# Anyone want to take a crack at answering John MacArthur here?



## ReformedWretch

Question


----------



## rbcbob

ReformedWretch said:


> Question



Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11”


----------



## ReformedWretch

Israel in scripture:

Israel in the Old Testament is the forerunner of and the continuous with the New Covenant phase of the church which is the fruition if Israel. New Testament Christians may even call Abraham our father and the Old Covenant peoples our “fathers”.

Romans 4

16That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

1 Corinthians 10

1I want you to know, brothers,[1] that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,

We are grafted into Israel.

Romans 11
16If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root[1] of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

We were made ONE with Israel partaking of her promises!

Ephesians 2
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[1] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

In fact, Christ chose 12 disciples in order to serve as the spiritual seed of a new Israel taking over for the 12 sons of the Old Covenant Israel. Both the names of the 12 sons and the 12 apostles are incorporated into the one City of God, the New Jerusalem.

Revelation 21
12It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed-- 13on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Terms that the Church is called in the New Testament that associates her with Israel.

-Seed of Abraham
-The Circumcision 
-A royal Priesthood
-Twelve Tribes (James 1:1)
-The Temple of God

1 Peter 2
5you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,"[1] 
8and "A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense."They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
9But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

1 Peter 2
10Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Titus 2
14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.




The Church is flat out referred to as the Israel of god!

Galatians 6
16And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

The ENTIRE book of Galatians speaks to the incorrect notion that there is some “special” status amongst the Jews for being Jewish!

Galatians 3
26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[1] nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


WHY would Paul believe or speak to a “special section” of God’s people (The Israel of God) when he had taught this?

Galatians 6
15For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

Now we DO need to understand that the Church is NOT a “straight line” continuation of Israel! The church FULFILLS Israel through Christ.

2 Corinthians 1
20For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.


Galatians 3
29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Romans 8
17and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Ephesians 1
23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Colossians 2
10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.





Scripture clearly tells of this in the Old Testament.

Jeremiah 31
31"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah

This NEW covenant was started with the Lords Supper!

Matthew 26
28 for this is my blood of the[1] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14
24And he said to them, "This is my blood of the[1] covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22
20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[1]

Notice here that it is NOT said that he is a minister of a second covenant or another new covenant!

2 Corinthians 3
6who has made us competent[1] to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Look at Hebrews 8 that CLEARLY speaks of the NEW covenant! There are NOT two covenants still in force here as the text clearly teaches!

Hebrews 8
1Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2a minister in the holy places, in the true tent[1] that the Lord set up, not man. 3For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." 6But as it is, Christ[2] has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
8For he finds fault with them when he says:[3] "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
9not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more."
13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Paul PLAINLY teaches that the conversion of the Gentiles is a “confirming of the promises to the fathers”.

Romans 15
8For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, 9and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, "Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles,
and sing to your name."
10And again it is said, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."
11And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and let all the peoples extol him."
12And again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse will come,
even he who arises to rule the Gentiles;
in him will the Gentiles hope."

The preaching of the gospel is the hope of the Jews!

Acts 26
6And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king!





Look, the promises to Israel did NOT set forth a literal, political kingdom, but a spiritual, gospel kingdom!

Acts 13
32And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, "'You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'

Could it get ANY clearer at all?????

Why yes, yes it CAN get more clear!

Romans 2
28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

The Old Testament does indeed refer to the Church.

Hosea 1
9And the LORD said, "Call his name Not My People,[1] for you are not my people, and I am not your God."[2] 
10[3] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children[4] of the living God."

Hosea 2

23and I will sow her for myself in the land.
And I will have mercy on No Mercy,[1] 
and I will say to Not My People,[2] 'You are my people';
and he shall say, 'You are my God.'"

How do we know this refers to the Church? Why Paul tells us!

Romans 9
24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
26"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"





The “Church” was only a mystery to the Gentile Nations! But the Church was clearly revealed in the Old Testament however to the Jews!

Ephesians 3
3how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6This mystery is[1] that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Luke 24
44Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

The distinction between Jew and Gentile has forever been done away with! Paul points this out!

Ephesians 2
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

Colossians 3
11Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave,[1] free; but Christ is all, and in all.


----------



## Thomas2007

There is a real future for Hebrews, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and become Christians.


----------



## ReformedWretch

MacArthur wants ONE defining verse in scripture that says that Israel is the Church, which one would you use if trying to show him? I am certain there is not one verse, but what about passage?

I think we could use this-

Hosea 1
9And the LORD said, "Call his name Not My People,[1] for you are not my people, and I am not your God."[2]
10[3] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children[4] of the living God."

Hosea 2

23and I will sow her for myself in the land.
And I will have mercy on No Mercy,[1]
and I will say to Not My People,[2] 'You are my people';
and he shall say, 'You are my God.'"

How do we know this refers to the Church? Why Paul tells us!

Romans 9
24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
26"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"


----------



## louis_jp

Maybe verses that parallel Israel and the church (e.g., compare Isaiah 45:14 and Rev. 3:9)?


----------



## ReformedWretch

good one!


----------



## Poimen

MacArthur wants one verse? Verse headings or divisions are not inspired so how about a whole sermon? Stephen's _apologia_ for Christ found in Acts 7. 

But if one verse is needed how about Acts 7:38? "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us"

N.B.: 'congregation' is _ekklesia_ in the Greek, or the word we translate as 'church' in English


----------



## steven-nemes

Doesn't the analogy of the tree in Romans 11 imply that there has always been one covenant community of God, and that Jews for the moment have been taken out and Gentiles in?


----------



## ReformedWretch

Poimen said:


> MacArthur wants one verse? Verse headings or divisions are not inspired so how about a whole sermon? Stephen's _apologia_ for Christ found in Acts 7.
> 
> But if one verse is needed how about Acts 7:38? "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us"
> 
> N.B.: 'congregation' is _ekklesia_ in the Greek, or the word we translate as 'church' in English



He wants an old testament verse


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Adam!

Here's a recent thread on just this topic:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/israel-has-not-been-replaced-church-50717/

The paper has been on my back burner for a while, till a strong Dispensationalist attended our church Sunday and we had a discussion. I put the paper on the front burner again - to refresh and sharpen my mind on the topic, and just finished it.

My view is that the *key* to a) refuting dispensationalism, and b) understanding prophecy is to determine what Israel is.


----------



## Herald

Dispensationalists of MacArthur's ilk have a difficult time separating national Israel from believing Israel. Being on my iPhone right now it's difficult for to cite chapter and verse, but dispenationalists would do well to remember Paul's admonition, "Not all Israel is Israel." God did not eternally choose every physical son and daughter of Israel, just as He does not choose every person born after the time of His Son. The connection between the saints of both covenants has always been Sola Fide.

While God has always had one called out people, spanning both covenants, there are certain distinctives to the New Testament church that were not present in national Israel; namely the function and scope of the Holy Spirit and an emphasis on a regenerate church (Baptist, not dispensationalist, distinctive). That aside, God has always had one elect church.


----------



## dr_parsley

steven-nemes said:


> Doesn't the analogy of the tree in Romans 11 imply that there has always been one covenant community of God, and that Jews for the moment have been taken out and Gentiles in?



Absolutely right! There is a future for Israel - as a part of the Church!



joshua said:


> Respectfully, I want one defining verse from Johnny Mac that says there are two distinct peoples (in an eschatalogical sense) of God (which is the logical result of his eschatology, regardless of how he spins it).



Are you sure that's the consequence? I haven't read much of MacArthur, but can't it agree with MacArthur that Israel will be brought back into the one people of God? In the quoted article, he seems to keep it simple enough to allow it.

"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" They were chopped off, are currently being provoked to jealousy, and shall be grafted back on to the same tree that we have been grafted on to.


----------



## rbcbob

dr_parsley said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the analogy of the tree in Romans 11 imply that there has always been one covenant community of God, and that Jews for the moment have been taken out and Gentiles in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely right! There is a future for Israel - as a part of the Church!
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I want one defining verse from Johnny Mac that says there are two distinct peoples (in an eschatalogical sense) of God (which is the logical result of his eschatology, regardless of how he spins it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure that's the consequence? I haven't read much of MacArthur, but can't it agree with MacArthur that Israel will be brought back into the one people of God? In the quoted article, he seems to keep it simple enough to allow it.
> 
> "For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" They were chopped off, are currently being provoked to jealousy, and shall be grafted back on to the same tree that we have been grafted on to.
Click to expand...


As noted above: Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him *pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11*”


----------



## bookslover

Joshua said:


> Respectfully, I want one defining verse from Johnny Mac that says there are two distinct peoples (in an eschatalogical sense) of God (which _is_ the logical result of his eschatology, regardless of how he spins it). I cut my teeth on John MacArthur, and I'm thankful for His work, but his tenacious clinging to eschatalogical dispensationalism is baffling.



MacArthur is intelligent, and Reformed in some ways, but I think his fundamentalist Baptist upbringing will let him loosen his grip on dispensationalism only so far. I'll give him this, though: his explanation of dispensationalism is better-written than many I've seen through the years.

He has said many times (as above) that he truly believes there is a difference between Israel and the church. This is what keeps him from dropping his dispensationalism - while keeping his premillennialism, of course.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Westminster Seminary California clark


----------



## R Harris

Charles Provan wrote a book a number of years ago entitled "The Church is Now Israel." It is out of print, but perhaps it can be found somewhere in download form online.

It is an interesting book in that all he does is quote scriptures in the OT and scriptures in the NT that correspond to those OT verses to convincingly demonstrate that Israel has always been the Church - OT and NT. He provides no commentary of his own except for Galatians 6:16, which Dispensationalists typically dispute.

I am disappointed by MacArthur's immature response of "show me one verse" to prove the position. That is what the typical immature believer says when you challenge one of his positions. The Scriptures are not a recipe cookbook. Jesus told the Sadducees as much in Matthew 22 when commenting on their error in not believing in life after death. Using Exodus 3:14 to prove the position is mind boggling. I doubt very few people would accept such reasoning today had it not been for Jesus himself saying it.


----------



## Grillsy

R Harris said:


> Charles Provan wrote a book a number of years ago entitled "The Church is Now Israel." It is out of print, but perhaps it can be found somewhere in download form online.
> 
> It is an interesting book in that all he does is quote scriptures in the OT and scriptures in the NT that correspond to those OT verses to convincingly demonstrate that Israel has always been the Church - OT and NT. He provides no commentary of his own except for Galatians 6:16, which Dispensationalists typically dispute.
> 
> I am disappointed by MacArthur's immature response of "show me one verse" to prove the position. That is what the typical immature believer says when you challenge one of his positions. The Scriptures are not a recipe cookbook. Jesus told the Sadducees as much in Matthew 22 when commenting on their error in not believing in life after death. Using Exodus 3:14 to prove the position is mind boggling. I doubt very few people would accept such reasoning today had it not been for Jesus himself saying it.




Provan's _The Church is Israel Now_ is still in print. I bought a copy about a month ago from Chalcedon.edu. It is a good and concise read although I prefer Robertson's book.


----------



## Wannabee

Gentlemen,

We all read Scripture through a grid and perceive things accordingly. This thread is a typical example. Most of you know that I agree with MacArthur in many of these particulars, particularly premillennialism and a future for ethnic Israel. As I read through the refutations here I thought, over and over, "no problem." Much of the problem is that those of you who came out of dispensationalism came out of the same dispensationalism that MacArthur distances himself from (as do I). And now you read Scripture through a covenantalistic grid. I carried no such baggage from my dispensationalism, so simply changed my perspective as I grew in knowledge. That doesn't mean I'm right, but that my perspective is perhaps less of a pendulum swing. And, it's probably why I'm one of only a spattering of leaky Dispensationalists who enjoy interacting on this board.
MacArthur knows his stuff. I think he goes overboard in his eschatology. But I think a lot of you do too.  Your views fit your grid, and some of them fit mine. MacArthur's fit his grid, and some of them fit mine. And, I find that mine sort of overlap a bit, though my insistence that there is a future for ethnic Israel keeps me in a sort of Dispensational camp.
And the idea that Dispensationalists can't separate ethic Israel from spiritual Israel is silly. Many, maybe even most, disipies haven't ever considered the idea. But the more "progressive" Dispensationalists consider saved Israelites as part of the church, but still see a future for ethnic Israel.

May we all grow in the grace of God,


----------



## Peairtach

rbcbob said:


> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the analogy of the tree in Romans 11 imply that there has always been one covenant community of God, and that Jews for the moment have been taken out and Gentiles in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely right! There is a future for Israel - as a part of the Church!
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I want one defining verse from Johnny Mac that says there are two distinct peoples (in an eschatalogical sense) of God (which is the logical result of his eschatology, regardless of how he spins it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure that's the consequence? I haven't read much of MacArthur, but can't it agree with MacArthur that Israel will be brought back into the one people of God? In the quoted article, he seems to keep it simple enough to allow it.
> 
> "For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" They were chopped off, are currently being provoked to jealousy, and shall be grafted back on to the same tree that we have been grafted on to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As noted above: Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him *pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11*”
Click to expand...


Doesn't Palmer Robetson espouse an amillenialism that does not teach a future national conversion of the Jews, and that God is practically finished with the Jews? I'll have to get a hold of his book to find out.

I don't know how amillenialists and others get from Romans 9-11 that God is practically finished with the Jews apart from a small number of conversions down the centuries. If God had been completely finished with the Jews he would have allowed them to be wiped out in A.D. 70. I wonder if this amillenialist, "God is finished with the Jews" approach, is sometimes an over reaction to dispensationalism?

The vast majority of the Jews have been cut off from the Covenant, but God is still providentially working with the others and will reingraft the nation into the Covenant in His own good time.

Re the Land, since they have been cut out of the Covenant and the vast majority are unbelievers, the Jews cannot claim the Land on the basis of God's promises, but only on the same basis we all lay claim to land as nations. It is a significant providence that they have been preserved as a nation and been permitted to return to the Land.

The times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24; Rev.11:2) will end when the Jews are converted, and the worldwide church (the true Israel of God - Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:10) is in the ascendant in a way it has not been in the last 2,000 years (that would be the "times of the true Israel").


----------



## Grillsy

Richard Tallach said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely right! There is a future for Israel - as a part of the Church!
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure that's the consequence? I haven't read much of MacArthur, but can't it agree with MacArthur that Israel will be brought back into the one people of God? In the quoted article, he seems to keep it simple enough to allow it.
> 
> "For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" They were chopped off, are currently being provoked to jealousy, and shall be grafted back on to the same tree that we have been grafted on to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted above: Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him *pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11*”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't Palmer Robetson espouse an amillenialism that does not teach a future national conversion of the Jews, and that God is practically finished with the Jews? I'll have to get a hold of his book to find out.
> 
> I don't know how amillenialists and others get from Romans 9-11 that God is practically finished with the Jews apart from a small number of conversions down the centuries. If God had been completely finished with the Jews he would have allowed them to be wiped out in A.D. 70. I wonder if this amillenialist, "God is finished with the Jews" approach, is an over reaction to dispensationalism?
> 
> The vast majority of the Jews have been cut off from the Covenant, but God is still providentially working with the others and will reingraft the nation into the Covenant in His own good time.
> 
> Re the Land, since they have been cut out of the Covenant and the vast majority are unbelievers, the Jews cannot claim the Land on the basis of God's promises, but only on the same basis we all lay claim to land as nations. It is a significant providence that they have been preserved as a nation and been permitted to return to the Land.
> 
> The "times of the Gentiles" ( will end when the Jews are converted, and the worldwide church (the true Israel of God) is in the ascendant in a way it has not been in the last 2,000 years(the times of Israel).
Click to expand...


Upon what basis can you say that the founding of the nation of Israel (the political state) is of "significant providence"?


----------



## Peairtach

The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.

That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent as a nation and acknowledge the Messiah.

I believe they will, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Grillsy

Richard Tallach said:


> The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.
> 
> That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent and acknowledge the Messiah.



In what ways has he preserved them? There is no pure Jewish race, there religion has certainly changed very much over time.
The fact that there is a state called Israel does not necessarily show that the have been preserved. I think that is speculation In my humble opinion.
Especially considering the actual population of Israel the the historical founding of the nation.


----------



## Wannabee

The current nation called Israel does not necessarily have eschatological significance. It might. But God will honor His promises, which are associated with a people group and land, in His way and in His time. And He's more than competent to establish blood lines however He wants, regardless of our puny understanding.


----------



## Peairtach

Grillsy said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.
> 
> That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent and acknowledge the Messiah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what ways has he preserved them? There is no pure Jewish race, there religion has certainly changed very much over time.
> The fact that there is a state called Israel does not necessarily show that the have been preserved. I think that is speculation In my humble opinion.
> Especially considering the actual population of Israel the the historical founding of the nation.
Click to expand...


There's no pure American race, Scottish race or British race, either.

The fact that the Apostle Paul rejoiced that they would be re-ingrafted into the Olive Tree, and that that would be life from the dead for the Olive Tree shows that something significant has been preserved.

Maybe you believe God finished with the Jews in A.D.70?

Jewish Christians are not in any sense better than American or Scottish Christians, but according to Romans 9-11 they have their part to play in redemptive history.


----------



## Grillsy

Richard Tallach said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.
> 
> That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent and acknowledge the Messiah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what ways has he preserved them? There is no pure Jewish race, there religion has certainly changed very much over time.
> The fact that there is a state called Israel does not necessarily show that the have been preserved. I think that is speculation In my humble opinion.
> Especially considering the actual population of Israel the the historical founding of the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no pure American race, Scottish race or British race, either.
> 
> The fact that the Apostle Paul rejoiced that they would be re-ingrafted into the Olive Tree, and that that would be life from the dead for the Olive Tree shows that something significant has been preserved.
> 
> Maybe you believe God finished with the Jews in A.D.70?
> 
> Jewish Christians are not in any sense better than American or Scottish Christians, but according to Romans 9-11 they have their part to play in redemptive history.
Click to expand...



I don't disagree that they have a part in history. I think that we may disagree in certain nuances pertaining to Romans 9-11. 
What I am trying to say is that you cannot just say that the founding of the nation is Israel is somehow a proof that God is not done with the Jews (who are not Jews really). There is no reason to assume this. The preserved culture thing is also a bit of myth. Look at how that culture has changed over the centuries is has not been that well preserved at all.


----------



## Turtle

*What was Stephen's Argument?*

After God promised Abraham the land saying, "To thee will I give it." God told Abraham _"Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee." _

In Acts 7:5 Stephen pointed out that Abraham did not receive any land, not even "so much as to set the sole of his foot upon".

Did Stephan point this out to show God is a promise breaker?

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Modern Kararite Jews (sort of "fundamentalist" and minority) refuse to have anything to do with the State of I. According to them, the only way that Jews can get that (or any other) bit of land back is by God's miraculous intervention. So, they repudiate what they call (not my name for it) "the Zionist State."

So, who is "closer" to the truth? Certain religious Jews (and irreligious) who reject "Israel", or irreligious Jews (and religious) who embrace it?

The "Israel" that is there in the M.E. may be there til Jesus returns.
Or the whole place could be the world's first (or last) chemical, biological, and nuclear wasteland, and uninhabitable for a few centuries.

Who Knows? Just pray for the "fulness" of the Gentiles to come in, whatever you may think that means. And be prepared to be surprised at what actually happens.

Don't be like some of these people who says that his overall trust in God's truthfulness and faithfulness depends on having his particular eschatological expectations fulfilled just SO.


----------



## Grillsy

Turtle said:


> After God promised Abraham the land saying, "To thee will I give it." God told Abraham _"Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee." _
> 
> In Acts 7:5 Stephen pointed out that Abraham did not receive any land, not even "so much as to set the sole of his foot upon".
> 
> Did Stephan point this out to show God is a promise breaker?
> 
> bryan
> tampa, fl
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .



Yes, because the point of Stephen's sermon was God and land grants. You need to pay careful attention to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews especially Galatians in order to properly understand what the promises made to Abraham really meant and to whom they belong.


----------



## Herald

Bruce, this is not a scholarly statement, but sometimes I cringe when an eschatological system has all it's I's dotted and all it's T's crossed.


----------



## Turtle

Grillsy said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> 
> After God promised Abraham the land saying, "To thee will I give it." God told Abraham _"Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee." _
> 
> In Acts 7:5 Stephen pointed out that Abraham did not receive any land, not even "so much as to set the sole of his foot upon".
> 
> Did Stephan point this out to show God is a promise breaker?
> 
> bryan
> tampa, fl
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the point of Stephen's sermon was God and land grants. You need to pay careful attention to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews especially Galatians in order to properly understand what the promises made to Abraham really meant and to whom they belong.
Click to expand...


Abraham and Stephan were confused because they hadn't read Hebrews and Galatians?

Stephan reminded us of Abraham's foot that walked the land he didn't inherit, but that God promised to him.

What was Stephan's purpose to point out a promise God had not fulfilled?


----------



## MW

The problem lies in the way the question is stated. From a biblical theological perspective it is important to stress that Jesus is the Israel of God who was made under the law, fulfilled the stipulations of Israel's covenant, and is declared to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead. The true Israel is not the church in and of itself, but those who are united to Christ by faith, that is, are "in Christ." Those who are united to Christ by faith are the church, members of Christ, the Israel of God, whether they be Jew or Gentile.


