The Parenthesis Church

[OldRegular]

Allan,

Your post is implying doctrine I cannot accept. Jesus Christ came preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. He preached that Gospel after His Resurrection. In your mind that means that the Kingdom will be restored to Israel in some millennial kingdom. You say:

So, after Jesus spent the last 40 days teaching these disciples about the Kingdom of God (what it was, is, and will come to pass)... we see the disciples come to him and ask - when he will RESTORE -again- the Kingdom to Israel.

It is little wonder that Jesus Christ spent 40 days teaching His disciples and Apostles the things of the Kingdom of God. They understood little of what He taught them prior to His Crucifixion and Resurrection. At last He has their attention.

You say later:

Just on Acts 1 alone, there is no dispute that Jesus taught of a literal physical Kingdom of Israel HE will re-establish. We know this because the disciples wanted to know when He was planning on 'restoring again' the Kingdom to Israel.

If you see anything in Acts 1 that teaches a literal physical kingdom please post it. And it really doesn't have to be pretty like mine!

You also say:

To 'restore again', is hugely significant and means that at one time it existed but either has been take away or become so weak and without power it is no longer has authority and has another ruler over it. Now the question is, what is it that will be 'again' that no longer was or has become weak and powerless and lame.. the Kingdom of Israel. And the fact they asked when 'HE" was going to restore it, coincided with the OT prophesies regarding the Messiah.

I present 7 passages of Scripture showing that Jesus Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and you say they are pretty. Yet you tell me the two words "restore again" are significant. Talking about the kingdom of Israel is meaningless. They had not been a kingdom in a physical sense since they went into captivity; 722 BC for the northern kingdom and 587 BC for the southern kingdom. THe only sense in which they were related to the Kingdom of God in that time frame, whether it was present or not, until the ministry of Jesus Christ was as Paul said unto them were committed the oracles of God.

You state further:

On this a unique question must be asked.. Who is Israel?

You ask a pertinent question. The Apostle Paul tells us: For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: I believe there were two Israels, National Israel and the true believers among National Israel. It is not always clear, if ever, in the Old Testament which one is being addressed.

Well, if it is the Church.. then you have a very large biblical problem because according to this passage the Kingdom was either taken away from the Church or that the Kingdom had become weak and retched and another OTHER than God had taken control, therefore needed Jesus to restore it AGAIN - or bring it back into being because in either case - it no longer truly existed.

I have never claimed that the Church is related in any way to National Israel other than that the Nation Israel, and then the Jews, were simply a means for God to bring Jesus Christ into the world. Once that happened God's purpose for national Israel was finished. I believe the Church is the continuation of Spiritual Israel as Paul shows in the parable of the olive trees.

If it is literal national Israel.. well we find biblical continuity and don't have the Kingdom being taken away from the Church and asking when He will restore it again to us.

Anyway.. since we 'know' the Kingdom of God has never been removed and that it was NOTat any time no longer in existence (whether literally or in a weakened state and the rule was usurped) , we know that this was speaking NOT of spiritual Israel often called the church but of literal physical Israel.

Then there is a problem. Was the Kingdom of God present prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom of God is not mentioned as such in the Old Testament. It appears from numerous passages in the New Testament that the presence of the Kingdom of God depended on the Incarnation.

Jesus Christ told the pharisees: Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. [Matthew 21:43] This certainly implies that the Kingdom of God was associated with Israel but bigger mistakes have been made in interpreting Scripture. Both Adam Clarke and John Gill say that this Scripture means that the Gospel was taken from Israel. That certainly makes sense since Israel had rejected and murdered the One who brought it. In fact it is much more believable than your statement, and I repeat:

Just on Acts 1 alone, there is no dispute that Jesus taught of a literal physical Kingdom of Israel HE will re-establish. We know this because the disciples wanted to know when He was planning on 'restoring again' the Kingdom to Israel.

I have presented Scripture showing that Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to Gentiles in Rome after he was rejected by the Jews there. He preached the same Gospel to Jew and Gentile, the only Gospel there is. The Kingdom of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are inexorably bound just as the Gospel and the Church are inexorably bound.

Jesus Christ told the Jews that the Kingdom was taken from them. Gill's interpretation that in this case the Kingdom of God was the Gospel of Jesus Christ is certainly plausible. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that a literal kingdom [of God?] will be restored to national Israel or that they will ever preach the Gospel. In fact only believers can preach the Gospel,

 

[Bronconagurski]

OR, how do you answer the bolded question by Chafer?

