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow. For example, just because Paul quotes from the OT does not mean that everything in the NT was predicted in the old. This argument would only be true if the OT quotes specifically speak of the church (which I think was Swaimj's original question). So this question does not answer Swainj's question. However, Paul does specifically speak of mysteries that were not known in the OT, and he specifically says in Eph.2 that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles, with Jesus as the cornerstone. So the church was not specifically known in the OT, but established with Christ and the apostles in the NT. All Abraham knew was that "through you all the nations of the earth will be blessed" but he didn't know how.

Regarding "if the New Covenant has been established dispensationalism crumbles," I don't understand how this could be, since most dispensationalists believe it is currently established. Again, don't confuse the NC with the messianic kingdom.

Regarding whether life in the church is like what the OT prophets predicted, the answer is yes, it is similar to it. But it is not the same as, since the OT prophets clearly spoke of a nation, forever, with the tribe of Judah, from a mountain called Zion, controlling the Nile to the Euphrates. So there are many similarities and many differences. The Mosaic covenant has been replaced by the new, but not the Abrahamic or Davidic.

 

[Amy.G]

and it has a future literal fulfillment (when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, and the apostles sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, Matt. 19:28).

How can you say it has a future fulfillment?


Eph 1:20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated [Him] at His right hand in the heavenly [places,]
Col 3:1 IF then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.


Christ is already seated at the right hand of God and already has a kingdom.

 

[webdog]

How can you say it has a future fulfillment?


Eph 1:20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated [Him] at His right hand in the heavenly [places,]
Col 3:1 IF then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.


Christ is already seated at the right hand of God and already has a kingdom.

There is no Theocracy on Earth, as will be the case. Christ will be THE King to come through David, and it's not figurative but literal.

 

[Amy.G]

There is no Theocracy on Earth, as will be the case. Christ will be THE King to come through David, and it's not figurative but literal.

I never implied it was figurative. Christ is a literal king with a literal kingdom and it's literally not of this world.

 

[webdog]

I never implied it was figurative. Christ is a literal king with a literal kingdom and it's literally not of this world.

...yet Scripture states it will be here on Earth one day. That's a physical kingdom, on a physical earth, with physical new bodies.

Regardless of one's eschatology...I think it's important to study what Heaven is, and will be in God's plan. Randy Alcorn has a great book called Heaven. He doesn't get into eschatology at all, but what the Bible has to say about Heaven (which is more than you would believe). When looking at what Heaven is and will be, amillenialism doesn't hold water. For me it was reverse eschatology...studying the outcome then the views.