What is dispensationalism

Oh so you are, in fact, a dispensationalist, I see. Just not one in the vein you suppose Scofield and Darby to be, right?

Ed

 

Preach it, PL, Preach it! :thumbs:

 

Pastor Larry says:

Oh really?

In Galatians 4:26 says: "But Jersualem which above which is above is free, which is the mother of US ALL."

This verse is not speak of ethnic physical nation, neither it speaks of limited group - Jews only. It speaks of us as Christians both Jews and Gentiles. Jerusalem which is above speaks of God's city - New Jerusalem(Christ described it in John 14:1-3) and even, described in Revelation chapter 21 too.

We are Jerusalem.

Church never replace Israel. Israel is now expanding, because God already grafted Gentiles unto the tree join with believing Jews, as it described in Romans chapter 11.

Also, in Hebrews 12:22-23 say: "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumable company of angels. 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."

It speaks of saints are come to mount Zion which is in heaven (Rev. 14:1), and unto New Jerusalem, where the Church is dwelling in New Jerusalem with Christ.

It doesn't limited just for Jews (ethnic nation) only, also, it included Gentiles, anyone whosever have faith in Christ, all are one same in Christ's (Gal. 3:26-29). Notice, Galatians chapter 3 is not discuss about future restoration physical tiny nation - Ethnic Israel as flesh, it speaks of spiritual - salvation.

In Hebrews 11:9-16 tell us, "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. For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so MANY AS THE STARS of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 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. For they that saysuch things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 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."

Dispensationalists saying, that God promised Abraham, that they(Jews) shall possess their own land that would be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom.

But, Abraham were looking forward city which is above -New Jerusalem. Abraham was not looking at earthly city. Because, Modern Jerusalem shall be destroyed and pass away at the second coming. We do not need earthly Jerusalem, we shall dwell in God's city, which it shall never, never destroy, it is an everlasting.

Galatians 3:29 says, "And if YE(you) be Christ's THEN are YE Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

We as Church are belong to Christ's, even, we are part of Abraham's seed of promise.

Ephesians 2:11-22 telling us, we as Gentiles were being aliens & strangers apart from the commonwealth of Israel. Commonwealth means citizenship. But, NOW we are in Christ, because He broke down the wall between Jews and Gentiles, both reconciled became one through Calvary.

Eph. 2:19 says, "NOW there ye are NO MORE strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.

This verse telling us, right now, we as Gentiles are no more strangers and foreigners, but we are part of God's family.

Notice Ephesians 2:20-22 very important. It say:

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom ALL the building fitly framed together growth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

This passage telling us, Jesus Christ is our chief corner stone, well also, He is our rock. This is speak of Church.

Israel is Church. Church is Israel. Even, Jesus is Israel! Church doesn't 'replaced' Israel. Israel is currently expanding because of Calvary.

Bible doesn't teaching us, there is currently divided within the body of Christ, it teaches us, the unity of the body of Christ.

New Jerusalem is FOR saints only, whosoever anyone have faith in Jesus Christ only - salvation!

Understand clear?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

DPT,

Notice that every verse you posted deals with the church, the body of Christ, in which there is unity in Christ. But there are several things you are ignoring:

1. The NT passages that distinguish Israel and the church.
2. The OT promises made that have never been fulfilled to the nation of Israel.

These are significant issues that you are not dealing with. You say Galatians 3 is not about the restoration of Israel. You are correct. It is about the church, not Israel. But it operates off the premise that Israel and the church are different, and it explicitly states that the promise has not been annulled.

Sufffice it to say that you are dealing with only half the issue and the half you are not dealing with is what shows your position to be incorrect.

Read the NC (Jer 31:31-40) and explain the whole passage, starting with who it talking about and what will happen to them. That, in and of itself, shows your position to be incorrect.

 

Bill.

Perhaps you will understand this paradox via some symbology that the Bible uses.

The "true vine" John 15:1-2 -- Christ is the true vine. All believers who ever lived come because of His Sacrifice and by faith in God. BTW, we call this "justification" and all believers are first justified before they are sanctified and glorified. But there are 2 different "programs," Bill.

