Underlying Causes for Covenant Theology Opposition to Dispensational Theology

[Darrell C]

This blog states

"...Today, you can't serve as a Presbyterian elder or pastor if you are a dispensationalist. Many (not all) Presbyterians regard dispensationalism with suspicion and/or contempt, and treat it as either a heresy, or as heresy's dim-witted, bucktoothed cousin. "

Since there are Reformed Baptist churches and speakers like John McArthur who become friends with Covenant/Reformed/Presbyterians like R.C. Sproul, we Baptists are influenced by the rift between Covenant/Presbyterians and Dispensational Baptists, and we are left to sort out which position should Baptists hold.


I'm trying to understand the underlying causes of why Covenant Theology opposes Dispensational Theology. Here is a list I've come up with so far. Please help shed more light on this question for me. Thanks in advance.

1. Dispensational Theology takes a strict, left brain, logical, "Literal" interpretation method of scripture, rather than accepting interpretations that view words as "figures of speech" through inferences and intuition.

a. Certainly there are words and ideas in the Bible that are types of Christ, parables, and figures of speech, but we must use caution to not let that justify using texts to build inferences, using intuition that is not tested carefully by logic.

b. Since Covenant Theology is held tightly by Presbyterians who believe in Paedobaptism, they also rest on using an interpretation method that allows for inferences to support their views on Paedobaptism.

R.C. Sproul says in his footnotes in his Reformation Study Bible on page 37:

"Rather, the scriptural case for baptizing believers infants rests on the parallel between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism as signs and seals of the covenant of grace (Ge. 17:11; Rom. 4:11; Col 2:11,12), and on the claim that the principle of family solidarity in the covenant community (the church, as it is now called) was not affected by the transition from the "old" to the "new" form of God's covenant brought about by the coming of Christ. Infant children of believers have the status of covenant children and therefore should be baptized, just as Jewish male infants had previously been circumcised. The Old Testament precedent requires it and there are no divine instruction explicitly revoking this principle."

Thus the case for paedobaptism does not rest on direct literal command in scripture, but a "parallel" derived, and inferred from other things.


2. Covenant Theology, similar to Calvinist/Reformed/Doctrines of Sovereign Grace, seeks and yearns to grasp and understand a unified, self contained systematic theology that explains the councils of God on Salvation or Soteriology.

a. Since Covenant Theology is tightly held by Presbyterians who hold tightly to Calvinism, which tries to capture the whole counsel of God with a theory that explains many verses that are hard to reconcile, therefore inferences need to be used to understand verses, where a literal interpretation makes it difficult to reconcile and create a unified system that supports itself. (I'm not debating Calvinism here, just showing the fact that inferences support the explanations for some words in Calvinism. For example the word "all", is inferred to mean "all tribes and people", rather than all individual people). So inference methods of interpretations are very important to Calvinists and strict literal interpretation methods present new problems.

b. Strict, literal interpretations undermine the inferences relied on in Calvinism for Limited Atonement when interpreting some verses.

I'm not debating if these inferences are valid or invalid. I actually tend to cautiously agree that some inferences are a "most likley" best interpretation. I'm just pointing out that strict literal interpretation methods undermine the inference methods relied on.

c. Following the desire to build a complete, systematic unified explanation for God's single, mono, plan, Covenant Theology wants to fit all of God into that single mono explanation, rather than having a God that is more complex, in ways we can't fit into a singular explanation.

Eistein did a great job of simplifying what seemed to be complex into the simple equation E=mc2. The ability to simplify things down into simple formulas that explain a wide variety of known phenomenon is a great thing of beauty to see how God is behind something in nature.

However it seems we must be cautions to seek to put God in a box and say everything God creates must be part of a theory of everything, that we can understand with our own understanding from Scripture inferences. This can cause us to over-infer about things where we should be cautious to infer, and should rather use a literal interpretation.


So these are my "hypotheses" above. I am thinking about buying this book to learn more about the underlying reasons:
The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift: The Fissuring of American Evangelical Theology from 1936 to 1944
By: R. Todd Mangum

I see this book above reviewed on this blog, but there are not too many summaries of the conclusions in the book.

These are some hypotheses I've come up with so far. Please help me and correct me where I'm lacking understanding.

If anyone has read the book referred to above, please let me know a summary of the conclusions of the book. Thanks in advance

Not being able to break down posts like I like to because I'm on vacation with just a tablet, I hope you won't mind just a few points.

First, only when we subscribe to a theology system would we think the doctrines of a dispensational or covenantal view are mutually exclusive.