2. Dispensation. Translated from the word οἰκονομία, meaning primarily stewardship, a dispensation is a specific, divine economy, a commitment from God to man of a responsibility to discharge that which God has appointed him. The Apostle declares of himself: “For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward” (Eph_3:1-2). A stewardship was committed to the Apostle for him to receive, formulate, and proclaim the sacred secret respecting the hitherto unrevealed fact and provisions of saving grace as they are demonstrated in the Church. In uncounted instances Covenant Theology is disturbed by the recognition of dispensational distinctions; even the new manifestation of divine grace becomes one of those disturbing features of truth. If there be, as Covenant theologians contend, but one covenant of grace and that covenant operating uniformly in every age, to what, indeed, must the Apostle be referring when he asserts that a dispensation respecting a hitherto unrevealed economy of divine grace is committed unto him? Regardless of an unproved and unscriptural notion which may be embraced by a great number of men who have done no more than to receive without investigation what is taught in their schools, in the present age God is making a distinct and peculiar demonstration of His grace through the Church, which is Christ's Body. “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God” (Eph_3:8-10). Thus it comes about by means of this company of redeemed Jews and Gentiles (Eph_3:6), which company has not existed as such in any other age, that the mystery or sacred secret, hidden from past ages, is made known and that revelation reaches to angelic hosts. Because past, present, and future ages (cf. Eph_1:10; Eph_3:1-6) are so clearly defined in the Scriptures, Covenant theologians acknowledge different ages or time-periods, but then they treat them as merely different ways of administering one and the same divine purpose. Regardless of every feature known to earlier ages, it will be seen that the Word of God builds all its doctrinal structure on an age past, a present age, and a future age. To deny these varied divisions, however, gathered as they are about the different revealed purposes of God, is to cease to be influenced duly by the precise Scripture which God has spoken.

 

[Iconoclast]

2. Dispensation. Translated from the word οἰκονομία, meaning primarily stewardship, a dispensation is a specific, divine economy, a commitment from God to man of a responsibility to discharge that which God has appointed him. The Apostle declares of himself: “For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward” (Eph_3:1-2). A stewardship was committed to the Apostle for him to receive, formulate, and proclaim the sacred secret respecting the hitherto unrevealed fact and provisions of saving grace as they are demonstrated in the Church. In uncounted instances Covenant Theology is disturbed by the recognition of dispensational distinctions; even the new manifestation of divine grace becomes one of those disturbing features of truth. If there be, as Covenant theologians contend, but one covenant of grace and that covenant operating uniformly in every age, to what, indeed, must the Apostle be referring when he asserts that a dispensation respecting a hitherto unrevealed economy of divine grace is committed unto him? Regardless of an unproved and unscriptural notion which may be embraced by a great number of men who have done no more than to receive without investigation what is taught in their schools, in the present age God is making a distinct and peculiar demonstration of His grace through the Church, which is Christ's Body. “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God” (Eph_3:8-10). Thus it comes about by means of this company of redeemed Jews and Gentiles (Eph_3:6), which company has not existed as such in any other age, that the mystery or sacred secret, hidden from past ages, is made known and that revelation reaches to angelic hosts. Because past, present, and future ages (cf. Eph_1:10; Eph_3:1-6) are so clearly defined in the Scriptures, Covenant theologians acknowledge different ages or time-periods, but then they treat them as merely different ways of administering one and the same divine purpose. Regardless of every feature known to earlier ages, it will be seen that the Word of God builds all its doctrinal structure on an age past, a present age, and a future age. To deny these varied divisions, however, gathered as they are about the different revealed purposes of God, is to cease to be influenced duly by the precise Scripture which God has spoken.

The Church is God's Eternal Purpose.From Genesis to Revelation the church is always in view. OT Israel [elect remnant]...Those elect before Ot Israel...
and NT believers form one new man that assembles on the last day.

 

[thomas15]

The Church is God's Eternal Purpose.From Genesis to Revelation the church is always in view. OT Israel [elect remnant]...Those elect before Ot Israel...
and NT believers form one new man that assembles on the last day.

And there you have it, the problem.