The "olive tree" Rom 11:16-24 -- this represents the "religious privileges," that is "sanctification," of believers. But as you can see, there is a period in which the natural branches are cut out and the wild (Gentiles) grafted in. Sanctification is also called "election" and during this period, Israel is NOT "elect" but the Gentiles are elect according to the purposes of God. One "program" is temporarily postponed on account of UNBELIEF and another put in it's place.

Then there is the "fig tree" Luke 13:6-9, Mt 21:19, Mt 24:32 --- Now watch this: Christ (the "certain man") came to the "fig tree" (national Isreal) that was not producing fruit and the Pharisees represented how they would "dig and dung" it. Three years later (end of Jesus ministry), there was no fruit and the "man" said "Cut it down. Why [does Israel] cumbereth it the ground?" In Mt 19 we see that Jesus directly cursed the tree and it withered. In Mt 24:32 we see that it will revive. But in between, the church is the glory of Christ in the earth.

The point? The "fig tree," national Israel -- not the church, will be the physical symbol of "glorification" of Christ in His kingdom. The church will already have been glorified in heaven before this occurs. Israel will rule with Christ and David on earth as still an entirely separate program for their sanctification. followed by their rapture to heaven while God renews the earth, Rev 20:11.

skypair

 

I will grant that the church is distinct from Israel and not a continuation, but at another turn I see the church as a continuation of Israel from a missional vantage point. Israel was to be the light to the peoples round about. Now the church has been commissioned to take the gospel to all the world.

I am no dispensationalist but rather covenant theology based, slightly modified. But I would grant that God still have enthnic Israel in mind in his grand scheme of things.

 

Ed - no, I am not a dispensationalist. I do not believe in a pre-trib rapture. I do not believe that there is a separation between spiritual Israel and the church. I do believe that "all Israel" will be saved (Romans 11:26), but "all Israel" is the believing remnant, not national Israel.

I would have some commonality with dispensationalists but separate on how we arrived at those shared views. I believe in a "new" New Covenant, not a better or refreshed covenant. I am a historical premillennialist believing that the millennium will be ushered in after Christ's second coming. I tend to accept Revelation metaphorically while understanding it within a futuristic subset.

There are other areas that separate me from dispensationalists but I'll save them for future discussions.

 

Pastor Larry wrote:

Larry -- with all due respect, you haven't exegeted anything. All you've done is offer your opinion. I would be interested in your exegesis if you care to share it. Perhaps that would take the discussion from "what I believe" to the scriptures.

 

Since I defined, a la Ryrie, "A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's (eternal) purpose."
And you, in fact, did make a distinction in more than one economy, that makes one a 'dispensationalist' by the definition given, no??.

That does not mean one has to follow Scofield, by any stretch. (BTW, Scofield has some major differences with Darby (and also some with Scripture, IMO), but people overlook this, in the haste to 'condemn' all dispensationalists as one and the same.) Not believing in a pre-trib rapture does not necessarily make one "not a dispensationalist". And believing that "all Isreal" is the believing remnant does not cause one to be "not a dispensationalist", either.

And according to the NT, Paul was the first "dispensationalist", for he names two specifically, "the dispensation of the fullness of times", which is future, in the context, "the dispensation of the grace of God", and implies at least two more in Ephesians 3. I'll go with Paul on this, personally.

G'nite, all.

Ed

 

The term dispensation does not make one a dispensationalist. Even Covenant Theologians believe that God acted differently in different times. Dispensationalism carries these divisions much further than just the word dispensation or administration.

You're using the English word "dispensation" to support dispensationalism. Most dispensational scholars (Darby, Scofield, Chaffer, Ryrie) would not use the word dispensation to build their theology.

 

That's a dispensational view ... All Israel there is believing Jews. The unbelieving Jews will be destroyed. They are "Israel" because of their nationality.

Actually, I have offered as much exegesis on this topic on this board as anyone. I simply haven't repeated it all here. I have grown weary of the lack of interaction with Scripture on it. I did briefly mention a key NC passages, Jer 31:31-40 and showed two or three exegetical facts that no one has bothered to discuss.

 

Hey Bill Brown!

Perhaps you will understand this paradox via some symbology that the Bible uses.

The "true vine" John 15:1-2 -- Christ is the true vine. All believers who ever lived come because of His Sacrifice and by faith in God. BTW, we call this "justification" and all believers are first justified before they are sanctified and glorified. But there are 2 different "programs," Bill.