Secondly, not sure why you tink dispensationalists do not recognize figures of speech? lol

Or, metaphor, hyperbole, symbolism, parallels, parables, typology, and maybe even sarcasm once in a while. Many teachers classified dispensational can be seen to keep things in their proper order. Its when we make those thins lose their original intent such as overlooking that while Satan isn't a literal dragon...there is still a Satan and we should heednwhat Scripture teaches using those literary methods.

When it comes to logical thinking, its actually RC I think of first. He has stated frustration himself with denominations and has thought of starting a new one but that would be more of the same.

Lastly, I think we avoid the pitfalls that arise where we are forced to pick a group. Instead just agree with Scripture and overlook where the group we're associated with is in error. And if someone is part of a group that is flawless in docctrine...please let me know ewhich group that is.

I will refrain from any other comments at this time.

God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

I took several years to understand the system.....then several more to unravel it...:thumbs:

But GOD is Good Icon! Even to those unwilling to understand HIS truths!

 

[Darrell C]

This blog states

"...Today, you can't serve as a Presbyterian elder or pastor if you are a dispensationalist. Many (not all) Presbyterians regard dispensationalism with suspicion and/or contempt, and treat it as either a heresy, or as heresy's dim-witted, bucktoothed cousin. "

Since there are Reformed Baptist churches and speakers like John McArthur who become friends with Covenant/Reformed/Presbyterians like R.C. Sproul, we Baptists are influenced by the rift between Covenant/Presbyterians and Dispensational Baptists, and we are left to sort out which position should Baptists hold.


I'm trying to understand the underlying causes of why Covenant Theology opposes Dispensational Theology. Here is a list I've come up with so far. Please help shed more light on this question for me. Thanks in advance.

1. Dispensational Theology takes a strict, left brain, logical, "Literal" interpretation method of scripture, rather than accepting interpretations that view words as "figures of speech" through inferences and intuition.

a. Certainly there are words and ideas in the Bible that are types of Christ, parables, and figures of speech, but we must use caution to not let that justify using texts to build inferences, using intuition that is not tested carefully by logic.

b. Since Covenant Theology is held tightly by Presbyterians who believe in Paedobaptism, they also rest on using an interpretation method that allows for inferences to support their views on Paedobaptism.

R.C. Sproul says in his footnotes in his Reformation Study Bible on page 37:

"Rather, the scriptural case for baptizing believers infants rests on the parallel between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism as signs and seals of the covenant of grace (Ge. 17:11; Rom. 4:11; Col 2:11,12), and on the claim that the principle of family solidarity in the covenant community (the church, as it is now called) was not affected by the transition from the "old" to the "new" form of God's covenant brought about by the coming of Christ. Infant children of believers have the status of covenant children and therefore should be baptized, just as Jewish male infants had previously been circumcised. The Old Testament precedent requires it and there are no divine instruction explicitly revoking this principle."

Thus the case for paedobaptism does not rest on direct literal command in scripture, but a "parallel" derived, and inferred from other things.


2. Covenant Theology, similar to Calvinist/Reformed/Doctrines of Sovereign Grace, seeks and yearns to grasp and understand a unified, self contained systematic theology that explains the councils of God on Salvation or Soteriology.

a. Since Covenant Theology is tightly held by Presbyterians who hold tightly to Calvinism, which tries to capture the whole counsel of God with a theory that explains many verses that are hard to reconcile, therefore inferences need to be used to understand verses, where a literal interpretation makes it difficult to reconcile and create a unified system that supports itself. (I'm not debating Calvinism here, just showing the fact that inferences support the explanations for some words in Calvinism. For example the word "all", is inferred to mean "all tribes and people", rather than all individual people). So inference methods of interpretations are very important to Calvinists and strict literal interpretation methods present new problems.

b. Strict, literal interpretations undermine the inferences relied on in Calvinism for Limited Atonement when interpreting some verses.

I'm not debating if these inferences are valid or invalid. I actually tend to cautiously agree that some inferences are a "most likley" best interpretation. I'm just pointing out that strict literal interpretation methods undermine the inference methods relied on.

c. Following the desire to build a complete, systematic unified explanation for God's single, mono, plan, Covenant Theology wants to fit all of God into that single mono explanation, rather than having a God that is more complex, in ways we can't fit into a singular explanation.

Eistein did a great job of simplifying what seemed to be complex into the simple equation E=mc2. The ability to simplify things down into simple formulas that explain a wide variety of known phenomenon is a great thing of beauty to see how God is behind something in nature.