 

[OldRegular]

The Church is God's Eternal Purpose.From Genesis to Revelation the church is always in view. OT Israel [elect remnant]...Those elect before Ot Israel...
and NT believers form one new man that assembles on the last day.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

In Genesis 3:15 we have the first promise of God in time regarding the coming Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and the redemption of the elect. Those redeemed elect throughout time constitute the Church. The Baptist Faith and Message, adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000, states it as follows:

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

 

[InTheLight]

Allan,

Your post is implying doctrine I cannot accept. Jesus Christ came preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. He preached that Gospel after His Resurrection. In your mind that means that the Kingdom will be restored to Israel in some millennial kingdom.

Would you please address Allan's assertion that Acts 1:6 states that the kingdom of Israel will be restored? All you've done is dance around it by talking about the preaching of the kingdom of God, the definition of Israel, etc.

Since Christ said it would happen, in your mind, when will the Kingdom of Israel be restored?

 

[OldRegular]

Returning to the OP which has been sidetracked!:type:

Dispensational doctrine makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died, a parenthesis, an intercalation, an interruption in God’s program for Israel.

Much of Dispensational doctrine is the invention of John Nelson Darby of Plymouth England in the early 19th Century, a century when many “Christian” Cults were started: Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and Christian Science are the most notable.

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’ 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.

In the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Church at Ephesus God reveals to us His program for the Church of Jesus Christ.

11. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
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:
13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17. And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Sadly dispensationalism rebuilds that wall between Jew and Gentile that Jesus Christ broke down through His own Blood. Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Jews and the Church. 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 [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ]. Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: 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 distinctives; and the one who does will.

Dispensational doctrine indeed makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died, a parenthesis, an intercalation, an interruption in God’s program for Israel.

In the space remaining dispensationalists are encouraged to address their concerns about the OP from a historical and Biblical viewpoint!:godisgood:

I would note that the dispensational doctrine mentioned above is called classic dispensationalism. It is my understanding that progressive dispensationalism is moving away from this false doctrine!

 

[InTheLight]

Returning to the OP which has been sidetracked!

Oh, OK, no rebuttal to Allan's post.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Acts 1:6 is to the point as I see it.
The Apostles question both affirms and summarizes the essential teaching on the kingdom: The Lord Jesus would in the future establish an earthly kingdom centered in Israel.
In the book of Acts, we have both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. Israel is used many times and church many times as well, butthe two groups are always kept distinct.

 

[OldRegular]

Acts 1:6 is to the point as I see it.
The Apostles question both affirms and summarizes the essential teaching on the kingdom: The Lord Jesus would in the future establish an earthly kingdom centered in Israel.

What has that to do with the OP and the "parenthesis" Church or are you affirming your belief that the Church is indeed an "interruption" in God's plan for Israel?

 

[thomas15]

Returning to the OP which has been sidetracked

As I mentioned in another post, the OP exists for the purpose of the "sidetrack".

 

[Bob Alkire]

What has that to do with the OP and the "parenthesis" Church or are you affirming your belief that the Church is indeed an "interruption" in God's plan for Israel?

Just showing it isn't dispensationalism that rebuilds the walls, in the book of Acts alone they are kept apart.

Sadly dispensationalism rebuilds that wall between Jew and Gentile that Jesus Christ broke down through His own Blood. Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Jews and the Church.

A jew can come into the church just like a gentile, by taking Jesus Christ as their Savior, but from my reads there is still more to be done with Israel. We will differ but I believe I'm correct.

 

[OldRegular]

Just showing it isn't dispensationalism that rebuilds the walls, in the book of Acts alone they are kept apart.
A jew can come into the church just like a gentile, by taking Jesus Christ as their Savior, but from my reads there is still more to be done with Israel. We will differ but I believe I'm correct.

Then I suggest you start your own thread to defend your beliefs!

 

[DHK]

Then I suggest you start your own thread to defend your beliefs!

OR, I agree with Bob. Basically the OP has nothing whatsoever to do with dispensationalism. Now after 26 pages or so I am just coming to this discussion. But why would you use a passage that teaches about the "mystery" of how both Jews and Gentiles are able to become one in Christ, to teach dispensationalism? That is beyond me. It has nothing to do with it. It is not rightly dividing the Word of truth. And I have never heard any dispensationalist use that passage to defend their position. Thus it is a clear misrepresentation of their position.

 

[thomas15]

Then I suggest you start your own thread to defend your beliefs!

My opinion: There are those who might say that the OP makes statements of opinions appear as if they are facts. Bob Alkire has given his response in the form of opinion so I don't see why anyone would be anything other than happy that he answered this post in a thoughtful manner. Bob could have instead complained to the mods and/or suggested that those unhappy with the resposnse activate the "iggy option".