The "olive tree" Rom 11:16-24 -- this represents the "religious privileges," that is "sanctification," of believers. But as you can see, there is a period in which the natural branches are cut out and the wild (Gentiles) grafted in. Sanctification is also called "election" and during this period, Israel is NOT "elect" but the Gentiles are elect according to the purposes of God. One "program" is temporarily postponed on account of UNBELIEF and another put in it's place.

Then there is the "fig tree" Luke 13:6-9, Mt 21:19, Mt 24:32 --- Now watch this: Christ (the "certain man") came to the "fig tree" (national Isreal) that was not producing fruit and the Pharisees represented how they would "dig and dung" it. Three years later (end of Jesus ministry), there was no fruit and the "man" said "Cut it down. Why [does Israel] cumbereth it the ground?" In Mt 19 we see that Jesus directly cursed the tree and it withered. In Mt 24:32 we see that it will revive. But in between, the church is the glory of Christ in the earth.

The point? The "fig tree," national Israel -- not the church, will be the physical symbol of "glorification" of Christ in His kingdom. The church will already have been glorified in heaven before this occurs. Israel will rule with Christ and David on earth as still an entirely separate program for their sanctification. followed by their rapture to heaven while God renews the earth, Rev 20:11.

skypair

 

Compared

A dispensation is God’s manner of dealing with His people in a given section of time.

J. Edwin Hartell,

Charles Ryrie,

H. A Ironside, In The Heavenlies,

Several major theological systems have competed against each other since the Reformation. The theological system that has been competing with Dispensationalism is commonly known as Covenant Theology.

Covenant Theology (CT) is Calvinistic theology. CT places a strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God and predestination

Dispensationalism has been present in many forms for centuries. It was not as developed as it is today, but it was present.


LM

 

Ad hominem.

 

Larry - you may have very well offered your exegesis in the past, but I have not read it. As far as "all Israel" being believing Israel, I'm pleased you concur. But it was a Covenant Theology view long before dispensationalism came on the scene.

By the way, if you've "grown weary of the lack if interaction with Scripture" on the topic of dispensationalism, why discuss it at all? And yes, you did quote Jeremiah 31, but I didn't consider your comments exegetical. Let me key on a portion of that passage:

First, who is this covenant made with? Nowhere does it say it is made with the New Testament Christians. It is made with the house of Israel. If a dispensationalist is using this passage as a proof-text for a future for national Israel then they have one major problem. They can't use it to defend the New Covenant. It's not both. It either is the promise of the New Covenant or a promise for national Israel. Which is it?

Interestingly enough we see this passage in Jeremiah used by the writer of Hebrews:

The writer of Hebrews may have been addressing Jewish Christian's, but Christian's nonetheless. In order to remove any confusion of the universal nature of the New Covenant (inclusion of the Gentiles), Paul says this to the church in Corinth:

And to the church at Rome:

...and:

There's a lot going on here. We started with Jeremiah and his promise of a New Covenant for Israel and Judah. I believe we have already proved that the promise to Israel and Judah is not of a physical covenant but of a spiritual covenant that will have physical benefits. Indeed, even Abraham was looking forward to the heavenly benefits of faith (the promise):

As I said earlier. If Jeremiah 31 was all about Israel, then I would concur with dispensationalisms view of a return of national Israel to the land of Palestine as part of a futurist eschatology. But the New Testaments uses of this passage, and other references to the New Covenant in the New Testament (which I quoted) point to the New Covenant being universal in nature (to Jews and Gentiles). My conclusion? The eschatological promises made to Israel are actually made to the church. I do believe there will be great call of Jews to the faith of Abraham before the return of the Lord. The promise of faith is greater than land covenant promises. In glory Jewish believers and Gentile believers will occupy heaven together. There will be no separation of believers in the eternal state (contray to Scofield and Chaffer).

Larry - I'm not asking you to believe this. I'm simply making a case for what non-dispensational Baptist believe about Israel, the church and the New Covenant.

May God bless you.

 

Well done. This is why I said such a statement as "the new covenant has not been established yet" should send up red flags. Larry is honest in his interpretation if dispensationalism is true. Most dispensationalist believe the New Covenant was established which would completely contradict their position.