----------



## Wannabee

Bruce and Bill, thank you. Both of you bring a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Grillsy

armourbearer said:


> The problem lies in the way the question is stated. From a biblical theological perspective it is important to stress that Jesus is the Israel of God who was made under the law, fulfilled the stipulations of Israel's covenant, and is declared to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead. The true Israel is not the church in and of itself, but those who are united to Christ by faith, that is, are "in Christ." Those who are united to Christ by faith are the church, members of Christ, the Israel of God, whether they be Jew or Gentile.





-----Added 7/15/2009 at 11:24:44 EST-----



Turtle said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> 
> After God promised Abraham the land saying, "To thee will I give it." God told Abraham _"Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee." _
> 
> In Acts 7:5 Stephen pointed out that Abraham did not receive any land, not even "so much as to set the sole of his foot upon".
> 
> Did Stephan point this out to show God is a promise breaker?
> 
> bryan
> tampa, fl
> .
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the point of Stephen's sermon was God and land grants. You need to pay careful attention to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews especially Galatians in order to properly understand what the promises made to Abraham really meant and to whom they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham and Stephan were confused because they hadn't read Hebrews and Galatians?
> 
> Stephan reminded us of Abraham's foot that walked the land he didn't inherit, but that God promised to him.
> 
> What was Stephan's purpose to point out a promise God had not fulfilled?
Click to expand...


Abraham and Stephen were not confused. They understood to who the promises belong and exactly what they mean just at Paul clearly defines in Galatians and elsewhere. 
I think that perhaps you need to understand to whom Abraham's seed refers to.

It also seems that your argument proves too much. Are you saying that Abraham will come back from the dead to inherit the land for himself?
Otherwise from your perspective, at least in your wording, God would have not fulfilled His promise.


----------



## Peairtach

Turtle said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> 
> After God promised Abraham the land saying, "To thee will I give it." God told Abraham _"Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee." _
> 
> In Acts 7:5 Stephen pointed out that Abraham did not receive any land, not even "so much as to set the sole of his foot upon".
> 
> Did Stephan point this out to show God is a promise breaker?
> 
> bryan
> tampa, fl
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the point of Stephen's sermon was God and land grants. You need to pay careful attention to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews especially Galatians in order to properly understand what the promises made to Abraham really meant and to whom they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham and Stephan were confused because they hadn't read Hebrews and Galatians?
> 
> Stephan reminded us of Abraham's foot that walked the land he didn't inherit, but that God promised to him.
> 
> What was Stephan's purpose to point out a promise God had not fulfilled?
Click to expand...


What are you trying to get at? 

Abraham inherited the Land of Israel, which God had given him, in his children. The fullest extent of that land wasn't taken possession of until David and Solomon. 

In Christ - the Israel of God have been given the whole Earth including the Land of Israel. As more and more people get saved more of the Earth comes into the possession of God's people. It becomes _de facto_theirs, as well as theirs _de iure_. 

They will not take possession of it in its fullness until the Second Advent when the cosmos is transformed into a New Heavens and New Earth. In the meantime they are to make the most of what God has given them as stewards. The whole Earth is Eretz Israel since A.D. 70.

Sometimes we feel like Abraham, walking the length and breadth of a land that has been given us but we don't possess; sometimes like the Children of Israel, walking through the wilderness of this world under Christ, our Moses, to the Promised Land; sometimes like the Children of Israel going in to possess the Land under Christ, our Joshua, David and Solomon.

The Jews have been cut off from the Covenant as a nation since the First Century. In Romans 9-11 God promises to reingraft them (maybe when the Church is in a bad way - "life from the dead"). When they are converted, the God and Christ of the Covenant will be of far more importance to them than Eretz Israel.


----------



## rbcbob

Richard Tallach said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely right! There is a future for Israel - as a part of the Church!
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure that's the consequence? I haven't read much of MacArthur, but can't it agree with MacArthur that Israel will be brought back into the one people of God? In the quoted article, he seems to keep it simple enough to allow it.
> 
> "For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" They were chopped off, are currently being provoked to jealousy, and shall be grafted back on to the same tree that we have been grafted on to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted above: Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him *pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11*”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't Palmer Robetson espouse an amillenialism that does not teach a future national conversion of the Jews, and that God is practically finished with the Jews? I'll have to get a hold of his book to find out.
> 
> I don't know how amillenialists and others get from Romans 9-11 that God is practically finished with the Jews apart from a small number of conversions down the centuries. If God had been completely finished with the Jews he would have allowed them to be wiped out in A.D. 70. I wonder if this amillenialist, "God is finished with the Jews" approach, is sometimes an over reaction to dispensationalism?
> 
> The vast majority of the Jews have been cut off from the Covenant, but God is still providentially working with the others and will reingraft the nation into the Covenant in His own good time.
> 
> Re the Land, since they have been cut out of the Covenant and the vast majority are unbelievers, the Jews cannot claim the Land on the basis of God's promises, but only on the same basis we all lay claim to land as nations. It is a significant providence that they have been preserved as a nation and been permitted to return to the Land.
> 
> The times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24; Rev.11:2) will end when the Jews are converted, and the worldwide church (the true Israel of God - Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:10) is in the ascendant in a way it has not been in the last 2,000 years (that would be the "times of the true Israel").
Click to expand...


Robertson's exegesis of Romans 11 warrants serious consideration.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Wannabee said:


> But God will honor His promises, which are associated with a people group and land, in His way and in His time. And He's more than competent to establish blood lines however He wants, regardless of our puny understanding.



How do you reconcile this idea of a land promise with Hebrews 11, where the hope of the OT saints was clearly not an inheritance in the land but the city built by God and the better resurrection?


----------



## Turtle

Grillsy said:


> It also seems that your argument proves too much. Are you saying that Abraham will come back from the dead to inherit the land for himself?
> Otherwise from your perspective, at least in your wording, God would have not fulfilled His promise.



You are generous to classify my question as an argument, and overly generous to ascribe to it a perspective and wording sufficient to become an argument that proves too much. 

Is the question not reasonable considering Stephan's predicament?
.
.
.
.
.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 06:53:58 EST-----



Richard Tallach said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the point of Stephen's sermon was God and land grants. You need to pay careful attention to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews especially Galatians in order to properly understand what the promises made to Abraham really meant and to whom they belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham and Stephan were confused because they hadn't read Hebrews and Galatians?
> 
> Stephan reminded us of Abraham's foot that walked the land he didn't inherit, but that God promised to him.
> 
> What was Stephan's purpose to point out a promise God had not fulfilled?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you trying to get at?
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



Considering Stephen's predicament, what was he trying to get at? Since Stephan was dragged before the high priest to answer the accusation of blasphemy, isn't it counterproductive for Stephan to begin by telling the high priest that Abraham did not receive the land promised to him by God? Just in case there was any room for confusion about whether God had yet kept that promise Stephan added "not so much as to set his foot upon" (Acts 7:5, Gen 13:17). Why did Stephen start out by showing God had made a promise that Abraham had not received? Surely Stephan could have made his defense against blasphemy by skipping a controversy about Abraham's lack of land and instead start his argument with a more agreeable promise that God did obviously keep, like the promise to free His people from Egypt (which Stephen did add, Acts 7:6,7).

Why did Stephen pair up a promise God had not kept with one He had kept? Moses was rejected the first time and returned the second time to fulfill God's promise.


----------



## Grillsy

Turtle said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also seems that your argument proves too much. Are you saying that Abraham will come back from the dead to inherit the land for himself?
> Otherwise from your perspective, at least in your wording, God would have not fulfilled His promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are generous to classify my question as an argument, and overly generous to ascribe to it a perspective and wording sufficient to become an argument that proves too much.
> 
> Is the question not reasonable considering Stephan's predicament?
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 
> -----Added 7/16/2009 at 06:53:58 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham and Stephan were confused because they hadn't read Hebrews and Galatians?
> 
> Stephan reminded us of Abraham's foot that walked the land he didn't inherit, but that God promised to him.
> 
> What was Stephan's purpose to point out a promise God had not fulfilled?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you trying to get at?
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Considering Stephen's predicament, what was he trying to get at? Since Stephan was dragged before the high priest to answer the accusation of blasphemy, isn't it counterproductive for Stephan to begin by telling the high priest that Abraham did not receive the land promised to him by God? Just in case there was any room for confusion about whether God had yet kept that promise Stephan added "not so much as to set his foot upon" (Acts 7:5, Gen 13:17). Why did Stephen start out by showing God had made a promise that Abraham had not received? Surely Stephan could have made his defense against blasphemy by skipping a controversy about Abraham's lack of land and instead start his argument with a more agreeable promise that God did obviously keep, like the promise to free His people from Egypt (which Stephen did add, Acts 7:6,7).
> 
> Why did Stephen pair up a promise God had not kept with one He had kept? Moses was rejected the first time and returned the second time to fulfill God's promise.
Click to expand...


Here is the Matthew Henry's exegesis of Acts 7

"Stephen was charged as a blasphemer of God, and an apostate from the church; therefore he shows that he is a son of Abraham, and values himself on it. The slow steps by which the promise made to Abraham advanced toward performance, plainly show that it had a spiritual meaning, and that the land intended was the heavenly. God owned Joseph in his troubles, and was with him by the power of his Spirit, both on his own mind by giving him comfort, and on those he was concerned with, by

giving him favour in their eyes. Stephen reminds the Jews of their mean beginning as a check to priding themselves in the glories of that nation. Likewise of the wickedness of the patriarchs of their tribes, in envying their brother Joseph; and the same spirit was still working in them toward Christ and his ministers. The faith of the patriarchs, in desiring to be buried in the land of Canaan, plainly showed they had regard to the heavenly country. It is well to recur to the first rise of

usages, or sentiments, which have been perverted. Would we know the nature and effects of justifying faith, we should study the character of the father of the faithful. His calling shows the power and freeness of Divine grace, and the nature of conversion. Here also we see that outward forms and distinctions are as nothing, compared with separation from the world, and devotedness to God. (Ac 7:17-29)"

_________________________________

Again, I also want to stress that you read Galatians and see just who the Seed of Abraham is as well. You would do well to also recognize to who the promise is not made. You would also do well to due further research on the entire speech that Stephen gives and then search out what the significance of the message is.


----------



## Herald

Wannabee said:


> Bruce and Bill, thank you. Both of you bring a breath of fresh air.



Joe, I'm a recovering dispensationalist. I lean towards the amillennial camp, but I hold on to it so loosely that it could fall out of my hand any minute. As far as a future eschatological role for Israel? I believe it is doubtful. But again, I wouldn't be shocked if I'm proven wrong.


----------



## the particular baptist

Richard Tallach said:


> Abraham inherited the Land of Israel, which God had given him, in his children.



If we allow the NT to interpret the OT with its types and shadows, why not allow Apostle Paul's interpretation of the Land promise to stand ?
*
Romans 4:13* _For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. _

And of course, Apostle Paul goes to great length in Romans 3 and Ephesians 2 to qualify just who is Abraham's offspring and who isn't.


----------



## Peairtach

Yes. There are two stages to the Abrahamic Covenant: 

(1) Abraham to Christ, where the emphasis is on the Land of Israel, although the Jews should have embraced the nations.

(2) Christ to the End of the World, where the emphasis is on the whole World, including the Land of Israel.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 08:20:07 EST-----



Herald said:


> Bruce, this is not a scholarly statement, but sometimes I cringe when an eschatological system has all it's I's dotted and all it's T's crossed.



I agree. The fact that there is so much disagreement regarding those aspects of general eschatology covering what is to happen between now and Christ's Second Advent and/or between Christ's Second Advent and the end of the World - as premils would have us believe - makes one wonder if we're intended to know.

Discussions such as these help us to further explore the various possibilities in the light of Scripture, while knowing that we may be wrong here and there.


----------



## Kevin

Richard Tallach said:


> The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.
> 
> That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent as a nation and acknowledge the Messiah.
> 
> I believe they will, but I'm not holding my breath.



That is silly.


----------



## Herald

Kevin said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.
> 
> That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent as a nation and acknowledge the Messiah.
> 
> I believe they will, but I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is silly.
Click to expand...


There is a kinder way to disagree with a comment than to say it is silly. I don't like drive-by comments. At least back up your silly comment.


----------



## DonP

Rom 2:28- For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. NKJV

Rom 4:13-For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, NKJV

Rom 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed NKJV


Gal 3:28- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. NKJV

End of Story. If there is no more Jew or Greek then how can God have a future for Jews? 

Why would He since he never made promises to the Jews of flesh but it was really to the Jews of Promise

Real Jews are those who are in Christ, and this is the culmination of His ever expanding plan of redemption from Noah to Abraham to Moses to all the nations. 

Why would He shrink back down to Jews??? 

If there is any large number of Jews who become Christians in latter Days, as Paul said, now is latter days and they can be graft back in as He was. 

What would God do with Jews later? Certainly not have sacrifices so what would be the point of a bunch of mix breed Jews 2000 or more years later. 

Most of the genealogies were all lost, only a few came out of exile with Ezra and Nehemiah. 

The hope for the Jew is repentance and faith as it always was. 

Holding on to this sacred cow causes them to be blind to covenant theology in clarity and fullness. in my opinion


----------



## Peairtach

Herald said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.
> 
> That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent as a nation and acknowledge the Messiah.
> 
> I believe they will, but I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a kinder way to disagree with a comment than to say it is silly. I don't like drive-by comments. At least back up your silly comment.
Click to expand...


Yes. Please explain, Kevin. We can all be silly at times.



*Quote from Peacemaker*
_End of Story. If there is no more Jew or Greek then how can God have a future for Jews? _

We can all make selective quotations to back up our case. Your Galatians quotation if used in the way you're using it would also prove that there was no future for men and women in God's church.

_Why would He since he never made promises to the Jews of flesh but it was really to the Jews of Promise

Real Jews are those who are in Christ, and this is the culmination of His ever expanding plan of redemption from Noah to Abraham to Moses to all the nations. 

Why would He shrink back down to Jews??? 

If there is any large number of Jews who become Christians in latter Days, as Paul said, now is latter days and they can be graft back in as He was. 

What would God do with Jews later? Certainly not have sacrifices so what would be the point of a bunch of mix breed Jews 2000 or more years later. 

Most of the genealogies were all lost, only a few came out of exile with Ezra and Nehemiah. 

The hope for the Jew is repentance and faith as it always was. 

Holding on to this sacred cow causes them to be blind to covenant theology in clarity and fullness. in my opinion _

The fact that the Jews weren't all wiped out in AD 70, that there have always been a small number who trusted in Christ, and that the Apostle to the Gentiles spent three chapters explaining their role in the unfolding redemptive history, ending with a glorious doxology, shows they have a future. 

Obviously neither you nor I care, nor can care, for the Jews in the way that the Apostle did.


----------



## DonP

Kevin said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.
> 
> That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent as a nation and acknowledge the Messiah.
> 
> I believe they will, but I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is silly.
Click to expand...


I would say the fact they dispersed and some come, not back to the same nation, but seek to start a similar nation, in part of the same land by killing off the current rightful owners, for which they have no command of God to do this now, is no sign God is working with them at all!
It is a sign they are murderers and greedy and want to take over land from someone else. 
How exactly is God working with them? Does He want them to take back the land now? Will he establish a nation again and quit working with all people? Who cares what land they are in, He could work with ethnic Jews anywhere. 

As for Bad behavior on the part of the Jews? They are unregenerate like any other person. 
Of course they will sin, and not be thankful, this is not surprising. Why would one think a Jew today would be thankful to God? If they were thankful they would believe in Christ and join the church. Only Christians who are regenerated are “truly thankful”. 
They have no power of God on them, they are not the covenant people anymore, Ichabod, God no longer dwells among them. 

They were commanded to join the church if they would remain in the covenant. 
As the Covenant of Grace progressed, after Christ, the People of God change some of the ways the covenant is ministered. They stop sacrifices, and go to all nations. etc. 
And if a Jew was to stay with the covenant people, he would have to follow the new administration. That is regardless that he had the old sign of circumcision, he must be baptized, and stop the old ceremonies, and worship according to the new administration which has better signs. 

If they will not join the church and follow the new administration and drop the old ordinances, they are not the people if God, they have left the people of God. They stayed with ethnic customs and traditions instead of following Christ in this new way of worship. 

Ethnic Jews do not worship YHVH. they worship ancestors, and customs and ordinances. 
Their worship is an abomination to God. Even in the OT He told Jews their worship was unacceptable and not to Him. 

There is nothing special about being a " Jew" today or in the future. Its all about Christ, it all pointed to Christ, It was all about being united to Him in the new Jerusalem. 

***Only the blinded Pharisees thought it was about the land and an earthly kingdom and a Messiah who would bring in the earthly promises. This was a heresy. *
The dispensationalist of today hold to much of this same blindness and heresy that the Pharisees had. They think it was about the Jews and an earthly kingdom. 

They did not see it was not, it was really about a heavenly kingdom. 

There was a benefit to the ethnic Jews in the OT when the oracles of God came through and to the people of that land. But even that is taken away now. It was no more than what Paul tells us. Rom 3:1What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. NKJV
There is the only benefit of being an Israelite back then. But that is over.

*God does not tell us, well there will be more for the Jew later. No, their hope is to believe in Christ now. *

And for 2000 years God has let Jews die and Go to hell, so what benefit would there be in saying God has a plan for Jews because some day in the future He would save a few more of them at one time than are being saved now?? 

That isn't much help to the Jews who died in the last 2000 years. So how can the "Jews" have anything special going for the with God??

You may as well say there will be a revival in Italy in the last days and God will save some Italians. 

And even if it were true, it has no bearing on our lives and presenting the gospel to all people of all nations now? 

We equally offer to people in Israel and all countries. 
There is no more Jew or Greek. How could God later go back on this and say woops now there is again?

That would distinctively imply a dispensation. That would distinctively imply a complete and radical change in how God is working now, with equity to all men. 

If we really believed this then should we put more effort into evangelizing Jews? And take our focus off of all nations. 
And Which Jews? 
Ones in New York or only in Israel? Or all over the world in every country? 
Should we ask all russians and Polish and others, Are you Jewish? 

So what would be the point? there is no lack of faithfulness on God's part if He doesn't. We have already shown the promises were NEVER EVER to the Jews of Flesh but to the Israel of promise, the elect. 
The Jews of the flesh just got the temporal benefits of being in the outward visible covenant and land. But these were no real benefit, only shadows to point to the real promise in Christ. 

Whew!! This is why modern dispensationalsim is such a wicked and horrible heresy, because it is so hard to see all the damage it does and the sunglasses it puts into our minds and colors our interpretation of so much of scripture and is so hard to remove. 

Here is one of the most clear and profound passages in scripture. 

Rom 11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people ? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away *His people whom He foreknew*. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 "LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and *I alone am left*, and they seek my life"? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? *"I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men* who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 *Even so then, at this present time* there is a *remnant according to the election *of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. NKJV

God didn't foreknow ethnic Jews this way, foreordain them to faith, elect them. But He foreknew His People. 

This passage gives us the answer to whether God cast off His covenant people. 
No. Because he had 7000 at that time. No. Because just as Paul was saved so do Jews have the same opportunity *now*. 
And EVEN just as it was then, so *now*, there are those who are being saved by election, grace and certainly not by works or flesh. 
At this present time there is a hope, he speaks of nothing later for them? So those we care for specially are the remnant, those elect according to grace. 

Rom 9:8 That is, t*hose who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God*; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed NKJV

When we read Paul and Jesus we need to see them trying to undo the confusion the Jews held to. 
So *His people*, were not all the outward covenant people who got generically termed, My People, My Children, etc. Just as people in church today who are unregenerate get called brother and called the people of God, but they are not really. 

Did you know that Jesus even told them they were not Abraham's children?? 

John 8:39 They answered and said to Him,"Abraham is our father."
Jesus said to them, "*If you were Abraham's children*, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father." NKJV

Rom 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, *these are not the children of God*; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed NKJV

Jews are not the people of God. Never were never will be. They aren't even the Children of Abraham. 
Meaning I have no dealings with you at all and never had any. 

Is this some new dispensational parenthesis where Jesus can say I am no longer dealing with you but I was in the last dispensation, through that other door? 

Nooooo There is no door between, it is one expanding Covenant of grace. This is Jesus coming to OT ethnic Jews and telling them plainly you are not the Children of Abraham. 

This is not dispensational language, this is one covenant language, saying you were never the ones we meant. You just hung around the true people of God, like church goers today hang around the true believers. We can't tell them apart in the flesh, but you ethnic people have no inheritance, and I have no part in you. 
No plan for your future. 
Because when ever I speak of Children of God, Children of Abraham, My people, etc, I never meant any of you ethnic Jews. (Sorry you and the dispensationals misunderstood). 
I only meant those of faith, the elect. 

*Stop and think. God never had dealings with any unregenerate person. *Jew or non-Jew. He can only commune with the pure. So He never ever had anything to do with ethnic Jews. They were wicked, and wasted the outward means of grace before their eyes. 