 

[OldRegular]

OR, I agree with Bob. Basically the OP has nothing whatsoever to do with dispensationalism. Now after 26 pages or so I am just coming to this discussion. But why would you use a passage that teaches about the "mystery" of how both Jews and Gentiles are able to become one in Christ, to teach dispensationalism? That is beyond me. It has nothing to do with it. It is not rightly dividing the Word of truth. And I have never heard any dispensationalist use that passage to defend their position. Thus it is a clear misrepresentation of their position.

The passage demonstrates that the Church is not a "parenthesis" an "interruption" in God's plan for national Israel. That plan ended with the birth of Jesus Christ! The sad teaching of classic dispensationalism is that they believe that wall will once again be raised in the so-called millennial kingdom!

That the idea of a "parenthesis" Church is the doctrine of classic dispensationalism has been vigorously supported by ex-dispensationalist AresMan.

So what is your problem?

 

[OldRegular]

The OP is to discuss the "questionable teaching" of classic dispensational that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is an interruption in God's program for National Israel.

Anyone wanting to discuss other "questionable teachings" of classic or hyper dispensationalism should start their own thread.

 

[DHK]

The passage demonstrates that the Church is not a "parenthesis" an "interruption" in God's plan for national Israel. That plan ended with the birth of Jesus Christ! The sad teaching of classic dispensationalism is that they believe that wall will once again be raised in the so-called millennial kingdom!

That the idea of a "parenthesis" Church is the doctrine of classic dispensationalism has been vigorously supported by ex-dispensationalist AresMan.

So what is your problem?

19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.-[/quote]
That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. One person using this passage to defend dispensationsationalism, doesn't make it the norm for all. It is white-washing all with the same stroke. Read up on some others. What does this passage teach? Certainly not dispensationalism. I am a dispensationalst, and I wouldn't touch this passage with a ten foot pole.

You are no more strangers and foreigners but fellowcitizens with the saints.
--He is speaking to the Gentiles in the church in Ephesus.

In whom all the building fitly framed together grows unto an holy temple..
--The church, now composed both of Gentile believers and of Jewish believers grows together. Both are fitly framed together in the church and each have its part in the church. The Jewish believers are no more to be ostracized by the Jewish believers. In the past there was too much prejudice.

In whom also ye are builded together....
--the key is unity--the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers together in the church.

What has this to do with dispensationalism? Nothing. I think the argument with Ares-man, if anything, ought to have been: What does this passage mean?
Where does the teaching of dispensationalism come from (not who). This passage doesn't support it. There are many others that do. But why use this one? Better to expound the passage and ask for others that would support dispensationalism.

 

[OldRegular]

19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. One person using this passage to defend dispensationsationalism, doesn't make it the norm for all. It is white-washing all with the same stroke. Read up on some others. What does this passage teach? Certainly not dispensationalism. I am a dispensationalst, and I wouldn't touch this passage with a ten foot pole.

I don't know the "his" you reference. I am not defending dispensational opinion in any way. I use the above Scripture to show that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is not an "interruption" in God's plan for National Israel. You are certainly free disagree with me!

I quoted the dispensationalists I referenced accurately. I presented a second post on Hoyt's remarks!

 

[OldRegular]

19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.-

That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. One person using this passage to defend dispensationsationalism, doesn't make it the norm for all. It is white-washing all with the same stroke. Read up on some others. What does this passage teach? Certainly not dispensationalism. I am a dispensationalst, and I wouldn't touch this passage with a ten foot pole.

You are no more strangers and foreigners but fellowcitizens with the saints.
--He is speaking to the Gentiles in the church in Ephesus.

In whom all the building fitly framed together grows unto an holy temple..
--The church, now composed both of Gentile believers and of Jewish believers grows together. Both are fitly framed together in the church and each have its part in the church. The Jewish believers are no more to be ostracized by the Jewish believers. In the past there was too much prejudice.

In whom also ye are builded together....
--the key is unity--the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers together in the church.

What has this to do with dispensationalism? Nothing. I think the argument with Ares-man, if anything, ought to have been: What does this passage mean?
Where does the teaching of dispensationalism come from (not who). This passage doesn't support it. There are many others that do. But why use this one? Better to expound the passage and ask for others that would support dispensationalism.
[/QUOTE]

We are not communicating. I did not post the passage from Ephesians to support dispensational opinion but to refute it.