The New Covenant was established for the House of Judah and the House of Israel in the first century. The two sticks are one and now exist with all the nations as the Church.

Eze 37:16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
Eze 37:17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

 

Whether or not you happen to agree (or not) with the above poster (Lou Martuneac) , what he posted (and that you quoted) is in no way an ad hominem. The only ad hominem around here, at the present time, is found in your response to it!

Ed

 

Not sure about what exactly Eze. 37:16,17 has to do per se with the New Covenant, Israel and the church, though.

Ed

 

No it wasn’t.

I don’t discuss it much, but when it comes up and when I feel like, I make a comment or two to remind people that there is an exegetical and theological side that must be considered.

uote:
Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Exactly why the NC is not made with the church. This is my point. So when you have someone say that the NC is made with the church, the exegesis of the main NC passage won’t stand for it.

Here is your problem: You think it can’t be both. But it is. Notice who you said it was with: Israel, not NT Christians. And notice what it is: A promise of a future.

Notice how you stopped citing after v. 34. Why stop there? In the following verses, God makes it clear that the NC does involve a restoration of national Israel to the land in peace. That, as you admit, does not apply to NT Christians.

Yes, and for what reason? Notice that the AH (author of Hebrews) cites only a portion of the NC and in a part of his writing dealing with forgiveness. This is exactly why I say that the church participates in the blessings of the NC (forgiveness) but not the NC itself. And you will note that, absent the presupposition that the church is in the NC, AH does not actually say that. He cites only a part of it that applies to his argument at that point.

Yes, and one of those physical benefits is restoration of the nation to the land.

1. Notice the mention of the nation and not Christians (as you pointed out).
2. Notice that God says he will not cast Israel the nation off forever (vv. 35-37).
3. Notice that God promises the nation with whom the NC is made that they will be restored to the land marked out by the physical landmarks (vv. 38-40). That, by definition, is not heaven, or the heavenly city. There is no doubt that Abraham was looking for a heavenly city, but that was not the whole of the promise. You leave out the whole of the promise which is future restoration of Israel to the land.

You started off with the premise that it was with Israel, not NT Christians.

But study of those passages will reveal that they don’t actually say what you have argued. They only say that if you start with the presupposition you have. If you start with the presupposition that God meant what he said in Jer 31, and that the NT does not contradict that, it is easy to see that JEr 31 is completely incompatible with the NC being applied fully to the church. There must be a future for national Israel because of vv. 31-40.

But this denies the plain use of language. The promises were not made to the church. They were made to people called Israel, defined by their genetic descendancy from Abraham, by their relation to the generation that was led by the hand out of Egypt, by their relation to the generation who turned away from the first covenant.

If the promises to Israel are fulfilled in the church, then God is made out to be a liar because he promised a group of people something that he will not do for them, but will in fact do it for someone else.

Here’s an analogy: You promise your son, “I will take you to the park to play tonight.” But when evening comes, you actually take your neighbor’s son and leave your son at home. You lied to your son because you said you would do something for him in the future that you did not do.

I am well aware of what your side believes. I am simply pointing out that there are major exegetical problems with it that I don’t think you are wrestling with. The position that there is no future for Israel does not arise from Scripture. It has to be read back onto Scripture. And for evidence, I would simply say read the whole NC, not just the first four verses.

The same to you.

 

Actually, it si the other way around. If I am correct in my interpretation, then dispensationalism is true. I start with Scripture and move from that to a position on the issue.

No it doesn't. It only contradicts their position is they believe the NC was fully instituted. It clearly wasn't, since vv. 38-40 have not been fulfilled. So a dispensationalist can believe that the NC was established, or inaugurated (the word usually used I think), and not contradict their position.

THe first has problems, but the second is a different issue. There is no dispute that Jews are now one in Christ with Gentiles in the church. But the key word there is "in the church." the NC did not promise the establishment of the church. It promised a new heart to be given to Israel with a restoration to the land. In conjunction with other prophets, we see that that is an end time restoration (cf. Zech 12).

I think the major issue here is a lack of exegesis on your side. You start with your position and then go to Scripture and support it. We should start with Scripture and then arrive at a position .