Therefore, all the true believers, all the true elect, Whether ethnic Jew or not will be dealt with the same at the end. Caught up with Him. No separation of ethnic Jews at the end because they are either true children of Abraham, converted or they are not. 

Rom 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, *these are not the children of God*; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed NKJV

Now having said that. 
If someone who gets their mind clear on this, can still say they think for some reason, unspecified in scripture, that God might convert a lot of ethnic Jews, from somewhere on the earth, at some later time, then fine you are free to believe that. 

But why would He?? 
Here is God's view of the ethnic Jew 

Ps 7:11 God is a just judge, And *God is angry with the wicked every day*. NKJV

Isa 1:13 Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me .
The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies — 
I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. 
14 Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates;
They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them. 
15 When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you;
Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. NKJV

So will He all of a sudden like their sacrifices an feasts? We He be pleased with them that they celebrate Passover and deny Christ's atonement?

Rom 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, *these are not the children of God*; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed NKJV


----------



## Grillsy

Blunt though it may be. You are expressing much more clearly what I was attempting to express earlier. I guess I am just more timid at this point  Thanks Don.


----------



## DonP

Richard Tallach said:


> The fact that the Jews weren't all wiped out in AD 70, that there have always been a small number who trusted in Christ, and that the Apostle to the Gentiles spent three chapters explaining their role in the unfolding redemptive history, ending with a glorious doxology, shows they have a future.
> .



Please consider that the small number you speak of, are the remnant. 

The remnant are the saved ones. 
So they are not Jews who still believe in a Jewish way, or have faith in Jehovah, or are sort of good, still doing sacrifices wholeheartedly etc. 

The remnant are not faithful Jews staying Jewish until some future age when they will convert, they are the ones being converted and believing as Paul did, at that time. 

Rom 11:5 Even so then, *at this present time there is a remnant* according to the election of grace. NKJV

Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. NKJV

It does not say there may be a remnant at a future time. 

I hope this is helpful, I was confused in all of this for a long time too. 

And even if it did continue throughout history, it is still speaking of those who are believers in Christ. Not some faithful Jews holding on to some form or Judaism and having children who continue in this Judaism throughout history until some future age when many will be converted.


----------



## Peairtach

Dear Peacemaker,

_The dispensationalist of today hold to much of this same blindness and heresy that the Pharisees had. They think it was about the Jews and an earthly kingdom_.

Is this partly your reaction to dispensationalism? There are/were plenty Reformed scholars who do not believe God is finished with the Jews. See e.g. Hermann Witsius, Richard Sibbes, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Robert Murray M'Cheyne, David Brown, Charles Hodge, Robert Dabney, W.G.T. Shedd, John Murray, Lorraine Boettner, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, etc, etc.

Are you saying all these men and more were dispensationalists, because they believed that the Jews were under the care of Providence until their national conversion? I'm not a dispensationalist or premil either. I believe that the only hope of salvation is in the Olive Tree and the vast majority of the Jews have been cut out of it until some time in the future. 

_There was a benefit to the ethnic Jews in the OT when the oracles of God came through and to the people of that land. But even that is taken away now. It was no more than what Paul tells us. Rom 3:1What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. NKJV
There is the only benefit of being an Israelite back then. But that is over._

The Apostle doesn't tell us that it's over but that his heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved; obviously a futile waste of time, in your opinion.

He also says - among many other things - that if the fall of them is the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?

We don't need to go to Dispensationalist extremes to acknowledge what the Apostle is saying. 

_God does not tell us, well there will be more for the Jew later. No, their hope is to believe in Christ now._

The hope of Jews living now is to believe in Christ now. The hope of Jews living in the future is to believe in Christ then. Same for Gentiles.

_Stop and think. God never had dealings with any unregenerate person. Jew or non-Jew. He can only commune with the pure. So He never ever had anything to do with ethnic Jews. They were wicked, and wasted the outward means of grace before their eyes. _

I have thought, as have plenty of the Reformed. God guides *all* men and nations to do His providence, whether these men are saved or not, and whatever percentage of these nations are converted, even if there is no-one among them converted, although He has promised always to have a remnant among the Jews.

_I hope this is helpful, I was confused in all of this for a long time too. _

As long as you know that there are plenty Reformed scholars and people who believe in a future national conversion of the Jews, while rejecting the tenets of dispensationalism. Many Reformed and Puritans believed this long before dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby in the 1830s.

See e.g.

The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy: Amazon.co.uk: Iain H. Murray: Books

I'll be interested to read Palmer Robertson, but I've read expositions of Romans 9-11 before that denied a future national conversion of the Jews and found them unsatisfactory.

Even if you don't believe in a future national conversion, you must admit that Romans 9-11 teaches that God is not finished with the Jews. Does the Bible say about any other nation e.g. the Scots, that God will always have a remnant among them?

Yours in Christ,
Richard.


----------



## Grillsy

Richard,

The issue that you were originally arguing wasn't about national conversion but rather about the land promise. No one would have a problem with a future Jewish conversion. The issue is whether or God not is somehow obligated to do something for them based on their race or a dubious interpretation of what the covenant meant.


----------



## Kevin

Herald said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.
> 
> That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent as a nation and acknowledge the Messiah.
> 
> I believe they will, but I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a kinder way to disagree with a comment than to say it is silly. I don't like drive-by comments. At least back up your silly comment.
Click to expand...


Here is the kinder gentler version; that was REALLY silly.

1) the "jews" have not been preserved. The nation of Israel ceased to exist in 70AD. Those who now live in (occupied) Palestine are an Eastern European Clan that has no more connection to Abraham then the Albanians or the Uzbeks.

2)To try to discern the "hand of God" at work in the brutal actions of the 20th centuries most succesful terrorist organisations (Stern Gang & Irgun) makes as much sense, in my opinion, as calling the Taliban Gideons Band.

3) I am certain that God will call all men to Himself before the end, but no one gets a head start based on who they (claim) their grandfather was.


----------



## DonP

I agree that all Men who hold that there will be Jews converted in the future do not have to be dispensational. 
The question is how do you arrive at this idea? 
Do you use dispensational thinking or another way? Do you properly interpret scripture or not. This is the issue. 

Rom 9-11 says Jews can be converted from now on.
It does not say there will be whole bunch at any one time. 

As for a partial blindness on the Jews, I do not think this is a parenthesis. 

As for national Jewish conversion I would like to hear what you think that would look like. 

Will it only be for Jews living in this new nation called Israel and then many pure undefiled Jews living only in that nation be converted at some time? 

Will it include mix-breed people living in the nation?

Or will it be for all Jews regardless where they live? 

Is it about the race, the religion or the culture and national occupancy of the people?

All I see is that their partial blindness was a means God used to spread the gospel from Israel to all nations. 
There is as much hope for them as anyone. All who are elect will be saved. An in that manner, shall all spiritual Israel be saved. 

Israel is the true people of God. 
That is why ALL Israel will be saved. 

Obviously not all Jews will be saved since many have died unsaved for thousands of years. 

The only all who will be saved are:

1. The Jew who is one inwardly. 
2. Those who are the children of Abraham and heirs according to faith not flesh. 
3. All Israel, that is all the elect from all ages. 

The scriptures are abundantly clear on this. 

So if some of the reformers were mistaken on this that is a possibility. 
And some of the reformers and some reformed today may choose to believe a lot of Jews will be converted near the end or at some later point. 
No problem. As long as they do not twist certain passages to make them say this where they don't. 

But apparently you do not have an answer for some of the questions I posed. 

And I would be interested to hear your exegesis or interpretation of those specific parts of Rom 9-11 that cause you to think there will be a national conversion of Jews. 

And please explain what a national conversion would mean. 

Fullness simply mean the complete number of elect. 
I also believe the fullness of the Jews will be joyous; even if that means only 3 of them are converted. 
Fullness, meaning: The complete number of elect Jew; and all of that number will be saved. That does not lead me to think of some exceptionally large number or proportion of them. Just all of them, their fullness will be great. 

Perhaps one's eschatological view does influence in one in this area. 


As for remnant, again I remind you that this is not a remnant of Jews holding to Judaism who will one day be converted. The remnant are the converted Jews. 

Rom 11:5 Even so then, *at this present time* there is a remnant *according to the election of grace*. NKJV

There is a remnant, small number, of Jews who are elect. 

I think there has been a lot of speculation on this. I just encourage people to check their interpretation of the verses and be sure why they hold to a large number of Jews or a national conversion and which scriptures actually teach either of these. 

And No God is not done with he Jews. Anyone can be saved. 
God is done with dealing with the Jews in any way as a nation. God is not a respecter of persons, any more than he will save anyone else. 

There is no Jew or Greek. 

There are just people of all nations being saved, some of them Jews.

And those reformers who hold to an idea that a lot of Jews may be converted at some later time, I do not think they find this a real clear and precise teaching of scripture, but just looks like something like this could be. And it was never as important a doctrine to them as it is to so many today. 

I will also add that, though I agree with Kevin and have posted similarly elsewhere at PB, the fact humans may not be able to trace any true Jews, God could be able to do it and maybe there are some pure ones left. Though Nehemiah and Ezra only found a small part of them in genealogies that were not lost or destroyed.

And these are not of the 12 tribes. Only of the tribe of Judah mainly. Thus the name JEW , son of Judah. 
Ezra 2:60-64
60 the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Tobiah, and the sons of Nekoda, six hundred and fifty-two; 61 and of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Koz, and the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called by their name. 62 *These sought their listing among those who were registered by genealogy, but they were not found;* *therefore they were excluded from the priesthood as defiled.* 63 And the governor said to them that they should not eat of the most holy things till a priest could consult with the Urim and Thummim. 
64 *The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty*,
NKJV



Those who would take this to mean we should especially evangelize the Jews ore than others, I think err.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

PeaceMaker said:


> Please consider that the small number you speak of, are the remnant.


Will the remnant really be a small number?

AMR


----------



## Turtle

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please consider that the small number you speak of, are the remnant.
> 
> 
> 
> Will the remnant really be a small number?
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


Who knows precisely how many are necessary to constitute a remnant , but I suppose one might say that with the remnant the aggregate becomes even more as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
.
.
.
.
.
.


-----Added 7/18/2009 at 10:14:46 EST-----



PeaceMaker said:


> .. I would like to hear what you think that would look like.



If your query is what the recovery of the remnant will look like, it may be similar to the following description of a recovery of the remnant beggining in Isaiah 11:11.

_"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth...."_ and following through chapter 12. 
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Peairtach

PeaceMaker said:


> I agree that all Men who hold that there will be Jews converted in the future do not have to be dispensational.
> The question is how do you arrive at this idea?
> Do you use dispensational thinking or another way? Do you properly interpret scripture or not. This is the issue.
> 
> Rom 9-11 says Jews can be converted from now on.
> It does not say there will be whole bunch at any one time.
> 
> As for a partial blindness on the Jews, I do not think this is a parenthesis.
> 
> As for national Jewish conversion I would like to hear what you think that would look like.
> 
> Will it only be for Jews living in this new nation called Israel and then many pure undefiled Jews living only in that nation be converted at some time?
> 
> Will it include mix-breed people living in the nation?
> 
> Or will it be for all Jews regardless where they live?
> 
> Is it about the race, the religion or the culture and national occupancy of the people?
> 
> All I see is that their partial blindness was a means God used to spread the gospel from Israel to all nations.
> There is as much hope for them as anyone. All who are elect will be saved. An in that manner, shall all spiritual Israel be saved.
> 
> Israel is the true people of God.
> That is why ALL Israel will be saved.
> 
> Obviously not all Jews will be saved since many have died unsaved for thousands of years.
> 
> The only all who will be saved are:
> 
> 1. The Jew who is one inwardly.
> 2. Those who are the children of Abraham and heirs according to faith not flesh.
> 3. All Israel, that is all the elect from all ages.
> 
> The scriptures are abundantly clear on this.
> 
> So if some of the reformers were mistaken on this that is a possibility.
> And some of the reformers and some reformed today may choose to believe a lot of Jews will be converted near the end or at some later point.
> No problem. As long as they do not twist certain passages to make them say this where they don't.
> 
> But apparently you do not have an answer for some of the questions I posed.
> 
> And I would be interested to hear your exegesis or interpretation of those specific parts of Rom 9-11 that cause you to think there will be a national conversion of Jews.
> 
> And please explain what a national conversion would mean.
> 
> Fullness simply mean the complete number of elect.
> I also believe the fullness of the Jews will be joyous; even if that means only 3 of them are converted.
> Fullness, meaning: The complete number of elect Jew; and all of that number will be saved. That does not lead me to think of some exceptionally large number or proportion of them. Just all of them, their fullness will be great.
> 
> Perhaps one's eschatological view does influence in one in this area.
> 
> 
> As for remnant, again I remind you that this is not a remnant of Jews holding to Judaism who will one day be converted. The remnant are the converted Jews.
> 
> Rom 11:5 Even so then, *at this present time* there is a remnant *according to the election of grace*. NKJV
> 
> There is a remnant, small number, of Jews who are elect.
> 
> I think there has been a lot of speculation on this. I just encourage people to check their interpretation of the verses and be sure why they hold to a large number of Jews or a national conversion and which scriptures actually teach either of these.
> 
> And No God is not done with he Jews. Anyone can be saved.
> God is done with dealing with the Jews in any way as a nation. God is not a respecter of persons, any more than he will save anyone else.
> 
> There is no Jew or Greek.
> 
> There are just people of all nations being saved, some of them Jews.
> 
> And those reformers who hold to an idea that a lot of Jews may be converted at some later time, I do not think they find this a real clear and precise teaching of scripture, but just looks like something like this could be. And it was never as important a doctrine to them as it is to so many today.
> 
> I will also add that, though I agree with Kevin and have posted similarly elsewhere at PB, the fact humans may not be able to trace any true Jews, God could be able to do it and maybe there are some pure ones left. Though Nehemiah and Ezra only found a small part of them in genealogies that were not lost or destroyed.
> 
> And these are not of the 12 tribes. Only of the tribe of Judah mainly. Thus the name JEW , son of Judah.
> Ezra 2:60-64
> 60 the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Tobiah, and the sons of Nekoda, six hundred and fifty-two; 61 and of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Koz, and the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called by their name. 62 *These sought their listing among those who were registered by genealogy, but they were not found;* *therefore they were excluded from the priesthood as defiled.* 63 And the governor said to them that they should not eat of the most holy things till a priest could consult with the Urim and Thummim.
> 64 *The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty*,
> NKJV
> 
> 
> 
> Those who would take this to mean we should especially evangelize the Jews ore than others, I think err.



*Quote from Grillsy*
_No one would have a problem with a future Jewish conversion_

According to Peacemaker - and presumably others - people _do_ have a problem with a future conversion of the Jews.


----------



## Peairtach

Kevin said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a kinder way to disagree with a comment than to say it is silly. I don't like drive-by comments. At least back up your silly comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the kinder gentler version; that was REALLY silly.
> 
> 1) the "jews" have not been preserved. The nation of Israel ceased to exist in 70AD. Those who now live in (occupied) Palestine are an Eastern European Clan that has no more connection to Abraham then the Albanians or the Uzbeks.
Click to expand...


There was always provision for Gentiles to become Jews. See e.g. Exodus 12:48. Presumably Jews before A.D. 70 weren't Jews either, because of the presence of non-Abrahamic blood?



> 2)To try to discern the "hand of God" at work in the brutal actions of the 20th centuries most succesful terrorist organisations (Stern Gang & Irgun) makes as much sense, in my opinion, as calling the Taliban Gideons Band.



The hand of God is in all Providence. That does not mean that we have to justify immoral behaviour by Jewish terror gangs, the Israeli government or military. The hand of God was in the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and by Titus; that doesn't mean to say that we have to say that what they did was "good".



> 3) I am certain that God will call all men to Himself before the end, but no one gets a head start based on who they (claim) their grandfather was.



God won't call all men to Himself in the Gospel. Many have lived and died having only the light of nature. Some people have promises, priviledges and responsibilities that others don't in God's providence e.g. children born into believing families. I certainly thank God that my parents were believers and that He used that to lead me to Himself. Is that God "giving someone a head start"? If God wants to give people "a head start" by putting them in a believing family or sending the Gospel to them, surely that is His sovereign prerogative, as is electing some to salvation.

Leaving aside the Q of a national conversion and the Land, Paul is at least saying that there will always be a remnant of Jews who believe. Is that a promise that other nations have?

Re there being neither Jew nor Greek in the Church, this does not mean that Jews and Greeks don't exist or should deny their national identity, but that they are one in Christ and of equal value to Christ. Males and females are also in the Church and shouldn't become androgynous - there are even different roles for males and females in the Church - but a female is of equal value to Christ as a male, and some females even outstrip males in godliness, sanctification, fruits and gifts.


----------



## Peairtach

PeaceMaker said:


> I agree that all Men who hold that there will be Jews converted in the future do not have to be dispensational.
> The question is how do you arrive at this idea?
> Do you use dispensational thinking or another way? Do you properly interpret scripture or not. This is the issue.


 
Fine. Have you read any of the Reformed expositions which take a different position to yourself? Hendriksen holds to your position; Lloyd-Jones questions Hendriksen on why Paul has a notable doxology at the end of Romans 11 if all he is telling the church in Rome is that a small remnant of Jews will be saved down through the centuries. They already knew that a small proportion of Jews believed. I would further question the point of Paul's three chapter excursus into New Covenant redemptive history, if all he is saying is that a small number of Jews will believe. 



> Rom 9-11 says Jews can be converted from now on.
> It does not say there will be whole bunch at any one time.
> 
> As for a partial blindness on the Jews, I do not think this is a parenthesis.
> 
> As for national Jewish conversion I would like to hear what you think that would look like.
> 
> Will it only be for Jews living in this new nation called Israel and then many pure undefiled Jews living only in that nation be converted at some time?*No*
> 
> Will it include mix-breed people living in the nation?*Yes. As you pointed out there is no pure Jewish race, as there is no pure Scots or American race.*
> 
> Or will it be for all Jews regardless where they live?*Yes*
> 
> Is it about the race, the religion or the culture and national occupancy of the people?*It's about God's dealings with His ancient Covenant people in providence*


 
It says that a number of Jews _will_ be converted from now on. It says that the blindness on the Jews will happen _until_ the fulness of the Gentiles - presumably then a change occurs among the Jews. 

Romans 9-11 says nothing about the Land. I do not believe that Jews have to be living in Israel in order to be converted, or in order for there to be a national conversion. 



> All I see is that their partial blindness was a means God used to spread the gospel from Israel to all nations.


 
Romans 11:15 says that the receiving of the Jews back into the Olive Tree willl be "life from the dead". 



> There is as much hope for them as anyone. All who are elect will be saved. An in that manner, shall all spiritual Israel be saved.
> 
> Israel is the true people of God.
> That is why ALL Israel will be saved.


 
My interpretation of this passage is not dependent on 11:26. "All Israel" there may well refer to the total number of the elect rather than the national conversion of the Jews. Calvin believed that this passage taught the national conversion of the Jews, and yet believed that 11:26 referred to the full number of the elect - Jew and Gentile.



> Obviously not all Jews will be saved since many have died unsaved for thousands of years.


 
Did anyone say this?



> The only all who will be saved are:
> 
> 1. The Jew who is one inwardly.
> 2. Those who are the children of Abraham and heirs according to faith not flesh.
> 3. All Israel, that is all the elect from all ages.
> 
> The scriptures are abundantly clear on this.


 
Agreed.



> So if some of the reformers were mistaken on this that is a possibility.
> And some of the reformers and some reformed today may choose to believe a lot of Jews will be converted near the end or at some later point.
> No problem. As long as they do not twist certain passages to make them say this where they don't.
> 
> But apparently you do not have an answer for some of the questions I posed.
> 
> And I would be interested to hear your exegesis or interpretation of those specific parts of Rom 9-11 that cause you to think there will be a national conversion of Jews.


 
It was a lot of Reformers and Puritans. I don't believe they were mistaken, but eschaology can be a difficult area.



> And please explain what a national conversion would mean.


 
It means the vast majority of the Jews would believe in a relatively short time leading - among other things - to world revival.



> There is a remnant, small number, of Jews who are elect.


 
Agreed.



> I think there has been a lot of speculation on this. I just encourage people to check their interpretation of the verses and be sure why they hold to a large number of Jews or a national conversion and which scriptures actually teach either of these.


 
I'll check out Robertson on this, but if he doesn't improve on Hendriksen, I'm unlikely to be persuaded.



> And those reformers who hold to an idea that a lot of Jews may be converted at some later time, I do not think they find this a real clear and precise teaching of scripture, but just looks like something like this could be. And it was never as important a doctrine to them as it is to so many today.


 
According to Iain Murray's book it was quite important to many Puritans, although it didn't partake of the dispensational whackiness and fripperies of today.



> I will also add that, though I agree with Kevin and have posted similarly elsewhere at PB, the fact humans may not be able to trace any true Jews, God could be able to do it and maybe there are some pure ones left. Though Nehemiah and Ezra only found a small part of them in genealogies that were not lost or destroyed.
> 
> And these are not of the 12 tribes. Only of the tribe of Judah mainly. Thus the name JEW , son of Judah.


 
The Hebrews, Jews, Israelites since at least the time of e.g. Rahab and Ruth, if not earlier, have had Gentile blood.