However it seems we must be cautions to seek to put God in a box and say everything God creates must be part of a theory of everything, that we can understand with our own understanding from Scripture inferences. This can cause us to over-infer about things where we should be cautious to infer, and should rather use a literal interpretation.


So these are my "hypotheses" above. I am thinking about buying this book to learn more about the underlying reasons:
The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift: The Fissuring of American Evangelical Theology from 1936 to 1944
By: R. Todd Mangum

I see this book above reviewed on this blog, but there are not too many summaries of the conclusions in the book.

These are some hypotheses I've come up with so far. Please help me and correct me where I'm lacking understanding.

If anyone has read the book referred to above, please let me know a summary of the conclusions of the book. Thanks in advance

In point 2.A you could ask the question "Does Scripture refer to all when it states ' For Go so loved the world'?"

Not hard to see the inference.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

In point 2.C its not just those cevenantal that trace a singular Redemptive plan from the Garden forward.

The Covenant of Law, if you remember, was temporary and never changed God's intentions. But its not until the revelation provided in the New Testament that we understand the Covenants better.

Just my advice, don't buy the book. You already have the Books you need.

God bless.

 

[robycop3]

Seems like this is a "preterism" discussion, so I'd liketo present the FACT which slays the pret dragon for good.

Now, prets argue that Nero was the 'beast', that the marka the beast was Nero's likeness on Roman coins, that the great tribulation was the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, that all or mosta the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD...but let's see what JESUS actually said!

In Matthew 24, after prophesying the great trib and warning against believing anyone who sez He has returned quietly or in secret, Jesus, sez, beginning with V 29:“""But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.""" So, very obviously, the events of 70 AD were NOT the great tribulation!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, those events have simply NOT YET HAPPENED, and there's NO events in history that can be used to fulfill those prophecies! While preterists try to say Jesus was speaking symbolically or using "apocalyptic" language, the FACT of the LITERAL destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD shows Jesus was speaking of LITERAL coming events.

So, the simple, inescapable FACT that those prophecies made by Jesus have not yet cometa pass renders preterism false, be it partial or full preterism. No use going into the origin of preterism here, as my point is tho show it's phony as a Ford Corvette.

 

[Iconoclast]

But GOD is Good Icon! Even to those unwilling to understand HIS truths!

Amen....God is always good, and God is only good.

If people would seek the truth rather than an agenda they would get there quicker...:wavey::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

robycop3

Hello roby
It is not as simple as you would present it.

Seems like this is a "preterism" discussion, so I'd liketo present the FACT which slays the pret dragon for good.

Now, prets argue that Nero was the 'beast', that the marka the beast was Nero's likeness on Roman coins, that the great tribulation was the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, that all or mosta the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD...but let's see what JESUS actually said!

In Matthew 24, after prophesying the great trib and warning against believing anyone who sez He has returned quietly or in secret, Jesus, sez, beginning with V 29:“""But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.""" So, very obviously, the events of 70 AD were NOT the great tribulation!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you understand that these figures of speech were already used figuratively in the OT.? So why would they not be figures of speech that spoke of something literal...like a change of government?

If you literally had literal stars falling to earth ...the earth would no longer exist.:wavey:

Now, those events have simply NOT YET HAPPENED, and there's NO events in history that can be used to fulfill those prophecies! While preterists try to say Jesus was speaking symbolically or using "apocalyptic" language, the FACT of the LITERAL destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD shows Jesus was speaking of LITERAL coming events.

Lets say Jesus was describing the fall of Jerusalem with this language...why would that trouble you?

 

[Darrell C]

robycop3

Hello roby
It is not as simple as you would present it.





Do you understand that these figures of speech were already used figuratively in the OT.? So why would they not be figures of speech that spoke of something literal...like a change of government?

If you literally had literal stars falling to earth ...the earth would no longer exist.:wavey:






Lets say Jesus was describing the fall of Jerusalem with this language...why would that trouble you?

Neither should it trouble us that we see prophecies have multiple fulfillments?

Does the Prophecy of Daniel have relevance to the contemporary events that followed? Is Antiochus Epiphanies a fulfillment of certain prophecy?

And I thought the thread had to do with counsel sought about buying a book.


God bless

 

[Yeshua1]

Neither should it trouble us that we see prophecies have multiple fulfillments?

Does the Prophecy of Daniel have relevance to the contemporary events that followed? Is Antiochus Epiphanies a fulfillment of certain prophecy?

And I thought the thread had to do with counsel sought about buying a book.