> Ezra 2:60-64
> 60 the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Tobiah, and the sons of Nekoda, six hundred and fifty-two; 61 and of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Koz, and the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called by their name. 62 *These sought their listing among those who were registered by genealogy, but they were not found;* *therefore they were excluded from the priesthood as defiled.* 63 And the governor said to them that they should not eat of the most holy things till a priest could consult with the Urim and Thummim
> 64 *The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty*,
> NKJV


 
The priests had to follow special rules about who they could or could not marry. There were also rules when a man or woman wanted to become a Jew.




> Those who would take this to mean we should especially evangelize the Jews ore than others, I think err.


 
Those Reformed missionaries to the Jews I've met believe in evangelising Gentiles when they get the opportunity; they also believe in the need for mission/evangelism to the Gentiles.

I'm sure it can become an obsession for some and an object of Dispensational whackiness.


----------



## DonP

Richard Tallach said:


> Leaving aside the Q of a national conversion and the Land, Paul is at least saying that *there will always be a remnant of Jews who believe.* Is that a promise that other nations have?
> 
> Re there being neither Jew nor Greek in the Church, this does not mean that Jews and Greeks don't exist or should deny their national identity, but that they are one in Christ and of equal value to Christ. Males and females are also in the Church and shouldn't become androgynous - there are even different roles for males and females in the Church - but a female is of equal value to Christ as a male, and some females even outstrip males in godliness, sanctification, fruits and gifts.



I appreciate the dialogue and your following my explanation and answering many of the statements. I hope I can share another perspective with you to consider whether you accept it or not: 
1. so people are less adamant that there is only one position... 
2. And it may persuade some who read this. 

I have read others who differ. I used to differ with what I hold now. 

Note what you said above. there will always be a remnant who believe? 
I ask you to use more care with the scripture. It does not say that. 
If you want to think that, fine I may not argue with you at all; but my concern is not to say that scripture says what it doesn't. YOu can believe angels have wings if you want, but scripture no where tells us that. It says Seraphs and Cherubs and the 4 living beings do, but it no where says those beings are angels. So I prefer to stick with scripture and not presume or speculate. If others want to presume, fine, just admit it is a presume don't say scripture says it. 

Again as for Jews and Greeks what it means is that we do not deal with people as Jews or Greeks. 
God is no respecter of persons. He elected by His own Good Pleasure not based on Jew or Greek. 
And we are not to consider whether a person is a Jew or a Greek, love all, evangelize all and not to base any treatment of them on whether they are Jew or Greek.


----------



## DonP

Richard Tallach said:


> ; Fine. Have you read any of the Reformed expositions which take a different position to yourself? Hendriksen holds to your position; Lloyd-Jones questions Hendriksen on why Paul has a notable doxology at the end of Romans 11 if all he is telling the church in Rome is that a small remnant of Jews will be saved down through the centuries. *They already knew that a small proportion of Jews believed. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Peacemaker; Did they? No they did not. How do we know? The scripture tells us. Here is the question Paul is answering.
> 
> Rom 11:1 has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. NKJV
> 
> Thus Paul goes on to answer and prove this by God saying He had 7000 and that Paul now is converted so this is evidence to you who might question:
> Since I have made it so clear God is Done with the Jews as a race, religion or nation, that you might think I mean He will not even allow them to be saved anymore.
> No, though He is done with them as a race, nation or religious sect, and has no more plan for them as such at all, He is still saving them individually just as any other person. They are not prohibited or banned.
> 
> I hope you can see that the best reading of this is the exact opposite to what many hold.
> The only way we see this is to be sure we see what the erroneous thinking the people had that he was writing to. He is correcting a thought. He is not just speaking things for no reason, or in a vacuum. There is a context so we do not have to make up with it might "Probably" Mean.
> 
> Also he says God has not cast off His people He *foreknew*. Those are the elect. So He did cast off the rest of the Jews. Only the ones He foreknew He did not cast off. Now I know this is jumping back and forth between revealed and unrevealed, but this is what Paul is doing and we need to see that. He can not speak in terms of some nebulous group of Jewish people as if it was up to them and there was no predestination. He is trying to tell them, God never spoke promise to the ethnic Jews it was always only about the elect, so of course He cast no one off who was elect. He is fulfilling His promises, because they were made only to the elect, so whether one is a Jew or not doesn’t matter.
> We no longer consider whether they are Jew or Greek, it is no longer a distinction we make. All God’s promises and dealings were with the children of promise, the elect. So God s faithful, I don’t know how else to explain this too you, it is divine, heavenly wisdom. Therefore break into Doxology!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says that a number of Jews _will_ be converted from now on. It says that the blindness on the Jews will happen _until_ the fulness of the Gentiles - *presumably *then a change occurs among the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Peacemaker; This is where I am concerned for you. "presumably" . Well I don't presume so am I wrong? I only go with what scripture clearly says. I don't presume something. So if you want to tell me that the scripture does not absolutely say there will be a time when a lot of Jews come in, but I would like to presume that, then Fine. I already said I have no problem with your presuming this. Just don't say scripture teaches it.
> 
> All it says is part of the reason or a partial blindness has happened to the Jews, so the Gospel gets taken to the nations because they are forced to go to them since the Jews reject it and disperse the Christian preachers with persecutions.
> 
> I "Presume" the blindness is partial because some are converted and many are not.
> But I do not see this saying, one all the Gentiles are converted, then God will start converting Jews. This is parenthesis thinking.
> Here is how the error thinking goes:
> God is really still dealing with Jews as His people, and there is this parenthesis where most are blinded until all Gentiles are converted then God will go back to dealing with His people the Jews.
> 
> The point Paul makes is: The ethnic Jews were never His people.
> Only those who had faith were His people and who He had in mind when He made promises. He never had a plan for ethnic Jews, before, now or future.
> Does that make sense at all?
> He only had a plan for the elect. Not Jews as a race or religious order or people of the land.
> So there is no need to bring in a bunch of those people because He had no promise to them. and we don't even have a race of Jews anymore they are part of the Gentiles now, mix-bred. So who would these Jews be He will save a vast majority of?
> 
> And yes the verse below says when Paul or any other Jew believes, the imperfect analogy of the olive tree would be: one more branch of covenant people is being graft into the church. Just as a non-covenant person, wild branch, can be graft in,
> So a covenant person who was not converted can be graft in truly. Nothing about future, age after fullness of Gentiles, or a larger number or percentage of them than is currently turning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Romans 11:15 says that the receiving of the Jews back into the Olive Tree will be "life from the dead".
> 
> 
> It means the vast majority of the Jews would believe in a relatively short time leading - among other things - to world revival.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = new Peacemaker; Ok now we are getting somewhere. " Vast Majority of Jews" from all over the world who return to Israel?
> 
> :Leading to world revival"? Where do we get this, from Revelation, or is this just another thing these proponents, "presume"
> 
> I am fine with presumption. I just want is stated a such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Hebrews, Jews, Israelites since at least the time of e.g. Rahab and Ruth, if not earlier, have had Gentile blood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = new Peacemaker; Then why are they Jews? If a child has a parent one a Jew and one a Palestinian, then why are they still a Jew and not Palestinian? What makes this determination?
> So you are saying now, mix-breed people from all over the world who had some Jewish blood in them will move to Israel and a vast Majority of these who have some Jewish blood will believe? Is this what you are saying.
> 
> This sounds like the nations believing.
> But I question you with this passage. John 4:9 Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, "How is it that *You, being a Jew*, ask a drink from me, *a Samaritan woman?*" For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. NKJV
> 
> Hmmm... So either the Jews and Samaritans didn't know who the Jews are; or Jews were not considered to be mix-bred like Samaritans.
> Or God is still going to consider mix-breed people Jews even though Paul would not be speaking about mix-breed people since Jews did not consider mix-breed as Jews.
> 
> As for my quote of the priests, yes they absolutely enforced this on the priests And though they allowed proselytes from other lands in to live among them; did that make them a Jew? Even if they got circumcised?
> Or were they a stranger dwelling in the land?
> 
> So do you think the blindness in part is on Jews, and mix-breed Jews?
> Wouldn't that be a lot of people from a lot of nations who would now be considered Gentiles and not Jews, unless they choose to call themselves Jews and worship?
> Or would this only be from those who maintain the Jewish religion? Hasidim, Orthodox or even, non-practicing Jews?
> 
> Seems like this is really stretching these passages to mean far more than they tell us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it can become an obsession for some and an object of Dispensational whackiness.
Click to expand...

Yes I think if there is to be a vast number of some sort of Jews that is is of no significant consequence to me. I praise God for whoever believes, with no repect to whether they were Jew or Greek.


----------



## DonP

What do you think the significance or purpose for a vast national ingathering would be and how should this influence us or what is the application to us?


----------



## Scott1

In understanding this whole area myself and in contending for covenant theology with people whose views are dispensational influenced it has been helpful to explain a few things:

1) The church does not replace Israel (as they often frame it), but, rather, expands the covenant to believing Jews and Gentiles through Christ- which was God's plan from the (Old Testament) beginning

2) God's plan was from the beginning, His promises to Abraham, to redeem a people from every tribe, nation, kingdom, kindred and tongue (Jews and Gentiles)

3) It is indeed a remarkable act of God's Providence that a modern day nation of Israel has been established. By Romans 11 it is certainly possible to believe God will do a special redemptive work among people with some Jewish ethnicity. However,

a) It will be on the basis of Christ's redemption on the cross
b) The modern political entity is not the centerpiece of God's redemptive plan (Christ's finished work on the cross is)

4) The early church, book of Acts, clearly teaches God is no respecter or persons, but was claiming a people, Jew and Gentile on the basis of the finished work of Christ on the cross. There is no separate plan of redemption, but rather one plan through Christ for both. One cannot read the book of Acts and come out with one set of people with "earthly promises" and another with "spiritual promises."

Kim Riddlebarger's book, _A Case for Amilleniallism_ is one of the best resources for making this dispensational/covenant theology area more clear.


----------



## Wannabee

Scott, that is an excellent post. I could have said the same thing. If what we see in Israel today has eschatological significance I will be neither dismayed nor surprised. It might, or might not. But, with a view that is in full agreement with everything in your post, I do see a future for ethnic Israel in regard to land promises. As you graciously said, Romans allows for it. I would claim, from an exegetical perspective, that it demands it. But, I appreciate your humility and graciousness in your response.


----------



## Grillsy

Scott1 said:


> 3) It is indeed a remarkable act of God's Providence that a modern day nation of Israel has been established. By Romans 11 it is certainly possible to believe God will do a special redemptive work among people with some Jewish ethnicity. However,
> 
> a) It will be on the basis of Christ's redemption on the cross
> b) The modern political entity is not the centerpiece of God's redemptive plan (Christ's finished work on the cross is)



Many continue to write that the founding of the modern nation of Israel is a "remarkable" act of Providence. Upon what basis is this claim made? I fail to understand how the founding of this nation is of _remarkable_ Providence considering the nature of the inhabitants of the nation and the history of the nation's founding.


----------



## DonP

Wannabee said:


> I do see a future for ethnic Israel in regard to land promises. As you graciously said, Romans allows for it. I would claim, from an exegetical perspective, that it demands it.



Can you explain how you would see Rom demanding it?? Esp in light of previous posts in this thread if you have read them? 
Thanks.

And given that you are a TMS grad and in your bio do not list any confessional affiliation I would like to know if you consider yourself a dispensational in the same sense John Mac Arthur does? Or do you repudiate that and hold a more covenantal and Confessional view.


----------



## Wannabee

Actually, Willie, I think it is a "remarkable" act of Providence. Many things are, including the rise of America from colonialism. But that does not necessitate eschatological significance. I'd rather wonder about it than think I'm certain and be proven wrong. 


It's a fair question, Don. I read through most of what was posted, but it was too much for me to bother to try to work through. And I thought others handled it relatively well. But it's a lot of information and I didn't keep up on the discussion well enough to jump in and start working through specific posts. However, as for your question, I'll try. But I also know that debate on this aspect is generally fruitless. And where I lack clarity, please forgive me. I am up at this hour because I'm sick and can't sleep. It's entirely possible that my thoughts aren't as cohesive as I think they are. 

First, as I have stated numerous times on this board, I have to declare myself dispensational because of it's basics
- literal grammatico-historical hermeneutic
- future for ethnic Israel
- God's glory central
That's really it. People attempt to put more labels on dispensationalism, but that's all that's necessary. Of course there are variants, and, generally speaking, such a position would be premillennial. If you don't accept this definition of dispensationalism then there's no need to argue; simply relabel me.  It obviously precludes me from being covenantal.

So, yes, I would be very close to MacArthur but perhaps with more "reformed" leanings than he has. I don't accept his entire understanding of eschatology, being undecided on the whole tribulation concept. But I am decidedly premil. As for confessional standards, I find myself in agreement with the 44 without WSF impositions that are sometimes made. In other words, I take it at face value. I submit this only for clarity in regard to your questions, and not to gender debate.

Romans,
I'll not go into depth here, but, simply put, I do not see how anyone can say that Paul is talking about the church when he refers to Israel here. For instance, in 9:4 he refers to his countrymen, "to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the *promises*.." This is not ambiguous. In the following verses the children of promise are clearly those who God chose, Isaac and Jacob, rather than the heirs according to the flesh, Ishmael and Esau. In other words, the church is not presented here. One of God's promises to Israel is that they would possess the land "forever" (Ex 32:13). Forever isn't over yet.

VV 9:30-33, Israel is clearly contrasted with the believing church.

10:1ff, Israel is clearly presented as unsaved. They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. They are ignorant of God's righteousness. They have not submitted to the righteousness of God.. 
I'm not sure the distinction fits, but it does seem that Paul may not use Jew and Israelite synonymously here. For instance, he makes it clear that there is not distinction between Jew and Greek, but earlier made a clear distinction between Israel and Gentiles. It's worth considering, if nothing else.

Verse 11:7 clearly differentiates between Israel and "the elect." The rest of this chapter clearly shows a difference between Israel and the Gentiles, warning against pride in being elect in light of Israel's rejection of Jesus. He also says that they, Israel, may be grafted back into their own olive tree (24). Israelites are called "enemies" for the Romans' sake. God committed Israelites to disobedience for the Romans' sake. And, through it all, Paul does not one time say, "You Gentiles are now Israel." He doesn't say, "Romans, you are now Israel." 

Now, I suppose you've formed a repudiation in your mind as you read this. I ask that, if you do, you are very careful not to impose what other dispensationalists state in regard to this. I don't tow that line. I see a future for Israel, but don't carry all the baggage that is quite typical among Dispensationalists. And, to be candid, I have not worked through all the details in order to nail my position down tight. If you'd like clarity then please attempt to keep it within the bounds of what I have actually said, without reading into it or making assumptions. Just as amillinnialists consider MacArthur's sermon on self-respecting Calvinists an imposition on amillennialism, and rightly so, so too do most amils misrepresent dispensationalism, especially those who were once Dispensationalists of the more chart oriented type, if you know what I mean.

Incidentally, Spurgeon held the same view - he was premil and saw a future for ethnic Israel.


----------



## AThornquist

Thank you for your perspective Joe. How do you understand texts such as Galatians 3:28 that speak of their being neither Jew nor Greek? (I have a guess as to what you might say, but I obviously don't know for sure.) 

Personally, I have no dog in this theological fight. I recently changed churches because I was no longer able to make the driving distance. The elders of both churches are godly men who have truly shepherded the flock. The church I moved from holds to New Covenant Theology and the church I moved to is dispensational (identical to MacArthur). Many of the great theologians I learn from on this forum and in books are Presbyterian and hold to Covenant theology. In other words, _I don't know what to believe_. At some points I question how, if the Holy Spirit is truly transforming the body of Christ, so many godly brothers can disagree _so much_. I certainly ask the Lord to forgive me of my doubts, but still. I struggle with that.


----------



## Scott1

Grillsy said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) It is indeed a remarkable act of God's Providence that a modern day nation of Israel has been established. By Romans 11 it is certainly possible to believe God will do a special redemptive work among people with some Jewish ethnicity. However,
> 
> a) It will be on the basis of Christ's redemption on the cross
> b) The modern political entity is not the centerpiece of God's redemptive plan (Christ's finished work on the cross is)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many continue to write that the founding of the modern nation of Israel is a "remarkable" act of Providence. Upon what basis is this claim made? I fail to understand how the founding of this nation is of _remarkable_ Providence considering the nature of the inhabitants of the nation and the history of the nation's founding.
Click to expand...


I'm not an expert in eschatology and am still studying this area.

One of the greatest hindrances dispensationalists have in understanding covenant theology, say the dispenstionalists, is that the latter does not appreciate the modern state of Israel. Dispensationalists are often focused and passionate about the modern political nation of Israel, thinking it is the centerpiece of God's redemptive plan.

Mr. Riddlebarger, in his book, _A Case for Amillennialism,_ acknowledges this. The fact that ethnic Israel (or peoples with some Jewish blood) have survived as a distinct entity despite all the wars, tribulations and persecutions is an amazing thing in and of itself. The fact they have been gathered together in a land that roughly resembles the Old Testament land given to them thousands of years ago is even more amazing.

Consider this, after the theocratic nation ended in 70AD, the Israelites fled in every direction, north, south, east and west and although many intermingled with the cultures they went to, some retained their Jewish identity through the centuries, despite unprecedented persecution. That alone is amazing in my book!

Here, we have a land where many of the buildings and places we read about in the Old Testament is occupied today by God's original covenant people only adds to the remarkable nature of this.

Now, Scripture does not teach that the modern day political entity "Israel" is the center of God's redemptive plan for His Creation as dispensationalists teach. Rather, Christ's finished work on the cross, His bringing the Kingdom of Heaven in invisible form down to earth is, awaiting His final judgment. 

And Reformed Theology, based on Romans 11 certainly allows for a special redemptive work among people with some Jewish ethnicity, but that will be based on Christ, not on "earthly promises" or "land promises." So, the fact God has gathered many into the same place after many centuries (though dispensationalists are often slow to acknowledge there are more Jews in greater New York City than in all Israel), may be a remarkable providential means God is using to do that. I'm not positive that is the case, but it seems reasonable and possible.


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Andrew. Gal 3:28 is very clearly saying that God is not a respecter of persons. He is not partial. He saves whom He saves based on His divine will. Those who will believe were ordained to do so since before the foundation of the earth. Believers are the church. Israel is Israel. I hope that clarifies.

Well stated Scott. Let me offer a bit of perspective though. It is true that many dispensationalists are focused on what passes for Israel in today's geopolitical world. And it is true that this inhibits many of them from understanding covenant theology. But, though most of them would have no idea as to why, it is not causative, but a result. My eschatological conclusions have nothing to do with my acceptance of covenant theology. The heremeneutic behind dispensationalism dictates a future for Israel. This is a distinction that many fail to make because they see all that is wrong in dispensationalism as a source rather than a result of a failure to follow their own hermeneutic. I hope that makes sense.

In other words, I cannot embrace covenant theology because I don't think it accurately divides God's Word from an exegetical/hermeneutical perspective. My views of Israel are simply a result of that hermeneutic. This lack of understanding among covenentalists is exemplified in Gerstner's straw man argumentation. As someone who gleans from both sides of this fence, I can tell you that there are many more similarities between the two systems than most want to admit. In fact, I often am amused as I see arguments against one another that amount to little more than calling covenants dispensations and dispensations covenants. We have had several in-depth discussions on the hermeneutics of both in the past though. Anyone interested can do a simple search (perhaps "dispensational hermeneutic" would yield good results).


----------



## rpavich

> remember Paul's admonition, *"Not all Israel is Israel."* God did not eternally choose every physical son and daughter of Israel, just as He does not choose every person born after the time of His Son. The connection between the saints of both covenants has always been Sola Fide.
> 
> *While God has always had one called out people, spanning both covenants,* there are certain distinctives to the New Testament church that were not present in national Israel; namely the function and scope of the Holy Spirit and an emphasis on a regenerate church (Baptist, not dispensationalist, distinctive). *That aside, God has always had one elect church.*




Ahh....NOW I get it! thank you very much...this was the missing piece of the puzzle for me...


----------



## Scott1

> *Wannabee *
> 
> It is true that many dispensationalists are focused on what passes for Israel in today's geopolitical world. And it is true that this inhibits many of them from understanding covenant theology. But, though most of them would have no idea as to why, it is not causative, but a result.



As I understand it, dispensationalism says the "real kingdom" is not now. It comes in the (dispensation of) the Kingdom Age, one of their seven (or eight or four) dispensations. Dispensationalists say that Kingdom age is wholly future, and that it will be centered at Jerusalem in the modern day political entity of Jerusalem.

Covenant theology says the kingdom of God really came with Christ's first advent, that it is invisible but very real now, operating mainly through believing Jews and Gentiles in the church. Christ really came to bring the Kingdom, which would cover His whole earth, not only the tiny nation state that was Israel at that time (or that would be in the future). So, the expansion of the covenant beyond Israel is really an intended expansion from the beginning- continuity in God's plan to bring forth a Redeemer (Jesus Christ) for people in every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue.




> *Wannabee *
> In other words, I cannot embrace covenant theology because I don't think it accurately divides God's Word from an exegetical/hermeneutical perspective. My views of Israel are simply a result of that hermeneutic.



Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## Grillsy

The idea that the Jewish identity has been preserved for centuries "remarkably" is a myth. I can name a dozen different cultures that have survived this way. Even voodoo has held up for centuries despite persecution. Is Voodoo now somehow part of God's eschatological plan?
Judaism as practiced by the Jews (even in Christ's time) was a false religion. Those who would physically call themselves Jews and still hold to their traditions are in grave danger of judgment (as all of us have acknowledged). So are we to say that God has winked at their sinning all this time just to give them a patch land?

Whether or not certain ones on this post like this phraseology or not, there are some even on this board who seem to still be dividing God's people on the basis of race. We all as children of Abraham will share in those blessings promised to his Seed. 
Again I will ask the rhetorical questions...To whom was the Promise made? Who are the children of the promise? The NT could not make the answers more clear.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Richard Tallach said:


> The fact that the *Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel*, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.



What does the phrase "the Jews have been preserved" mean?

A) to a dispensationalist?
B) to a reformed/covenant theologian?

There are no racially/ethnically pure Jews today.
There are no covenantally pure Jews today.

What exactly has been preserved?

The only biblically racially/covenantlly pure people today reside in the Church. We are the true sons of Abraham following the operative new covenant.


----------



## Scott1

> *Grillsy*
> 
> Judaism as practiced by the Jews (even in Christ's time) was a false religion.
> If I'm understanding your point that now, without the Temple and sacrifices, and certainly without Christ, it is not valid, yes.
> 
> But it certainly was valid when there was a temple, and sacrifices and tribal divisions of land. Though that is not valid today, there still is a strong consciousness of it in some people with some Jewish ancestry today. That in itself is remarkable.
> 
> Those who would physically call themselves Jews and still hold to their traditions are in grave danger of judgment (as all of us have acknowledged).
> Yes.
> 
> Interesting, I had a passionate debate with a dispensationalist about this recently and he ended up agreeing- the Jews today are a "special people" but, without Christ, they are a special people who go to hell as any other without Christ.
> 
> So are we to say that God has winked at their sinning all this time just to give them a patch land?
> 
> I don't think anyone could read the Old Testament and think God went easy on Israel's sin.


.


----------



## Grillsy

Scott1 said:


> *Grillsy*
> 
> Judaism as practiced by the Jews (even in Christ's time) was a false religion.
> If I'm understanding your point that now, without the Temple and sacrifices, and certainly without Christ, it is not valid, yes.
> 
> But it certainly was valid when there was a temple, and sacrifices and tribal divisions of land. Though that is not valid today, there still is a strong consciousness of it in some people with some Jewish ancestry today. That in itself is remarkable.
> 
> Those who would physically call themselves Jews and still hold to their traditions are in grave danger of judgment (as all of us have acknowledged).
> Yes.
> 
> Interesting, I had a passionate debate with a dispensationalist about this recently and he ended up agreeing- the Jews today are a "special people" but, without Christ, they are a special people who go to hell as any other without Christ.
> 
> So are we to say that God has winked at their sinning all this time just to give them a patch land?
> 
> I don't think anyone could read the Old Testament and think God went easy on Israel's sin.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Thanks for your kind reply  I was in no way trying to say God was soft on them in the OT...Although, so far He has been much easier on all of us living than we deserve. 

My main concern is that we not overlook the significance of types and shadows and not overlook who constitutes the people of God.


----------



## kceaster

The things that concern me are dividing the people of God where they ought not to be divided. I think that's why Paul gave the example of the one olive tree. The way I understand it, the premillenialist actually believes that part of the saints will be taken up while part stay here on earth for an earthly kingdom. The only way that could happen is for Jesus to be a polygamist, for there is only one bride and body of Christ who is flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone.

I've given this analogy before, but it bears repeating. There is a single tapestry called redemption. Every thread, color, pattern, has been chosen from the foundation of the world. We only understand its magnificence if we look at it from a fair distance. I fear that some theologians see only parts of the tapestry and focus all their attention on those parts and do not see the whole. Covenant theology sees the whole, In my humble opinion. Dispensationalism picks part of the history of redemption and does not see how it fits into the remainder of redemptive history.

But anything that severs what God has put together is not biblical. Perhaps I can't explain in terms that John MacArthur would understand, but he's truly dividing the bride of Christ if he believes that all are not made one in Christ. It doesn't matter if he can run circles around me in his exegesis. I'll give him that. But he is wrong if he thinks God has separated people in the mind of Christ. It is one joy that was set before Him. She is one bride with whom He awaits the consummation of all things. The Bible does not make sense to me if it is not so.

Additionally, I think we can be too calloused to think that God cannot, in His providence, save an entire ethnic group. That is not to say that everyone within that group has been elect from the foundation of the world. But the salvation of our God is great. Who could perform this if He can't? 

But saying that there are prophecies to be carried out in the future for one ethnic group over another is a bit of a stretch. Which Jews are which? What group of Jews does God have in mind? There are many. Any contemplation in this area would shift our focus back to the shadows if we concentrate on one group of Jews to be gathered in. We are to sow the seed of the gospel and claim every inch of this planet for the Lord Jesus Christ. If we believe God has some "special" purpose for any one group over another, it could carry us in a wrong direction, which is what I believe has been done in those who would call themselves dispensational. That includes my mother, btw.

To me, when it comes to this argument, it seems like we are carrying on the same sort of conversations Jesus rebuked His disciples for. "Will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel." His reply was it is not for you to know. Speculating as we are, is dabbling in a part of the mystery of the gospel, which we should all pray that God will do in His time.

But for this to cause the Church to be segmented shows that it is not of God, but of our own stubbornness and hard-heartedness. For us to argue over this theology, interpretation, hermeneutic, etc, shows that we do not understand God's history of redemption in Christ. We should stick to preaching the gospel and the whole counsel of God, and leave the eternal purposes and immutable will of God, to God.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Richard Tallach said:


> Fine. Have you read any of the Reformed expositions which take a different position to yourself? Hendriksen holds to your position; Lloyd-Jones questions Hendriksen on why Paul has a notable doxology at the end of Romans 11 if all he is telling the church in Rome is that a small remnant of Jews will be saved down through the centuries. They already knew that a small proportion of Jews believed. I would further question the point of Paul's three chapter excursus into New Covenant redemptive history, if all he is saying is that a small number of Jews will believe.



It's an important excursus because Paul's whole point in writing the letter was to encourage the Roman Church as they sought to evangelize both Jews and Greeks. The Jews happened to be rather hostile to the gospel. We see this in the book of Acts. And Emporer Claudias even threw them out of Rome for rioting over "Chrestus", most likely refering to Christ. Paul's letter and his doxology in particular would have been encouraging to them if they were getting discouraged about the severe opposition they faced from the Jews. Should they even try to bring the gospel to the Jews any more? 

Paul is telling them, that even though the Jews are so hostile, some will believe, the remnant according to the election of grace (however many that is...) and be grafted back in, as they are provoked to jealousy. So keep on preaching the gospel to them, and let the elect be gathered in, no matter how much opposition the Jewish community puts up, and you will see God glorified in the conversion of some, just like He was glorified in Paul's dramatic conversion. It's not an endtimes focus, but a real-life evangelism focus for the Roman church.


----------



## Wannabee

Dear Scott,

As you say what a dispensationalist thinks, remind yourself of what I said. Much of what you say a dispensationalist thinks, that you say makes him a dispensationalist, is a possible result of being dispensational, but not necessary any more than baptismal regeneration is is a necessary result of covenantalism. They have different hermeneutics that guide and help us keep within the bounds of Scripture. Someone is off in regard to these principles. And, within each sphere everyone is off by some degree, some to the point of heresy. But the abominations we see on both sides are a result, not a cause. Hopefully thinking this way will help in understanding the plight of the typical dispensationalist. He isn't taught. He doesn't know how to handle God's Word because he's been told what to think and how to defend what he's told rather than being taught how to think.

Your statement on the kingdom is a good example. I can't nail this down tightly, but I can tell you that wherever Christ is His kingdom is, including there his vassals are. But I disagree that earth itself is His kingdom at this time. This is very similar to what you stated. The dispensationalists who say that the kingdom age is wholly future sit in different camps. I could agree from an already/not yet perspective. But then there are those who claim that it absolutely won't be established until the millennial reign of Christ. These I would disagree with and submit that they've betrayed their own hermeneutic (which isn't surprising based on what I stated above).


As for elaborating on my other statement, I think I'll just provide a link instead. This has been visited at length in the past, and there are other threads linked there as well. This was an excellent thread, I thought, in which we tried to understand the difference in how we approach Scripture (hermeneutic principles). One key difference that we found was that dispensationalism looks at the OT from a progressive perspective, rather than through the lens of the NT. The NT often offers clarity, and even interprets. But we approach it from a purely OT perspective first. This does have some bearing on our differences. Another is the application of the Analogy of Faith. Dispensationalism will use it as a check when the exegetical work is done. It seems that covenantalism uses it up front or along the way. Of course, I would submit that it's impossible to not apply it early on because we can't just turn off what we know (or think we know). But it is a concept of check and balances that is applied differently by CT and DT, if I understand correctly. It's all in the reading. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/dispensational-vs-reformed-hermeneutic-13965/


----------



## tcalbrecht

Scott1 said:


> Mr. Riddlebarger, in his book, _A Case for Amillennialism,_ acknowledges this. The fact that ethnic Israel (or peoples with some Jewish blood) have survived as a distinct entity despite all the wars, tribulations and persecutions is an amazing thing in and of itself. The fact they have been gathered together in a land that roughly resembles the Old Testament land given to them thousands of years ago is even more amazing.
> 
> Consider this, after the theocratic nation ended in 70AD, the Israelites fled in every direction, north, south, east and west and although many intermingled with the cultures they went to, some retained their Jewish identity through the centuries, despite unprecedented persecution. That alone is amazing in my book!


With all due respect, I fail to see what is so amazing about this. Self-identified Jews encompass a minority of a minority within any society. The worldwide population stands at about 14 million. At the present time there is no discernable growth in the Jewish population.

The modern state of Israel came about by the political will of a few western nations following WWII. Politically speaking it is not much different than the eastern European nations that were carved out following WWI. Israel is a secular state maintained against its enemies by pure secular might. Without the military and financial support of the West it would fall tomorrow. 

Hardly an amazing condition.



Scott1 said:


> Here, we have a land where many of the buildings and places we read about in the Old Testament is occupied today by God's original covenant people only adds to the remarkable nature of this.



This is dispensational speak. Modern Jews are neither ethnically nor covenantally related to the God’s people. The bloodlines have been watered down for 2000 years to the point that “who is a Jew” is a meaningless question. As for the covenant, they abandoned God’s covenant 2000 years ago. Christians have far more in common with “God's original covenant people” than modern Jews. Indeed, Christians are the inheritors of the promises made to Abraham though the Seed, Jesus Christ.



Scott1 said:


> Now, Scripture does not teach that the modern day political entity "Israel" is the center of God's redemptive plan for His Creation as dispensationalists teach. Rather, Christ's finished work on the cross, His bringing the Kingdom of Heaven in invisible form down to earth is, awaiting His final judgment.
> 
> And Reformed Theology, based on Romans 11 certainly allows for a special redemptive work among people with some Jewish ethnicity, but that will be based on Christ, not on "earthly promises" or "land promises." So, the fact God has gathered many into the same place after many centuries (though dispensationalists are often slow to acknowledge there are more Jews in greater New York City than in all Israel), may be a remarkable providential means God is using to do that. I'm not positive that is the case, but it seems reasonable and possible.


One needs to be careful to avoid the presuppositions of dispensationalism in formulating any discussion of ethnicity and the gospel.


----------



## Wannabee

Kevin, you seem to place an emphasis where it is not necessary. Premillennialism sees the church ultimately united after the millennium. Both CT and DT see OT saints taken to heaven before Pentecost. Could that not also be viewed as diving God's people in the same way? Again, perspective seems to be forced on a position instead of stepping back and really understanding what the other party is saying. Like I said earlier, Spurgeon was premil, as was Ryle and others. Do you think they "divided the people of God"?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Wannabee said:


> Kevin, you seem to place an emphasis where it is not necessary. Premillennialism sees the church ultimately united after the millennium. *Both CT and DT see OT saints taken to heaven before Pentecost. *Could that not also be viewed as diving God's people in the same way? Again, perspective seems to be forced on a position instead of stepping back and really understanding what the other party is saying. Like I said earlier, Spurgeon was premil, as was Ryle and others. Do you think they "divided the people of God"?



There are many Confessions and Creeds that document the acceptable CT position on the subject. There is no creed or confession of dispensationalism. How do you substantiate your assertion here regarding DT?


----------



## Peairtach

I believe in covenant theology and - along with many others - believe in a future national conversion of ethnic Israel.

What does Paul mean by "Israel" in Romans 10-11?

_But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. (Romans 10:19-21). _

Clearly Paul here is using "Israel" to mean ethnic Israel and comparing the response of the Gentiles to the Gospel to that of ethnic Israel.

_I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying...(Romans 11:1-2) _

Clearly Paul is here speaking of God not casting away the people He foreknew _among ethnic Israel_. He clearly mentions that he himself is an ethnic Israelite and also one of God's foreknown people.

_I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy (Romans 11:11)_

Israel have not fallen beyond remedy. Their fall has brought salvation to the Gentiles. The salvation of the Gentiles will "provoke [Israel] to jealousy".

More later...........


----------



## Scott1

> *Wannabee*
> 
> As you say what a dispensationalist thinks, remind yourself of what I said. Much of what you say a dispensationalist thinks, that you say makes him a dispensationalist, is a possible result of being dispensational, but not necessary any more than baptismal regeneration is is a necessary result of covenantalism. They have different hermeneutics that guide and help us keep within the bounds of Scripture.
> Yes, dispensationalism seems to take a different hermeneutical approroach, which is in error.
> 
> That is, it tends not to interpret the Old Testament prophecies in light of the New Testament. Covenant theology tends to look at the New Testament as clarifying, making more explicit Old Testament prophecies which seems to be the more reasonable, logical way of reading Scripture (or anything).
> 
> 
> Someone is off in regard to these principles. And, within each sphere everyone is off by some degree, some to the point of heresy. But the abominations we see on both sides
> What are you thinking are the "abominations" on the side of covenant theology interpretation?
> 
> 
> are a result, not a cause. Hopefully thinking this way will help in understanding the plight of the typical dispensationalist. He isn't taught. He doesn't know how to handle God's Word because he's been told what to think and how to defend what he's told rather than being taught how to think.


.


----------



## Peairtach

_Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (Romans 11:12)_

Israel are a people that shall experience a "fulness".

_For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?(Rom. 11:13-15)_

The "receiving" of those that are Paul's flesh will be "life from the dead" for "the world" (Gentiles) who have been already "reconciled" by their "casting away."

More later..........


----------



## rbcbob

rbcbob said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> As noted above: Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him *pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11*”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Palmer Robetson espouse an amillenialism that does not teach a future national conversion of the Jews, and that God is practically finished with the Jews? I'll have to get a hold of his book to find out.
> 
> I don't know how amillenialists and others get from Romans 9-11 that God is practically finished with the Jews apart from a small number of conversions down the centuries. If God had been completely finished with the Jews he would have allowed them to be wiped out in A.D. 70. I wonder if this amillenialist, "God is finished with the Jews" approach, is sometimes an over reaction to dispensationalism?
> 
> The vast majority of the Jews have been cut off from the Covenant, but God is still providentially working with the others and will reingraft the nation into the Covenant in His own good time.
> 
> Re the Land, since they have been cut out of the Covenant and the vast majority are unbelievers, the Jews cannot claim the Land on the basis of God's promises, but only on the same basis we all lay claim to land as nations. It is a significant providence that they have been preserved as a nation and been permitted to return to the Land.
> 
> The times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24; Rev.11:2) will end when the Jews are converted, and the worldwide church (the true Israel of God - Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:10) is in the ascendant in a way it has not been in the last 2,000 years (that would be the "times of the true Israel").
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robertson's exegesis of Romans 11 warrants serious consideration.
Click to expand...


Richard, I take it that you have not had opportunity to read Palmer Robertson yet. If it would benefit I am willing to type the relevant paragraphs and post them for you tonight.


----------



## Scott1

tcalbrecht said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Riddlebarger, in his book, _A Case for Amillennialism,_ acknowledges this. The fact that ethnic Israel (or peoples with some Jewish blood) have survived as a distinct entity despite all the wars, tribulations and persecutions is an amazing thing in and of itself. The fact they have been gathered together in a land that roughly resembles the Old Testament land given to them thousands of years ago is even more amazing.
> 
> Consider this, after the theocratic nation ended in 70AD, the Israelites fled in every direction, north, south, east and west and although many intermingled with the cultures they went to, some retained their Jewish identity through the centuries, despite unprecedented persecution. That alone is amazing in my book!
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I fail to see what is so amazing about this. Self-identified Jews encompass a minority of a minority within any society.
> Doesn't that make it all the more amazing that such a tiny group, relatively speaking, has been preserved for so many centuries despite such dispersion and persecution?
> 
> The worldwide population stands at about 14 million. At the present time there is no discernable growth in the Jewish population.
> 
> The modern state of Israel came about by the political will of a few western nations following WWII.
> Yes, as a secondary cause.
> 
> But we know God providentially causes things on the first order, including the existence of nations. Even tiny nations that after 2,000 years are re-grouped in the approximate same place.
> 
> Politically speaking it is not much different than the eastern European nations that were carved out following WWI. Israel is a secular state maintained against its enemies by pure secular might. Without the military and financial support of the West it would fall tomorrow.
> 
> And the fact there is a country so disposed to help this tiny faraway country with huge amounts of resources is also remarkable- and providential.
> 
> Hardly an amazing condition.
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, we have a land where many of the buildings and places we read about in the Old Testament is occupied today by God's original covenant people only adds to the remarkable nature of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is dispensational speak. Modern Jews are neither ethnically nor covenantally related to the God’s people.
> Right, not any more, but they once were and there is much in Scripture about that. We study it regularly to see ourselves both in light of our own sin and uncomprehensible redeeming mercy of our God.
> 
> The bloodlines have been watered down for 2000 years
> That's right, it's interesting that people with very small amounts of lineage might be called Jewish, even though they are mostly gentile by lineage, have not embraced the Jewish religions or customs, etc. Might even be an atheist, yet still are termed that way. Not sure I understand that either.
> 
> to the point that “who is a Jew” is a meaningless question. As for the covenant, they abandoned God’s covenant 2000 years ago.
> Yes, and even many times before that.
> 
> Christians have far more in common with “God's original covenant people” than modern Jews. Indeed, Christians are the inheritors of the promises made to Abraham though the Seed, Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Scripture does not teach that the modern day political entity "Israel" is the center of God's redemptive plan for His Creation as dispensationalists teach. Rather, Christ's finished work on the cross, His bringing the Kingdom of Heaven in invisible form down to earth is, awaiting His final judgment.
> 
> And Reformed Theology, based on Romans 11 certainly allows for a special redemptive work among people with some Jewish ethnicity, but that will be based on Christ, not on "earthly promises" or "land promises." So, the fact God has gathered many into the same place after many centuries (though dispensationalists are often slow to acknowledge there are more Jews in greater New York City than in all Israel), may be a remarkable providential means God is using to do that. I'm not positive that is the case, but it seems reasonable and possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to be careful to avoid the presuppositions of dispensationalism in formulating any discussion of ethnicity and the gospel.
Click to expand...


Having been taught for years by teachers who assumed dispensationalism, I appreciated Mr. Riddlebarger's approach in his book, _The Case for Amillennialism_. 

Mr. Riddlebarger acknowledges there are some weaknesses with amillennial interpretation and that often the creation of a modern day state of Israel in approximately the same place influenced by the same people group is too easily dismissed when we, in covenant theology engage dispensationalism.


----------



## Peairtach

_For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;(Rom 11:16-17)._

The exposition of Elnathan Parr, the Puritan commentator on Romans:

_Objection: The nation of the Jews is before called rebellious: how then can it be called holy?

Answer: There is a double holiness: First of regeneration. Secondly, of the covenant: in regard to the first they are rebellious:in regard to the second, they are holy._

I would add that since the Jewish nation is effectively cut out of the Covenant blessings, as a nation it is holy in a peculiar way. God hasn't forgotten about those branches that He has cut out and will re-engraft themin His own time and way.

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 05:00:00 EST-----

_And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Romans 11:23-25)_

Partial - very large blindness - is happened to the nation of Israel, the Jews, until the "fulness" of the Gentiles. i.e. there will be an end to the blindness of the Jews and a national conversion.

_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: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.(Rom 11:26-27). _

I'm open to the idea of this meaning "this is the way that the total number of the elect, Jews and Gentiles, will be saved" but in view of the Apostle's consistent use of "Israel" to refer to ethnic Israel and given that verse 25 refers to ethnic Israel and verses 28, and I believe 27, refer to ethnic Israel, that seems more likely.

More later.........