God bless

that happens a lot in the scriptures regarding prophecy, as there is susually an imeediate application, and a greater future fulfillment yet to come...

Such as unto us a son is born, and out of Egypt called my Son!

 

[Darrell C]

that happens a lot in the scriptures regarding prophecy, as there is susually an imeediate application, and a greater future fulfillment yet to come...

Such as unto us a son is born, and out of Egypt called my Son!

That is how I see it as well. I can understand how some would see a fulfillment in the first century, just not how they see it as a final fulfillment. The most obvious indicator being that Christ has not returned yet. Making His return spiritual only doesn't fit either, due to the fact that we do not see the coming of the Comforter correlate to the events which happened some thirty years later.

God bless.

 

[robycop3]

robycop3

Hello roby
It is not as simple as you would present it.

But it's not over-complicated, either.

Do you understand that these figures of speech were already used figuratively in the OT.? So why would they not be figures of speech that spoke of something literal...like a change of government?

I understand that, in the Olivet Disciurse, Jesus made certain prophecies that, so far, have LITERALLY cometa pass, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. NO reason to believe He suddenly shifted gears while answering the disciples' question & began speaking symbolically.

If you literally had literal stars falling to earth ...the earth would no longer exist.:wavey:

"Falling stars" or "shooting stars" have been used to describe METEORS for millenia.

Lets say Jesus was describing the fall of Jerusalem with this language...why would that trouble you?

Every word JESUS said is the truth, and in that Discourse He was answering His disciples' question. preterism goes on & tries to tell us the 'beast' has already come, etc. etc.

But most o0f all, it's BLASPHEMOUS. In Matt. 24, jesus warns us to NOT believe anyone who sez He's come quietly or in secret, and full preterism does JUST THAT, while partial pret sez everything He's prophesied except His physical return & the events to follow have already occurred. That's in ignorance of Jesus' saying a great cosmological disturbance followed by His return will occur IMMEDIATELY after the great tribulation.

 

[Iconoclast]

But it's not over-complicated, either.



I understand that, in the Olivet Disciurse, Jesus made certain prophecies that, so far, have LITERALLY cometa pass, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. NO reason to believe He suddenly shifted gears while answering the disciples' question & began speaking symbolically.



"Falling stars" or "shooting stars" have been used to describe METEORS for millenia.





Every word JESUS said is the truth, and in that Discourse He was answering His disciples' question. preterism goes on & tries to tell us the 'beast' has already come, etc. etc.

But most o0f all, it's BLASPHEMOUS. In Matt. 24, jesus warns us to NOT believe anyone who sez He's come quietly or in secret, and full preterism does JUST THAT, while partial pret sez everything He's prophesied except His physical return & the events to follow have already occurred. That's in ignorance of Jesus' saying a great cosmological disturbance followed by His return will occur IMMEDIATELY after the great tribulation.

Hello Roby

it says stars...not meteorites!

I do not believe He returned as in the second coming, that happens on the last day....I do believe he "came in judgment"...the judgement was a sign to those on earth that he was and is reigning in Heaven now.

Many see Mt 24 as the full final prophecy that the jewish age was coming to the end...not the world, but rather the age....

Some suggest a double fulfillment , however I think it was the curses of deut 28-33 coming upon apostate Israel

Luke 21 King James Version (KJV)

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:

15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.

18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is how I see it as well. I can understand how some would see a fulfillment in the first century, just not how they see it as a final fulfillment. The most obvious indicator being that Christ has not returned yet. Making His return spiritual only doesn't fit either, due to the fact that we do not see the coming of the Comforter correlate to the events which happened some thirty years later.

God bless.

well, peter quoted Joel the prophet as being in a sense partially fulfilled at pentacost, but he did not state was a full fulfillment of that!

 

[Iconoclast]

well, peter quoted Joel the prophet as being in a sense partially fulfilled at pentacost, but he did not state was a full fulfillment of that!

Yes he did...HE SAID THIS IS THAT.....he did not say;

this is like that
or this is part of that
or this is what it will be like...

He said this is that:thumbs:

 

[robycop3]

Hello Roby

it says stars...not meteorites!

Don't be ridiculous. "Falling stars" or "shooting stars" has been a term used by men to describe meteors since time immemorial. While Jesus knew what they were, of course, He was using language His original audience would understand, as well as us.

I do not believe He returned as in the second coming, that happens on the last day....I do believe he "came in judgment"...the judgement was a sign to those on earth that he was and is reigning in Heaven now.

Many see Mt 24 as the full final prophecy that the jewish age was coming to the end...not the world, but rather the age....