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 05:03:06 EST-----



rbcbob said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Palmer Robetson espouse an amillenialism that does not teach a future national conversion of the Jews, and that God is practically finished with the Jews? I'll have to get a hold of his book to find out.
> 
> I don't know how amillenialists and others get from Romans 9-11 that God is practically finished with the Jews apart from a small number of conversions down the centuries. If God had been completely finished with the Jews he would have allowed them to be wiped out in A.D. 70. I wonder if this amillenialist, "God is finished with the Jews" approach, is sometimes an over reaction to dispensationalism?
> 
> The vast majority of the Jews have been cut off from the Covenant, but God is still providentially working with the others and will reingraft the nation into the Covenant in His own good time.
> 
> Re the Land, since they have been cut out of the Covenant and the vast majority are unbelievers, the Jews cannot claim the Land on the basis of God's promises, but only on the same basis we all lay claim to land as nations. It is a significant providence that they have been preserved as a nation and been permitted to return to the Land.
> 
> The times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24; Rev.11:2) will end when the Jews are converted, and the worldwide church (the true Israel of God - Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:10) is in the ascendant in a way it has not been in the last 2,000 years (that would be the "times of the true Israel").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robertson's exegesis of Romans 11 warrants serious consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Richard, I take it that you have not had opportunity to read Palmer Robertson yet. If it would benefit I am willing to type the relevant paragraphs and post them for you tonight.
Click to expand...


I've ordered Palmer Robertson's book on amazon. I've appreciated his material on the Covenants, gifts of the Spirit and the land of Israel in the past. If he can't convince me of his case against a Jewish national conversion, I suppose no-one will!!

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 05:08:19 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Riddlebarger, in his book, _A Case for Amillennialism,_ acknowledges this. The fact that ethnic Israel (or peoples with some Jewish blood) have survived as a distinct entity despite all the wars, tribulations and persecutions is an amazing thing in and of itself. The fact they have been gathered together in a land that roughly resembles the Old Testament land given to them thousands of years ago is even more amazing.
> 
> Consider this, after the theocratic nation ended in 70AD, the Israelites fled in every direction, north, south, east and west and although many intermingled with the cultures they went to, some retained their Jewish identity through the centuries, despite unprecedented persecution. That alone is amazing in my book!
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I fail to see what is so amazing about this. Self-identified Jews encompass a minority of a minority within any society.
> Doesn't that make it all the more amazing that such a tiny group, relatively speaking, has been preserved for so many centuries despite such dispersion and persecution?
> 
> The worldwide population stands at about 14 million. At the present time there is no discernable growth in the Jewish population.
> 
> The modern state of Israel came about by the political will of a few western nations following WWII.
> Yes, as a secondary cause.
> 
> But we know God providentially causes things on the first order, including the existence of nations. Even tiny nations that after 2,000 years are re-grouped in the approximate same place.
> 
> Politically speaking it is not much different than the eastern European nations that were carved out following WWI. Israel is a secular state maintained against its enemies by pure secular might. Without the military and financial support of the West it would fall tomorrow.
> 
> And the fact there is a country so disposed to help this tiny faraway country with huge amounts of resources is also remarkable- and providential.
> 
> Hardly an amazing condition.
> 
> 
> 
> This is dispensational speak. Modern Jews are neither ethnically nor covenantally related to the God’s people.
> Right, not any more, but they once were and there is much in Scripture about that. We study it regularly to see ourselves both in light of our own sin and uncomprehensible redeeming mercy of our God.
> 
> The bloodlines have been watered down for 2000 years
> That's right, it's interesting that people with very small amounts of lineage might be called Jewish, even though they are mostly gentile by lineage, have not embraced the Jewish religions or customs, etc. Might even be an atheist, yet still are termed that way. Not sure I understand that either.
> 
> to the point that “who is a Jew” is a meaningless question. As for the covenant, they abandoned God’s covenant 2000 years ago.
> Yes, and even many times before that.
> 
> Christians have far more in common with “God's original covenant people” than modern Jews. Indeed, Christians are the inheritors of the promises made to Abraham though the Seed, Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Scripture does not teach that the modern day political entity "Israel" is the center of God's redemptive plan for His Creation as dispensationalists teach. Rather, Christ's finished work on the cross, His bringing the Kingdom of Heaven in invisible form down to earth is, awaiting His final judgment.
> 
> And Reformed Theology, based on Romans 11 certainly allows for a special redemptive work among people with some Jewish ethnicity, but that will be based on Christ, not on "earthly promises" or "land promises." So, the fact God has gathered many into the same place after many centuries (though dispensationalists are often slow to acknowledge there are more Jews in greater New York City than in all Israel), may be a remarkable providential means God is using to do that. I'm not positive that is the case, but it seems reasonable and possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One needs to be careful to avoid the presuppositions of dispensationalism in formulating any discussion of ethnicity and the gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having been taught for years by teachers who assumed dispensationalism, I appreciated Mr. Riddlebarger's approach in his book, _The Case for Amillennialism_.
> 
> Mr. Riddlebarger acknowledges there are some weaknesses with amillennial interpretation and that often the creation of a modern day state of Israel in approximately the same place influenced by the same people group is too easily dismissed when we, in covenant theology engage dispensationalism.
Click to expand...


I agree. But the question of the Land is more difficult, since we do not have a clear passage like Romans 11 about the land in the New Testament. The passage about "the times of the Gentiles" in Luke is a bit mysterious and passages in the OT are open to spiritualisation.


----------



## rbcbob

*Palmer Robertson SPOILER ALERT*



Richard Tallach said:


> _For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;(Rom 11:16-17)._
> 
> The exposition of Elnathan Parr, the Puritan commentator on Romans:
> 
> _Objection: The nation of the Jews is before called rebellious: how then can it be called holy?
> 
> Answer: There is a double holiness: First of regeneration. Secondly, of the covenant: in regard to the first they are rebellious:in regard to the second, they are holy._
> 
> I would add that since the Jewish nation is effectively cut out of the Covenant blessings, as a nation it is holy in a peculiar way. God hasn't forgotten about those branches that He has cut out and will re-engraft themin His own time and way.
> 
> -----Added 7/20/2009 at 05:00:00 EST-----
> 
> _And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Romans 11:23-25)_
> 
> Partial - very large blindness - is happened to the nation of Israel, the Jews, until the "fulness" of the Gentiles. i.e. there will be an end to the blindness of the Jews and a national conversion.
> 
> _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: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.(Rom 11:26-27). _
> 
> I'm open to the idea of this meaning "this is the way that the total number of the elect, Jews and Gentiles, will be saved" but in view of the Apostle's consistent use of "Israel" to refer to ethnic Israel and given that verse 25 refers to ethnic Israel and verses 28, and I believe 27, refer to ethnic Israel, that seems more likely.
> 
> More later.........
> 
> -----Added 7/20/2009 at 05:03:06 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robertson's exegesis of Romans 11 warrants serious consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, I take it that you have not had opportunity to read Palmer Robertson yet. If it would benefit I am willing to type the relevant paragraphs and post them for you tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've ordered Palmer Robertson's book on amazon. I've appreciated his material on the Covenants, gifts of the Spirit and the land of Israel in the past. If he can't convince me of his case against a Jewish national conversion, I suppose no-one will!!
> 
> -----Added 7/20/2009 at 05:08:19 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I fail to see what is so amazing about this. Self-identified Jews encompass a minority of a minority within any society.
> Doesn't that make it all the more amazing that such a tiny group, relatively speaking, has been preserved for so many centuries despite such dispersion and persecution?
> 
> The worldwide population stands at about 14 million. At the present time there is no discernable growth in the Jewish population.
> 
> The modern state of Israel came about by the political will of a few western nations following WWII.
> Yes, as a secondary cause.
> 
> But we know God providentially causes things on the first order, including the existence of nations. Even tiny nations that after 2,000 years are re-grouped in the approximate same place.
> 
> Politically speaking it is not much different than the eastern European nations that were carved out following WWI. Israel is a secular state maintained against its enemies by pure secular might. Without the military and financial support of the West it would fall tomorrow.
> 
> And the fact there is a country so disposed to help this tiny faraway country with huge amounts of resources is also remarkable- and providential.
> 
> Hardly an amazing condition.
> 
> 
> 
> This is dispensational speak. Modern Jews are neither ethnically nor covenantally related to the God’s people.
> Right, not any more, but they once were and there is much in Scripture about that. We study it regularly to see ourselves both in light of our own sin and uncomprehensible redeeming mercy of our God.
> 
> The bloodlines have been watered down for 2000 years
> That's right, it's interesting that people with very small amounts of lineage might be called Jewish, even though they are mostly gentile by lineage, have not embraced the Jewish religions or customs, etc. Might even be an atheist, yet still are termed that way. Not sure I understand that either.
> 
> to the point that “who is a Jew” is a meaningless question. As for the covenant, they abandoned God’s covenant 2000 years ago.
> Yes, and even many times before that.
> 
> Christians have far more in common with “God's original covenant people” than modern Jews. Indeed, Christians are the inheritors of the promises made to Abraham though the Seed, Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> One needs to be careful to avoid the presuppositions of dispensationalism in formulating any discussion of ethnicity and the gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having been taught for years by teachers who assumed dispensationalism, I appreciated Mr. Riddlebarger's approach in his book, _The Case for Amillennialism_.
> 
> Mr. Riddlebarger acknowledges there are some weaknesses with amillennial interpretation and that often the creation of a modern day state of Israel in approximately the same place influenced by the same people group is too easily dismissed when we, in covenant theology engage dispensationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. But the question of the Land is more difficult, since we do not have a clear passage like Romans 11 about the land in the New Testament. The passage about "the times of the Gentiles" in Luke is a bit mysterious and passages in the OT are open to spiritualisation.
Click to expand...


*To whet your appetite from chapter six:*

"The references in Romans 11 to God’s present intention for Israel are pervasive and are highly significant for the total thrust of the chapter. These references do not necessarily exclude parallel references to some future purpose of God for Israel. However, they warn the exegete against assuming too hastily that the entirety of Romans 11 deals with Israel’s distinctive future. Furthermore, since references to the present role of Israel are found in each section of the chapter, the exegete must take into account the significance of the present role of Israel, regardless of the particular section of the chapter under consideration." -ROBERTSON


----------



## Scott1

> *Richard Tallach *
> I agree. But the question of the Land is more difficult, since we do not have a clear passage like Romans 11 about the land in the New Testament. The passage about "the times of the Gentiles" in Luke is a bit mysterious and passages in the OT are open to spiritualisation.



I don't claim to have this all worked out, even within the covenant theology framework.

But, it doesn't seem that land promises to ethnic Israel remain unfulfilled. They were fulfilled conditioned on obedience, then taken for disobedience. Other promises were conditional upon obedience and many were and are fulfilled in Christ.

Christ's Kingdom is over all the earth now, not only a small piece of land that does not even match the tribal allocations given Israel in her Old Testament theocracy. In no way can we say His land is restricted to that, conditioned on that or that His redemptive plan is centered on that.

Yet, it is remarkable a type of representative of that Old Testament land has re-appeared, in God's Providence, the people re-grouped and it is conceivable the promise of Christ may be more greatly fulfilled in that.


----------



## Wannabee

tcalbrecht said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, you seem to place an emphasis where it is not necessary. Premillennialism sees the church ultimately united after the millennium. *Both CT and DT see OT saints taken to heaven before Pentecost. *Could that not also be viewed as diving God's people in the same way? Again, perspective seems to be forced on a position instead of stepping back and really understanding what the other party is saying. Like I said earlier, Spurgeon was premil, as was Ryle and others. Do you think they "divided the people of God"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many Confessions and Creeds that document the acceptable CT position on the subject. There is no creed or confession of dispensationalism. How do you substantiate your assertion here regarding DT?
Click to expand...


That really doesn't deal with the issue, Tom. The issue can be broken down to hermeneutics, which the confessions reflect. They don't dictate hermeneutics, but show the result.


----------



## Peairtach

_As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (Rom 11:28-29) _

The Jews as a nation are enemies of Christians because they oppose the Gospel of Christ. on the other hand they are beloved because of their holy root. The word "election" here is not referring to the "election of Grace" but the choosing of the Jews in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be a covenantally holy people. 

The word "elect" is used in the same sense in Matt. 24:22. '' The elect" here must refer to the Jews, because the Christians would have escaped (did escape) to the hills before they could be destroyed. God cut short those days of tribulation in Jerusalem and Palestine to save some of the Jews.

_For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. (Rom 11:30-31). _

The Jews as a nation will obtain mercy through their merciful evangelisation by Gentiles.

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 05:27:20 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> *Richard Tallach *
> I agree. But the question of the Land is more difficult, since we do not have a clear passage like Romans 11 about the land in the New Testament. The passage about "the times of the Gentiles" in Luke is a bit mysterious and passages in the OT are open to spiritualisation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't claim to have this all worked out, even within the covenant theology framework.
> 
> But, it doesn't seem that land promises to ethnic Israel remain unfulfilled. They were fulfilled conditioned on obedience, then taken for disobedience. Other promises were conditional upon obedience and many were and are fulfilled in Christ.
> 
> Christ's Kingdom is over all the earth now, not only a small piece of land that does not even match the tribal allocations given Israel in her Old Testament theocracy. In no way can we say His land is restricted to that, conditioned on that or that His redemptive plan is centered on that.
> 
> Yet, it is remarkable a type of representative of that Old Testament land has re-appeared, in God's Providence, the people re-grouped and it is conceivable the promise of Christ may be more greatly fulfilled in that.
Click to expand...


And just because we may believe such things, does not mean that we have to support the Jewish terror groups of the Forties, Jewish religion and behaviour, and (all) the actions of the Israeli government or Israeli Defence Forces, and all the means that have led to a Jewish state. Dispensationalists and "Christian Zionists" get carried away by erroneous teaching here.


----------



## Wannabee

Scott1 said:


> What are you thinking are the "abominations" on the side of covenant theology interpretation?



You could list them too. FV, is a good example. Though some debate it, I would propose NPP is as well. Baptismal regeneration certainly. It's interesting how easily we can see fault in someone else's camp, but often fail to see our own. Plankeye syndrome may be a consideration here. And, I would submit, from the perspective of one who sees abominations as possible inherent results of two diverse, though very similar, systems, perhaps my perspective is a bit more clear than any who hold to the exclusivity that is often inherent among adherents of either system. It's quite easy, and quite human, to capitalize on our strengths and ignore or minimize our weaknesses while doing the opposite with those who are in disagreement. 

If you read through the thread I linked, and follow other links found there, you'll learn enough to probably render further questioning here moot.


Blessings,


----------



## tcalbrecht

Richard Tallach said:


> I agree. *But the question of the Land is more difficult, since we do not have a clear passage like Romans 11 about the land in the New Testament. *The passage about "the times of the Gentiles" in Luke is a bit mysterious and passages in the OT are open to spiritualisation.




Where is this land promise spoken of in Romans 11?

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 05:33:42 EST-----



Wannabee said:


> That really doesn't deal with the issue, Tom. The issue can be broken down to hermeneutics, which the confessions reflect. They don't dictate hermeneutics, but show the result.



My point is simple. No one speaks for dispensationalism, so such a claim is difficult if not impossible to substantiate, even from a hermeneutical perspective.


----------



## Wannabee

Richard Tallach said:


> And just because we may believe such things, does not mean that we have to support the Jewish terror groups of the Forties, Jewish religion and behaviour, and (all) the actions of the Israeli government or Israeli Defence Forces, and all the means that have led to a Jewish state. Dispensationalists and "Christian Zionists" get carried away by erroneous teaching here.



Let's get our facts straight here Richard. All you need to do is add the little word "some" to maintain credibility, or "many." While it is true that most who get carried away by such nonsense are dispensationalists, it is not accurate to sweep them all into the same dustpan. Interestingly enough MacArthur distanced himself from such sensationalistic teaching.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Scott1 said:


> Doesn't that make it all the more amazing that such a tiny group, relatively speaking, has been preserved for so many centuries despite such dispersion and persecution?


Not at all.



Scott1 said:


> Yes, as a secondary cause.
> 
> But we know God providentially causes things on the first order, including the existence of nations. Even tiny nations that after 2,000 years are re-grouped in the approximate same place.


The question is, so what? Everything we experience is by God’s providence. From the existence of the Stalin’s Soviet Union and Pol Pot’s Cambobia to secular Israel. There is nothing biblically distinctive about any of them. 

People seem to get excited when modern states have the same name as than found in the Bible. It’s a name game pure and simple. It’s how Hal Lindsey made his claim to fame.



Scott1 said:


> Right, not any more, but they once were and there is much in Scripture about that. We study it regularly to see ourselves both in light of our own sin and uncomprehensible redeeming mercy of our God.


And thus you lose all connection between modern Israel and the Bible. Speculation surrounding the modern state is just that. And theologically meaningless.


----------



## Wannabee

tcalbrecht said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> That really doesn't deal with the issue, Tom. The issue can be broken down to hermeneutics, which the confessions reflect. They don't dictate hermeneutics, but show the result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is simple. No one speaks for dispensationalism, so such a claim is difficult if not impossible to substantiate, even from a hermeneutical perspective.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes. You have a point there. But, if anyone speaks for dispensationalists it certainly isn't covenantalists. And yet most covenantalists that I see decry and attempt to define dispensationalism use other covenantalists as their basis of information. There are exceptions, for sure. But it is interesting how those in disagreement attempt to build a box to help them deal with their disagreements handily. Were more effort put toward truly understanding and working from similarities rather than simply attempting to brush them all aside as loonies it may be that great mutual respect would arise from both camps. I can say this as one with great respect for and who probably learns much more from covenantalists than Dispensationalists. 

Part of the problem if you read the link I provided, is that most theologians, period, cannot articulate their hermeneutic. They practice exegesis and hermeneutical principles. But they lack the understanding of their own principles to rightly define them. This is what keeps us from straying into error. You'll see from the link I provided Scott that this was what our attempt was. 

The main difference, when it comes right down to it, is Israel. The dispensationalist understands Israel to have a part in God's eschatological plan and generally see this carried out in the millennium. Covenantalists might see such a connection but consider the church to be Israel, which leaves any possible understanding of a future for ethnic Israel somewhat ambiguous, if I understand correctly.

Incidently, if we went back just a few hundred years covenantalists didn't have confessions either. Did the RCC have a better case then because of such a lack?

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 05:52:00 EST-----

Tom,

In much of your argumentation you seem angry, or at least agitated. "Tone" does not convey on the forum well, so my "interpretation" may be wrong. But you take such an authoritative and absolute position that you seem absolutely unwilling to consider that there are other possibilities. People who think these possibilities are more likely probabilities, or even certainties, are not all a bunch of Hal Lindsey groupies. You "seem" to have this idea stuck in your thought process though, even though several here who perceive a future for ethnic Israel have distanced themselves from such nonsense.


----------



## Peairtach

Wannabee said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we may believe such things, does not mean that we have to support the Jewish terror groups of the Forties, Jewish religion and behaviour, and (all) the actions of the Israeli government or Israeli Defence Forces, and all the means that have led to a Jewish state. Dispensationalists and "Christian Zionists" get carried away by erroneous teaching here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get our facts straight here Richard. All you need to do is add the little word "some" to maintain credibility, or "many." While it is true that most who get carried away by such nonsense are dispensationalists, it is not accurate to sweep them all into the same dustpan. Interestingly enough MacArthur distanced himself from such sensationalistic teaching.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Wannabee. 

I should say, there are some Dispensationalist and "Christian Zionist" brethren who can get carried away in unprofitable directions, just as there are some Reformed brethren who can get carried away in unprofitable directions.

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 07:09:37 EST-----

*Quote from Tom*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
> I agree. But the question of the Land is more difficult, since we do not have a clear passage like Romans 11 about the land in the New Testament. The passage about "the times of the Gentiles" in Luke is a bit mysterious and passages in the OT are open to spiritualisation.
> 
> 
> Where is this land promise spoken of in Romans 11?



Nowhere. That's what I said. Romans 11 speaks about the re-ingrafting of the Jewish nation into the covenantal Olive Tree; it doesn't speak about land.

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 07:18:10 EST-----

*Quote from Joe*
_The main difference, when it comes right down to it, is Israel. The dispensationalist understands Israel to have a part in God's eschatological plan and generally see this carried out in the millennium. Covenantalists might see such a connection but consider the church to be Israel, which leaves any possible understanding of a future for ethnic Israel somewhat ambiguous, if I understand correctly._

I think if you read a book like "The Puritan Hope" which gives a survey of Protestant interpretation in this area - very interestingly written - you'll see that many prominent covenantalists have been very unambiguous that the Jews would be converted, and some have even taught that they would return to the land.

See e.g. Charles Hodge's and Robert L. Dabney's "Systematic Theology" online.

You may have come accross more covenantalists who do not believe that Romans 11 teaches Jewish national conversion.


----------



## Scott1

Wannabee said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you thinking are the "abominations" on the side of covenant theology interpretation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could list them too. FV, is a good example. Though some debate it, I would propose NPP is as well. Baptismal regeneration certainly.
> Okay, so that's what you are thinking. Yes, there are major problems with those theologies you mention.
> 
> However, I think what we were comparing was general dispensational theology vs. covenant theology, not factions of theological error coming off from them.
> 
> I would start with the premise that covenant theology is much more biblical than dispensationalism, period- not having to appeal to offshoot theologies that come from them.
> 
> One of the main reasons dispensationalism is in error, and why covenant theology is much more biblical as a framework is the basic heremeneutic of dispensationalism tends to be wrong. Dispensationalism interprets the New Testament in the controlling light of the Old, rather than Covenant theology doing the opposite- the Old Testament interpreted in light of the New.
> 
> This leads to many errors in dispensationalism, generally. That is one reason, not the only reason, but one main reason for objecting to the (modern) dispensational framework.
> 
> Remember, the dispensational framework did not even come about until the late 1800's and was not popularized until the early 1900's- the church never even heard of such as system of dividing up redemption until relatively recently. Granted there were a couple elements in early premillennialism, but by-and-large the whole seven dispensations and separate redemption tracks is a very recent invention, historically speaking.
> 
> 
> It's interesting how easily we can see fault in someone else's camp, but often fail to see our own. Plankeye syndrome may be a consideration here. And, I would submit, from the perspective of one who sees abominations as possible inherent results of two diverse, though very similar, systems, perhaps my perspective is a bit more clear than any who hold to the exclusivity that is often inherent among adherents of either system.
> I'm not sure if you are implying this, but I don't think there is a "middle system" between dispensationalism and covenant theology. They are really based on two entirely different grounds.
> 
> The former is based on a notion that God accomplished redemption in different ways and different times and has two different plans of redemption, one for Israel and a separate one for the church.
> 
> The latter is based on the notion God accomplished redemption in the same way, substantially all the the way through and had, has and forever will have only one way of redemption (by grace through faith in Christ's righteousness alone).
> 
> These cannot be compromised logically and I don't think biblically, either.
> 
> It's quite easy, and quite human, to capitalize on our strengths and ignore or minimize our weaknesses while doing the opposite with those who are in disagreement.
> 
> If you read through the thread I linked, and follow other links found there, you'll learn enough to probably render further questioning here moot.
> 
> 
> Blessings,
Click to expand...

.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Wannabee said:


> In much of your argumentation you seem angry, or at least agitated. "Tone" does not convey on the forum well, so my "interpretation" may be wrong.



Trust me, it is. But suggesting otherwise is both unnecessary and a good way to end a potentially meaningful discussion.


----------



## Wannabee

tcalbrecht said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> In much of your argumentation you seem angry, or at least agitated. "Tone" does not convey on the forum well, so my "interpretation" may be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me, it is. But suggesting otherwise is both unnecessary and a good way to end a potentially meaningful discussion.
Click to expand...


I'm glad it is. But asking for clarity is the charitable thing to do, rather than to continue to wonder and fail to know how to properly continue dialogue. I would suggest that only pride would end a potentially meaningful discussion when one brother seeks clarity from another.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

There is only one people of God.

There is no special blessing to enemies of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Wannabee

Dear Scott,

Sorry I messed up the pretty blue. I didn't want to take the time to go back and fix it. 



Scott1 said:


> However, I think what we were comparing was general dispensational theology vs. covenant theology, not factions of theological error coming off from them.


This, actually, is part of the problem. Much of what you say is inherent in the system is not. It is a possible derivative.


> Remember, the dispensational framework did not even come about until the late 1800's and was not popularized until the early 1900's- the church never even heard of such as system of dividing up redemption until relatively recently. Granted there were a couple elements in early premillennialism, but by-and-large the whole seven dispensations and separate redemption tracks is a very recent invention, historically speaking.[/COLOR]


But the covenantal framework, in the scheme of things, didn't come about until a couple hundred years earlier. This is hardly proof. Again, you speak of possible conclusions. "Seven dispensations," or eight, or ten, or whatever is not necessary for dispensationalism. It is a very real and present aspect of many (probably most) who call themselves dispensational. But it is not necessary. If this is what you term "dispensationalism" then we are speaking of two different things. That's fine, but, again, the covenantalists don't have the right to define dispensationalism. If I tell you I'm dispensationalist and that I don't believe the things you say dispensationalists believe then who is in error?


> I'm not sure if you are implying this, but I don't think there is a "middle system" between dispensationalism and covenant theology. They are really based on two entirely different grounds.


I would concur. I don't think there can be middle ground in the conclusions. The covenantal understanding is too different. But their basis is more similar than you realize. Quite often what you call covenants a dispensationalist terms dispensations. And you both would argue around each other for hours saying almost the same thing. I see it happening often, even right here on the PB. 


> The former is based on a notion that God accomplished redemption in different ways and different times and has two different plans of redemption, one for Israel and a separate one for the church.


Again, inaccurate. Your brush is too broad. There is one plan of redemption for all men and it's founded upon the Sacrifice of the Son of God. The eschatological significance of ethnic Israel is a mystery in many ways. But salvation is only found in Christ Jesus. This obviously renders your next point moot. 


> The latter is based on the notion God accomplished redemption in the same way, substantially all the the way through and had, has and forever will have only one way of redemption (by grace through faith in Christ's righteousness alone).
> 
> These cannot be compromised logically and I don't think biblically, either.





> If you read through the thread I linked, and follow other links found there, you'll learn enough to probably render further questioning here moot.


.[/QUOTE]





Peter H said:


> There is no special blessing to enemies of Jesus Christ.



I am so glad that you are so wrong on this. And I know that I was one enemy of God who has received a very special blessing...

Romans 5:6-11
6For when we were still without strength, in due time *Christ died for the ungodly*. 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that *while we were still sinners, Christ died for us*. 9Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10For if *when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life*. 11And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.​
Blessings,


----------



## Kevin

Joe, thanks for taking the time to engage this issue. I fundamentaly disagree ( I believe we are using the same vocabulary to define differing terms...) but I have enjoyed the chance to see you develop your position.

Pax


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> The problem lies in the way the question is stated. From a biblical theological perspective it is important to stress that Jesus is the Israel of God who was made under the law, fulfilled the stipulations of Israel's covenant, and is declared to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead. The true Israel is not the church in and of itself, but those who are united to Christ by faith, that is, are "in Christ." Those who are united to Christ by faith are the church, members of Christ, the Israel of God, whether they be Jew or Gentile.



Matthew, Exactly right. In the first Exodus Israel is called God's son
Jesus [the true Israel, the true tebernacle,true manna, passover, etc. the true covenant Son- Mt2;15] Is the True Israel, The True Exodus and us *IN HIM*fulfills the servant song Particularly Isa .49:1-8 so as to put an end to all discussion if correctly understood. Paul quotes from Isa, so many times in Romans it should be clear if patiently worked through.
This is indeed where the Covenant of Redemption/and the Covenant of Grace {at least the invisible members,for you padeo's} are met together in time.


----------



## Peairtach

_There is only one people of God.

There is no special blessing to enemies of Jesus Christ. _

We also were the enemies of Christ.

There is only one true Israel, but Romans 11 is saying that the Jews - who aren't truly God's people - are being, and will be in greater fullness re-ingrafted into the one true Israel, leading to greater progress for the Gospel.

Larger Catechism Q 191 encourages us to pray for the calling of the Jews and the fulness of the Gentiles citing Romans 10:1. No doubt you think it was wrong of the divines to distinguish between Jews and Gentiles?

*Quote from armourbearer* 
_The problem lies in the way the question is stated. From a biblical theological perspective it is important to stress that Jesus is the Israel of God who was made under the law, fulfilled the stipulations of Israel's covenant, and is declared to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead. The true Israel is not the church in and of itself, but those who are united to Christ by faith, that is, are "in Christ." Those who are united to Christ by faith are the church, members of Christ, the Israel of God, whether they be Jew or Gentile._

Exactly, although I would say that the visible church is also the church, in a sense. But the Q is, does Romans 11 teach a future national conversion of the Jews?


----------



## Scott1

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
> However, I think what we were comparing was general dispensational theology vs. covenant theology, not factions of theological error coming off from them.
> *Wannabee*
> This, actually, is part of the problem. Much of what you say is inherent in the system is not. It is a possible derivative.



Wait a minute. We can't dismiss with general statements that can't be followed.

What are you saying is not inherent in dispensationalism?

We can't get anywhere without defining our terms.

I have described dispensationalism as a system that imposes seven (or eight or four) different time periods of biblical history in which redemption was or is accomplished in substantially different ways. Also that dispensationalism has two entirely plans of redemption for those who have some Jewish blood and for the Body of Christ.

This is dispensationalism, Joe.

You have posted there are "abominations" on both sides. You sighted "federal vision" as an "abomination" on the covenant theology side. I responded yes, that theology is in serious error, but that is not mainstream covenant theology at all- it is an offshoot theology that is in serious error. That offshoot theology is not what we are talking about here.

You did not sight an example of "abomination" on the dispensational side.

It seems to me the whole dispensational framework is in error, and you have not responded to that.

It seems the whole dispensational framework, which is of relatively recent invention (you say that does not matter, that it is recent whereas covenant theology has been the church position for much longer), is not a normal way of reading Scripture and gets to wrong conclusions.

One of those wrong conclusions, it seems to me, is the dispensationalism teaches an eternal separation of those with some ethnic Jewish blood from the body of Christ (although many dispensationalists have retreated from that and now say they do get together, eventually, in a future state of glory).

Covenant theology gets to the conclusion that there has been one continuous plan of redemption of God from the get-go, to redeem a people by grace through faith in Christ. This began primarily with the covenant people of national Israel and has been expanded now, in accordance with God's plan from the beginning, to redeem a people from every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue. This is covenant theology- and as a biblical proposition, think it represents best what Scripture teaches.

If you do not agree with that, you need to state that clearly and specifically.

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 07:58:18 EST-----

Also, since Mr. MacArthur now describes himself as a "leaky" dispensationalist- does anyone know where the "leak" is?

I'm assuming he imagines himself something like 80% dispensational, 20% covenant theology now but am not sure. Does anyone know the area Mr. MacArthur does not hold to the dispensational framework? He is no longer a complete dispensationalist and wishes to distinguish or qualify his position.


----------



## Wannabee

Scott,

You've made your point clear. So did I, in an earlier post. Your definition of dispensationalism is shared by many, but is not central to dispensationalism. Therefore we are unable to communicate well on the basis of different vocabulary. It's understandable, but I won't argue for something I don't even believe is dispensationalism. I defined it here clearly, and in the link I provided there was more than enough information to let you know what dispensationalism truly is. Again, for a covenantalist to tell a dispensationalist what dispensationalism is seems a bit off. It *IS *like me telling you that you can't be covenantalist unless you believe in one of the abominations we discussed earlier, simply based on my experience and reading. But I don't really worry about whether I'm dispensational or not. The label doesn't matter. I do know that I fit the definition of dispensationalism that I provided for you. If you don't consider that dispensationalism then fine, tell me what I am.  I'll work within your definitions, but then you'll find I have little else to say.


Blessings,


----------



## Scott1

Joe,

The link has several of your posts. It's hard to follow.

I've described covenant theology in two sentences.

Here's my definition of covenant theology:

God's continuous plan of redemption from the beginning to redeem one people from every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue by grace through faith in Christ. God began primarily with a covenant people, Israel but intended and did expand that to include all those who He would redeem, Jew and Gentile- always on the basis of Christ.

So people can follow your assertions, can you summarize what you mean by "dispensationalism" in two sentences?


----------



## Wannabee

The first link I provided is my post in this thread that discusses what dispensationalism is. The second link is to a thread that would help alleviate much of what is misunderstood about dispensationalism. The links in that thread lead to other threads that discuss this same thing. They should be very easy to follow if one begins with the first post. And Kevin, at least, followed my assertions - even though he disagrees with me. I would suggest, respectfully, that much of the reason you struggle with what I'm saying is because you have defined dispensationalism with broad parameters that are possibilities but not necessarily inherent in dispensationalism. As long as you do so you will not follow what I'm attempting to clarify. Again, read my earlier post. It specifies exactly what dispensationalism is. Furthemore, the link I provided to a previous thread defines the hermeneutic behind dispensationalism. I don't see how you could possibly want more. The challenge, as I understand it, is for you to work within those parameters in refuting dispensationalism at its core. 

I find myself in a struggle to write such a definition in light of your post, for I agree with the statement you provide regarding covenantalism. But I do so with full knowledge that I cannot be covenantalist. Again, I think part of the challenge of the discussion is that much that is a result is proposed as inherent. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to be recurring. And, as I stated earlier, there is much more in common than most would care to admit.

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 09:38:48 EST-----

I just noticed that the links to the threads within the thread I linked above no longer work. That's really too bad, for there was a great deal of good information lost with those threads. But simply reading through my first couple of posts should yield much in regard to dispensationalism.

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 09:44:33 EST-----

Here are some quotes from the old thread.


> *Bob Lowes*
> Just to get things started, here's what I found when I did a quick search on 'dispensationalism' and 'principles of interpretation':
> 
> 
> 
> Dispensation theology is built upon the principles of literalism and normalcy in understanding what the text means.
> 
> 1. Literal (also called normal): interpret Scripture literally taking into account normal literary devices such as metaphors, simile, hyperbole, and figurative language
> 
> 2. Historical: interpret Scripture in light of the historical situation of the day
> 
> 3. Grammatical: interpret Scripture in light of the precise grammar rules of Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic.
> 
> 3.Etymological: interpret Scripture in light of the meanings of words based on their roots and derivations
> 
> 4. Contextual: interpret Scripture in light of the immediate context: sentence, paragraph, chapter, and book; as well as the general context: book, testament and at times even extra-biblical material.
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> You have to start with the text. From there, what are the prinicples that allow you to assert your conclusions?
> If you are not ready to accept the literal [simple and clear] meaning of the text, then what guidelines are you using to allow you to allegorize [spiritualize - consider symbolism]?
> What guidelines are in place to keep you from over-allegorizing? [One theologian says that all rounded numbers of high value are allegorical -millennium, 144000, etc. Interesting, but on what authority?]
> Once you think you've figured out what the text says then the rest of Scripture must be brought to bear.
> What did the original author intend?
> How would the readers of the time perceive it?
> 
> This challenge is in no way exhaustive, but the point is that we have to know the boundaries of how we draw our conclusions. If we don't define them then we can make Scripture say anything we want it to, whether it's pretrib, CoW, NPP, easy believism or Arianism.
> Some more info
> Quote:
> Hermeneutics - a set of principles
> Exegesis - implemenation of valid interpretive principles
> Meaning - truth intention of the author
> Interpretation - understanding of the truth intention of the author
> And this
> Quote:
> I think we need to add application to our list. This is very important. (look at the definitions as I say this) We CANNOT apply until we've exegeted and interpreted. It's too dangerous, and forces meaning into a text that may not be there. This is poor hermeneutics. Furthermore, a common mistake is to confuse application with interpretation. They have to be held appart. Application is 100% dependent upon interpretation. Interpretation is 100% dependent upon the meaning. The meaning is 100% dependent upon exegesis. And proper exegesis is 100% dependent upon good valid hermentical principles.
> 
> So, can we establish the definition of application - the use or practice of God's message in personal lives? Simply put, application is how God's Word shows us how to think and live. Maybe too simple, but I think it should serve our purposes.
> Quote:
> What does the text say? We can make it say whatever we want to. But, what did the HS intend in writing this. The original audience has to be considered. Finally, if we're going to allegorize then we need stringent rules to keep us from going to far. I would challenge you to show the where/when/what/how/why of allegorizing. For me it's simple, if the text says it's an allegory, if it's an idiom, or if it's simply too far fetched to be a possibility (i.e., Jesus is not a literal door). I see no need to go any farther. One commentator says that all large rounded off numbers in Revelation are allegorical. Okay, if that's your principle fine, but make sure you stick to it and are consistent. Also, make sure you can say why that's your hermeneutic. What in Scripture makes that principle clear? You know I don't buy it, but I would at least challenge anyone making this type of claim to be able to clearly define the structure that allows them to allegorize. Is it arbitrary, based on Scriptural example, a man made system, etc?
> Quote:
> While the NT does shed some light on the OT, God did things historically. Revelation was progressive, and is, since we one day our faith will be sight. I think the danger in looking backwards is that it is easy to read things into the text, rather than letting it say what it says.
> So, progressive revelation is also a big part of the dispensational hermeneutic. The NT does shed light on the OT, but only when the NT passage took place. The OT writers/audience did not have the same insight (revelation) as the NT audience.



-----Added 7/21/2009 at 09:45:52 EST-----

This is an important part of the hermeneutic.


> Application is 100% dependent upon interpretation.
> Interpretation is 100% dependent upon the meaning.
> The meaning is 100% dependent upon exegesis.
> And proper exegesis is 100% dependent upon good valid hermentical principles.



-----Added 7/21/2009 at 09:51:56 EST-----

A huge difference that we've discussed is the way we approach the OT. Dispensationalists will approach it from an OT perspective. The NT clarifies, but does not change the meaning from an OT perspective. Often we cannot understand an OT passage until we've read the NT. But the emphasis seems different, in that CT seems to "reinterpret" the meaning of some passages in light of the NT with less regard for the original context, who wrote it, why, to whom, etc. This produces results that can vary, but a future for Israel does seem to be a point of consistency and ultimately inherent in dispensationalism.



I hope this sort of shotgun approach helps some. If not, well, I don't suppose it could have hurt any.


----------



## Prufrock

Wannabee said:


> But the emphasis seems different, in that CT seems to "reinterpret" the meaning of some passages in light of the NT with less regard for the original context, who wrote it, why, to whom, etc. This produces results that can vary, but a future for Israel does seem to be a point of consistency and ultimately inherent in dispensationalism.



As do the New Testament authors. It only takes until Matthew 2:15 for us see this "reinterpretation" happening.


----------



## Scott1

> *Wannabee*
> for I agree with the statement you provide regarding covenantalism.



Hard for others to follow because you will not give what you understand as dispensationalism in a couple sentences so others can understand.



> *Scott1*
> 
> God's continuous plan of redemption from the beginning to redeem one people from every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue by grace through faith in Christ. God began primarily with a covenant people, Israel but intended and did expand that to include all those who He would redeem, Jew and Gentile- always on the basis of Christ.



Logically, there is no way you can agree with my two sentence summary of covenant theology and be dispensational (as imperfect as my summary is).


----------



## Wannabee

Again, Scott, this is because your definition of dispensationalism brings too much to the table. I see a future for ethnic Israel and fit the definition of dispensationalism I provided. If you prefer to see dispensationalism in a different light, then our communication on this level is inhibited. 

One hermeneutic principle that Paul hits on that is common among dispensationalists is the principle of singular meaning. I agree with it in the original context, but also see where God either clarifies or shows that there was both a contemporary and future meaning to what was said. So, I stray from the dispensational hermeneutic in this regard. But I have defined dispensationalism very simply.



> - literal grammatico-historical hermeneutic
> - future for ethnic Israel
> - God's glory central
> That's really it. People attempt to put more labels on dispensationalism, but that's all that's necessary. Of course there are variants, and, generally speaking, such a position would be premillennial. If you don't accept this definition of dispensationalism then there's no need to argue; simply relabel me. It obviously precludes me from being covenantal.



-----Added 7/21/2009 at 10:31:46 EST-----

If it helps, when I say I see a future for ethnic Israel I do not see it as a furtherance of God's soteriological plan. I see it as a fulfillment of promises made.


----------



## Scott1

Final request on this, for the benefit of those trying to follow:



> *Wannabee*
> I see a future for ethnic Israel and fit the definition of dispensationalism I provided



What is your definition of dispensationalism (two sentences or less, please)?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Richard Tallach said:


> But the Q is, does Romans 11 teach a future national conversion of the Jews?



The question is much bigger than that. Does the NT anywhere teach a national conversion of ethnic Jews? I would challenge you to prove that first before you try to interpret Romans 11 that way. Whenever the OT promises are spoken of in the NT, it's always in reference to their fulfillment in the Church (Jewish and Gentile believers) as the true children of Abraham and heirs of the same promise. In Galatians 3, Paul makes it clear that was the intention from the get-go, that God intended to bring the promises to the Gentiles. In Hebrews 11, we see how the OT saints themselves interpreted the promises, not in terms of land and ethnicity but in terms of a better resurrection and a city whose builder and maker is God. Indeed, if Romans 11 is teaching a national conversion of Jews, then it is the only place in the NT teaching such. 

What you seem to be missing, and I tried to point it out to you in my last post, is that Paul is providing a theological justification for evangelizing the Jews, even though they are so hostile to the gospel. Paul's concern is for the remnant according to the election of grace, not the nation. He includes himself in that remnant. And what he describes in Romans 11 is the evangelization process, through which the remnant will be gathered and re-engrafted to _during_ the "time of the Gentiles." The "And so" in vs 26 means "and in this manner" all ethnic Israel will be saved, not "afterward all Israel will be saved." By interpreting this as some future national conversion, you are ripping this passage out of the first century context. 

Why is it that Paul always went to the Jews first, then the Gentiles? We see his theology of evangelism here in Romans 9-11, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. He was provoking that remnant to jealousy, Rom 11:14, "in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save _*some*_ of them." By bringing the gospel to the Gentiles he was provoking the remnant to envy and believe now. Rom 11:31 "so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may _*now*_ receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you." The hardness upon the Jews was only partial, the remnant will still believe as they are provoked to jealousy. It's through that process that the remnant of Israel (the true Israel) is saved. 