Some suggest a double fulfillment , however I think it was the curses of deut 28-33 coming upon apostate Israel

The Jews saw the ten tribes exiled becausa idolatry, but they continued in even worse idolatry than the ten tribes, so God punished them much-more-severely as He said He'd do. But yet the jews mostly continued in idolatry and in corrupt worship of the real God. Thus, God punished them more-severely, and for a longer time, culminating in the holocaust, after which He began lifting their punishment. But they're still continuing in corrupt worship today.

Luke 21 King James Version (KJV)

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:

15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.

18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Yes, the destruction of Jerusalem & the temple was punishment for their past sins. But, as I said, they continued in corrupt worship, and had Jesus killed. thus came their dispersion by hadrian in 135-136 AD, with their being hated & persecuted wherever they went. But God has largely lifter their national punishment, as He intends to bless the Jews, and all israel nationally, despite their continued sins, as He promised Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. However, the individual Jew or Israeli must still cometa Jesus, same as anyone else, for salvation.

 

[Darrell C]

well, peter quoted Joel the prophet as being in a sense partially fulfilled at pentacost, but he did not state was a full fulfillment of that!

And that is a good example of multiple application with a future fulfillment still to come.

I also see it as important to understand "The Day of the Lord" itself has many occurrences, as I view this to represent any time God interacts directly with Man. Usually it is in judgment.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

And that is a good example of multiple application with a future fulfillment still to come.

I also see it as important to understand "The Day of the Lord" itself has many occurrences, as I view this to represent any time God interacts directly with Man. Usually it is in judgment.


God bless.

The day of the Lord seems to have a special significance for national Isreal of God in end times, but how was that switched to being the church?

As the prophets seem to have this as a terrible and dreadful day, when God was judging isreal, but yet also saving out His own people, so how can that be the church?

 

[Darrell C]

The day of the Lord seems to have a special significance for national Isreal of God in end times, but how was that switched to being the church?

As the prophets seem to have this as a terrible and dreadful day, when God was judging isreal, but yet also saving out His own people, so how can that be the church?

"The Day of the Lord" does not have to do with the Church in this Age, which will end with the Rapture of the Church.

If you look at "The Day of the Lord" you will see that Scripture does not present it as being one exclusive event. It has always had a special significance to Israel, and still does, but we do not become radical and extreme to make it so exclusionary that we forget who else it applies to.

The Tribulation will be a Day of the Lord event which will be, even as the Prophet said...


Amos 5

King James Version (KJV)

16 Therefore the Lord, the God of hosts, the Lord, saith thus; Wailing shall be in all streets; and they shall say in all the highways, Alas! alas! and they shall call the husbandman to mourning, and such as are skilful of lamentation to wailing.

17 And in all vineyards shall be wailing: for I will pass through thee, saith the Lord.

18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light.

19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.

20 Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?


God has used chastisement for good in the past, and this is exactly what He will do in the Tribulation. Some, like me, are hard-headed and need to have their attention gotten through sometimes unpleasant means.


Zechariah 13:8-9

King James Version (KJV)

8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.


Here is an example of the Day of the Lord being a time of God's interaction with man:


1 Thessalonians 5:2

King James Version (KJV)

2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.


It is consistent with Christ's teaching:


Luke 17:25-27

King James Version (KJV)

25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.



The Lord made it clear that His Return would be as the Days of Noah, in which God's wrath was poured out suddenly, and completely upon those that were in disobedience. In the Flood, it was complete. In Sodom, it was complete.

In the Tribulation, it will be complete, for all unbelieving will, by the end of this Day of the Lord, be completely destroyed.

Then shall the Lord establish that Kingdom in which only the believing shall enter, and in that day the significance for Israel is that this...


Romans 11:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:


As impurities are removed from silver and gold, so shall Israel and all them that dwell on the earth be tried. And those found wanting will be destroyed, a destruction of their own choosing, because they rejected He that came, and will Return.

The text above is Israel specific, as certain Old Testament passages were. Because revelation is progressive and the Church a mystery, even as the Gospel of Christ was a mystery until revealed in the appointed time, there is sometimes a tendency not to balance all relevant Scripture, and the tendency for an extreme view is created.

But God's Redemptive Plan has been consistent from the Garden until that day this Creation passes away, and when the Eternal State is established, there will be One People of God, One Fold, One Shepherd.

But that has always been the case, even under the Economy of the Law, for those among the Gentiles that, without the Law, fulfilled the Law, will certainly be among that One People in that Eternal State.


God bless.