Paul's concern is evangelism now, during the time of the Gentiles, not some end-times conversion.


----------



## Wannabee

Why do you need it in sentence form Scott? I've provided a definition in bullet points several times now, including my previous post, and yet it fails to be interacted with, received or something. It's really very simple.

- literal grammatico-historical hermeneutic (I defined this hermeneutic above as well)
- future for ethnic Israel
- God's glory central (covenantalism seems to put redemption as central)

It does NOT necessitate more than one plan of salvation. It does NOT necessitate some sort of salvation by law. It does NOT necessitate all the other eschatological sensationalism that you find on your local Christianized bookstore. This is all that is inherent in dispensationalism. But, as I pointed out earlier, the hermeneutic does carry a set of principles that very few dispensationalists understand.


----------



## Scott1

Thanks for three bullet points, at least:



> *Wannabee*
> - literal grammatico-historical hermeneutic (I defined this hermeneutic above as well)
> - future for ethnic Israel
> - God's glory central (covenantalism seems to put redemption as central)



All these points can be debated.

- Dispensationalism uses the grammatico-historical hermeneutic according to its presuppositions, when it suits those presuppositions. It interprets, generally, the New Testament in light of the Old, rather than vice versa. The latter is more reasonable, biblical and is the covenant position.
- Not sure what you mean exactly by "future for ethnic Israel"
- God's glory is absolutely central to everything in reformed theology (which is covenantal). Dispensational is man-centered, tends that way in its whole framework.




> *Wannabee*
> It does NOT necessitate more than one plan of salvation.



Then what are the "dispensations" for?

Are you really saying you understand dispensationalism is not a separate plan of redemption for those with some Jewish ancestry and one for everyone else?


----------



## A2JC4life

Wow. Saying that putting God's glory central is a hallmark of dispensational theology in contrast to covenantal theology is pretty harsh. Ouch. I don't think any covenantalist would hold that redemption is more central than God's glory. (Though I do believe that redemption brings glory to God.)

I must admit that I have never heard the definition of DT that MacArthur is using. I have always understood it to be a system in which God works differently, even where salvation is concerned, in different eras.

By these definitions, I truly have no clue what we would be considered. I consider us covenantal. But I am not sure what I believe regarding ethnic Israel and the end times. (This is not a topic my husband and I have discussed sufficiently for me to know what he thinks.) I do not believe it possible for _all_ (ethnic) Israel to be saved, as there are already Jews who have lived and died who clearly were without knowledge of Christ. The opportunity for "all" has already passed. I believe that true, spiritual Israel is, and has always been, the elect. There is only one elect people of God. And yet, there are passages, particularly in Revelation, that seem to make a distinction. So put me down as confused.


----------



## Scott1

> *A2JC4life*
> I must admit that I have never heard the definition of DT that MacArthur is using. I have always understood it to be a system in which God works differently, even where salvation is concerned, in different eras.



Right on.

Something that would be helpful for all on this thread- since Mr. MacArthur defines himself as a "leaky" dispensationalist (which I take to mean he has some significant difference with dispensationalism), it would be helpful to know what that difference might be. Given his strong propensity toward reformed theology in other areas, it might well be a covenant theology principle he agrees with.

Anyone know?


----------



## SolaGratia

For Pastor John MacArthur's eschatology view (Premil.):

GTY Videos

Go to Conferences ->Sovereign Election, Israel, Eschatology (2007 General Session 1) March 7, 2007.

Also,

The video title, Questions and Answers with John MacArthur (2007 General Session 5) March 8, 2007.

Both these two videos will be helpful.


----------



## Wannabee

Your observations on dispensationalism's hermeneutics is probably justified, to a point. Note that this is a basis, and not necessarily followed.

Future for ethnic Israel simply refers to future fulfillment of land promises, and any other promises associated with it. Perhaps a difference between Israel and the church would be better, but still recognizing that all "saints" are part of the church.



Scott1 said:


> - God's glory is absolutely central to everything in reformed theology (which is covenantal). Dispensational is man-centered, tends that way in its whole framework.


This comment is a grave error, Scott. Even Gerstner, in his straw man argumentation, compliments dispensationalism as having at its core a focus on God's glory as His ultimate purpose in everything. You only have personal observation to make such an assertion. 


A2JC4life said:


> Wow. Saying that putting God's glory central is a hallmark of dispensational theology in contrast to covenantal theology is pretty harsh. Ouch. I don't think any covenantalist would hold that redemption is more central than God's glory. (Though I do believe that redemption brings glory to God.)


No less harsh than Scott's statement where he says dispensationalism focuses on man. Furthermore, I do not think that covenantalism focuses on redemption above God's glory. But, I have heard covenantalists state, on this board, that the purpose of history is more about redemption. Perhaps it was an isolated case.



> *Wannabee*
> It does NOT necessitate more than one plan of salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what are the "dispensations" for?
Click to expand...

EDIT: sorry I missed this in my response. Dispensations simply refer to different time periods in which God interacted with man and dispensed His grace differently. He interacted differently with Abraham than with Moses. He interacted differently with Moses than with David. His interaction with Israel during the exile and restoration was different. And His interaction in the advent of Christ was certainly different. This is why I noted to you earlier than "dispensations" in dispensationalism often line up very well with "covenants" in covenantalism. 



> Are you really saying you understand dispensationalism is not a separate plan of redemption for those with some Jewish ancestry and one for everyone else?


Absolutely. I'm not just telling you that this is what I believe. I'm telling you that this is the truth. Dispensationalists who claim otherwise are inconsistent and misguided, though they obviously exist in great numbers. Again, you're focused on a possible result, not what is central.



Scott1 said:


> Given his strong propensity toward reformed theology in other areas, it might well be a covenant theology principle he agrees with.
> Anyone know?



Other than soteriologically, I don't. Unfortunately dispensationalists tend toward arminianism. I think it may be connected with inconsistent understandings in regard to salvation, as mentioned above.


----------



## Scott1

Wannabee said:


> Your observations on dispensationalism's hermeneutics is probably justified, to a point. Note that this is a basis, and not necessarily followed.
> 
> Thanks for acknowledging that. Dispensationalism does not automatically follow their stated "literal" hermeneutic but tends to follow it when it suits the dispensational framework.
> 
> Also, it gets it backwards by interpreting the New in light of the Old. The early church certainly didn't do that (cf Book of Acts). If they had, the Jewish Christians like Paul and James and Peter and Silas would have not gone into synagogues with the gospel but would have been preaching "land promises" or "earthly promises." That isn't at all what happened, nor our faith established by the prophets and apostles.
> 
> Future for ethnic Israel simply refers to future fulfillment of land promises, and any other promises associated with it. Perhaps a difference between Israel and the church would be better, but still recognizing that all "saints" are part of the church.
> Okay, Joe. We have a real difference here.
> 
> Covenant theology does not teach fulfillment of a land promise for Israel in the sense of a political entity for people who have some ethnic Jewish blood.
> 
> Basically, covenant theology looks at the Old Testament promises for land to the nation of Israel and sees they were already fulfilled (before the theocratic nation was destroyed in 70AD) or as promises that were conditioned upon obedience. Obviously, often the theocratic state of Israel was not broadly obedient- that's why Christ Himself, in fulfillment of the prophets said it would be destroyed, (e.g. the temple, beginning of Matthew 24).
> 
> Glad you would recognize that both Old Testament and New Testament saints (believers) are part of the church. I think that contradicts your construct of dispensationalism and is logically inconsistent, but glad you believe that because it really seems that's what Scripture teaches.
> 
> How could one read Hebrews 11 and not believe that?
> 
> I wonder, does Mr. MacArthur believe this? Is this part of his "leak" in what he describes as his "leaky" dispensationalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, Joe, I'm not sure of this right now, but my understanding is that covenant theology does not preclude a gathering of people with some ethnic Jewish identity into a land roughly equivalent to the Old Testament land. Nor does it preclude a large scale conversion of the people.
> 
> But the difference with dispensationalism is that it is not on the basis of unconditional promises or "earthly promises for an earthly people" like dispensationalism says. It is on the basis of God's Providence, and on the basis of redemption through Christ (not separate "earthly" promises.)"
> 
> The promises to Israel all pointed to Christ and are not fulfilled outside of Him as Messiah, redeemer. That's where covenant theology differs from the more broadly popular dispensationalism, a recent invention, found in broadly evangelical circles... but not reformed ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> - God's glory is absolutely central to everything in reformed theology (which is covenantal). Dispensational is man-centered, tends that way in its whole framework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This comment is a grave error, Scott. Even Gerstner, in his straw man argumentation, compliments dispensationalism as having at its core a focus on God's glory as His ultimate purpose in everything. You only have personal observation to make such an assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter III
> Of God's Eternal Decree
> 
> 
> III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A2JC4life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Saying that putting God's glory central is a hallmark of dispensational theology in contrast to covenantal theology is pretty harsh. Ouch. I don't think any covenantalist would hold that redemption is more central than God's glory. (Though I do believe that redemption brings glory to God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No less harsh than Scott's statement where he says dispensationalism focuses on man. Furthermore, I do not think that covenantalism focuses on redemption above God's glory. But, I have heard covenantalists state, on this board, that the purpose of history is more about redemption. Perhaps it was an isolated case.
> 
> EDIT: sorry I missed this in my response. Dispensations simply refer to different time periods in which God interacted with man and dispensed His grace differently. He interacted differently with Abraham than with Moses. He interacted differently with Moses than with David. His interaction with Israel during the exile and restoration was different. And His interaction in the advent of Christ was certainly different. This is why I noted to you earlier than "dispensations" in dispensationalism often line up very well with "covenants" in covenantalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another difference. God really, in substance at least, did not dispense His grace differently- it always was grace that was accessed by faith in the coming Messiah Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Even Abraham believed that. He didn't have all the details, it was all explicit like it became in the New Testament- but that is what his faith looked forward toward. That's the same thing believers look back at- salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.
> 
> Always been God's plan revealed in His Word. Never been different, the dispensational system notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really saying you understand dispensationalism is not a separate plan of redemption for those with some Jewish ancestry and one for everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. I'm not just telling you that this is what I believe. I'm telling you that this is the truth. Dispensationalists who claim otherwise are inconsistent and misguided, though they obviously exist in great numbers. Again, you're focused on a possible result, not what is central.
> 
> No.
> 
> The difference is a different plan of redemption that dispensationalism presents- "earthly" promises for an earthly people and spiritual promises for a "spiritual" people.
> 
> This might sound impressive, but really is embarrassingly inconsistent when one gets right down to it.
> 
> Dispensationalism has retreated big time in the past generation almost giving up the seven dispensations of Schofield, and now is saying the church and Israel do, after all, get together... eventually.
> 
> Covenant theology has always said believers in both are together right now, in the Body of Christ, part of the Church universal, and always have been.
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given his strong propensity toward reformed theology in other areas, it might well be a covenant theology principle he agrees with.
> Anyone know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than soteriologically, I don't. Unfortunately dispensationalists tend toward arminianism. I think it may be connected with inconsistent understandings in regard to salvation, as mentioned above.
Click to expand...

.

I think it's fair to say the whole dispensational framework is an outgrowth of Arminianism. That's why you find none of it in the church historically, and in none of her creeds.


----------



## Wannabee

Scott1 said:


> Thanks for acknowledging that. Dispensationalism does not automatically follow their stated "literal" hermeneutic but tends to follow it when it suits the dispensational framework.


You're welcome, I think.  Your assertion goes a bit far though, and please forgive me for not budging on this. I know it's tedious. Some dispensationalists do not consistently follow the hermeneutics that are the basis of dispensationalism. Many impose their system on their understanding of Scripture. We all do this to a degree, which is often evidenced on this forum in regard to covenantalism. But please understand that I, as a dispensationalist (again, unless you want to relabel me) strive to divorce myself from common conceptions of "the dispensational framework." It is not a necessary ingredient, which is why I clarified above what dispensations are.



Scott1 said:


> Okay, Joe. We have a real difference here. Covenant theology does not teach fulfillment of a land promise for Israel in the sense of a political entity for people who have some ethnic Jewish blood.
> 
> Basically, covenant theology looks at the Old Testament promises for land to the nation of Israel and sees they were already fulfilled (before the theocratic nation was destroyed in 70AD or as promises that were conditioned upon obedience. Obviously, often the theocratic state of Israel was not broadly obedient- that's why Christ Himself, in fulfillment of the prophets said it would be destroyed, (e.g. the temple, beginning of Matthew 24).


Matthew 24 is a classic example of already/not yet prophecy. We both would see that, yet draw the line between the two at different places. Basically, you're right though. This is where CT and DT clearly depart from one another in their understanding. And, this a non-negotiable for dispensationalism.



> Glad you would recognize that both Old Testament and New Testament saints (believers) are part of the church. I think that contradicts your construct of dispensationalism and is logically inconsistent, but glad you believe that because it really seems that's what Scripture teaches.


Please show how my understanding of salvation contradicts *MY *construct of dispensationalism. Where is the inconsistency? And, I implore you, please keep within the bounds of what I have espoused, rather than bringing your conceptions of dispensationalism to the table.


> How could one read Hebrews 11 and not believe that?
> 
> I wonder, does Mr. MacArthur believe this? Is this part of his "leak" in what he describes as his "leaky" dispensationalism.


Did you use "Mr." rather than "Dr." on purpose.  Not to worry, God is no respecter of persons, right? Actually, I know as a fact that MacArthur believes this. His soteriology, I would say, is in full agreement with reformed theology. I say "reformed" because covenantalism does not have a monopoly on this. He also sees no necessary eschatological significance in today's geopolitical entity known as Israel. The link that Gil provided should be of some help on this.



> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> - God's glory is absolutely central to everything in reformed theology (which is covenantal). Dispensational is man-centered, tends that way in its whole framework.
> 
> 
> 
> This comment is a grave error, Scott. Even Gerstner, in his straw man argumentation, compliments dispensationalism as having at its core a focus on God's glory as His ultimate purpose in everything. You only have personal observation to make such an assertion.
Click to expand...

I goofed here. I should not have included your statement in regard to covenantalism. My comments were specifically addressed toward your erroneous claims in regard to dispensationalisms focus on man. That's why I references Gerstner. My apologies for not being clear. Of course you have the claim for covenantalism. Please recognize the same credibility in my claim for dispensationalism.


----------



## Grillsy

Wannabee, with all due respect I am not sure if you fit into the classical dispensational camp. You sound more like you want to be a covenant theologian but are still holding on the some tenants of dispensationalism. You are redefining what Dispensational's believe.
Read the classic dispensational texts and they will say grace was administered differently in the various dispensations. They will say, essentially, the Church and Israel are two completely separate entities with different plans of salvation.
Why not just come on over into the warm waters of Covenant theology brother?


----------



## Scott1

Joe,

It's fair to say many of us like Dr. MacArthur very much and always have. He's solid on the "five points" and articulates them well. He admits his dispensationalism is "leaky"

In the end, it seems more and more inconsistent to believe the doctrines of grace and approach the bible with the modern dispensational framework. Look how far dispensationalism has retreated in two generations!

(We also like Dr. Gerstner, his hard hitting passion and consistency, very much also).


----------



## Wannabee

Grillsy said:


> Wannabee, with all due respect I am not sure if you fit into the classical dispensational camp. You sound more like you want to be a covenant theologian but are still holding on the some tenants of dispensationalism. You are redefining what Dispensational's believe.
> Read the classic dispensational texts and they will say grace was administered differently in the various dispensations. They will say, essentially, the Church and Israel are two completely separate entities with different plans of salvation.
> Why not just come on over into the warm waters of Covenant theology brother?



Well, that's really not quite right Willie. Dr. Robert Thomas, a very well known dispensationalist, was one of my professors and probably has more right to "define" dispensationalism than any of us here. The hermeneutic principles are from him, and reflect Milton Terry's as well. The definition is from him as well, but also put for by others. Please don't think that I'm just dreaming this up in some sort of wishful vacuum. If you really want to get into the mind of a dispensationalist, read Thomas' book, _Evangelical Hermeneutics_. You won't agree with it. I don't agree with it all. But you will gain a better understanding of much that is foundational about dispensationalism.
What doesn't seem to be conveying, though I've reiterated it many times, is that "what Dispensationalists believe" and what is inherently dispensationalism are not the same thing. That's like me telling you that you are redefining covenantalism because you don't believe in baptismal regeneration. There are the basic core understandings that undergird both sides, with many tendrils of differing understanding emanating from both as well. 

I kinda hate to do this, for obvious reasons. But there's really a lot of misunderstanding going on here. So, here are some quotes from those who have the credentials to make dispensational claims.


> The charge of the covenant theologian that dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation is often based on what he thinks ought to be the logical teaching of dispensationalism rather than what is the actual teaching of dispensationalism... dispensationalists sometimes may have overemphasized the differences between law and grace...
> The basis of salvation is always the death of Christ; the means is alays faith; the object is always God; but the content of faith depends on the particular revelation God was pleased to give at a certain time.
> If by "ways" of salvation is meant different content of faith, then dispensationalism does teach various "ways" because the Scriptures reveal different contents for faith in the progressive nature of God's revelation to mankind. But if by "ways" is meant more than one basis or means of salvation, then dispensationalism most emphatically does nto teach more than one way, for salvation has been, is, and always will be bawed on the substiutionary death of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Charles Ryrie, _Dispensationalism_, 120-21
> 
> What is the _sine qua non_ of dispenstionalism? the answer is threefold.
> Keeps Israel and the church distinct.
> historical-grammatical hermeneutics.
> the underlying purpose of God in the world... the glory of God
> 
> The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispnesationalist's consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects and understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.
> 
> Ibid, 39-41


Another book that deals with the challenges of defining dispensationalism is _Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism_, edited by Herbert Bateman IV. He uses these three criteria to investigate the historicity of them. Admittedly it is true that not all Dispensationalists subscribe to these three core values. Darrell Bock, Lanier Burns, Elliot Johnson and Stanley Toussaint are contributors. 

There is admittedly much wrong in dispensationalism. But dispensationalism does not, in any way, have a monopoly on heresies and wrong understanding in regard to God, His work and eternal purposes. This is sadly evidenced in every denomination in the land, including the ones represented on this board. But the sweeping statements that are said with authority that is not really delegated or truly present are often (perhaps usually) less than accurate, at least. 

Something else to consider, though it's not necessarily conclusive. If dispensationalists hold to position "C" and covenantalists hold to position "S" and the truth is position "P," who needs to move and in what direction? Both parties need to move. And, though covenantalism's perspective is closer, "S" being closer to "P" than "C," the covenantalist still must move closer to dispensationalism to be correct. If nothing else, it's an illustration worthy of consideration at some levels.


Blessings,

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 03:18:04 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> Joe,
> 
> It's fair to say many of us like Dr. MacArthur very much and always have. He's solid on the "five points" and articulates them well. He admits his dispensationalism is "leaky"
> 
> In the end, it seems more and more inconsistent to believe the doctrines of grace and approach the bible with the modern dispensational framework. Look how far dispensationalism has retreated in two generations!
> 
> (We also like Dr. Gerstner, his hard hitting passion and consistency, very much also).



I like Gerstner too, except when he's dealing with dispensationalism. As for dispensationalism retreating: perhaps. Perhaps it's simply adjusting. I don't know. I hope that all that is wrong about dispensationalism does "retreat." But you have to remember that covenantalism didn't just happen. It developed and has ebbed and flowed with many variants over the past 300 years.

I see no inconsistency in adhering to grace and the dispensational "framework" that I have presented. Again, I would appreciate clarity; if for no other reason that to be challenged to be more consistent in my own theology.


----------



## Grillsy

A serious question about how you view eschatology.

Do you see a division among God's people as far as promises go? If so, why and to what degree?

Perhaps this will help us get to the bottom of this issue.


----------



## DonP

One Question for the Dispensationalists. 

Are there two bodies of Christ? 
The saved OT Jews and the saved nt Church members? Or all we all one body? 

Are we built into one temple or two? 

I only see one body in the scripture. How does your hermeneutic explain your statement that the saved OT Jews are not the church? What are they? 
And what body will the jews later be in who are saved? 

Are there 2 elect?

Eclessia in the wilderness 
Acts 7:38 "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, NKJV

Can you please help me understand how you see this. 

thanks


----------



## Wannabee

The bottom line really is hermeneutics and where that places Israel in relation to God and the church.

The spiritual promises are to the elect of God = salvation.
The land/physical promises made to Israel stand until the end of time (forever), but are not necessitate salvation. However, they do have spiritual ramifications just as there were spiritual ramifications for them being the harbingers of the law and there are spiritual ramifications to being born into a Christian family or living next door to a biblically sound Christian church. That may be over simplistic, but should get the point across. And I really wrestle with understanding "all Israel will be saved." That's a tough one.

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 03:47:57 EST-----



DonP said:


> One Question for the Dispensationalists.
> 
> Are there two bodies of Christ?
> The saved OT Jews and the saved nt Church members? Or all we all one body?


This was addressed above. One body of elect - the church catholic.


> Are we built into one temple or two?
> 
> I only see one body in the scripture. How does your hermeneutic explain your statement that the saved OT Jews are not the church? What are they?
> And what body will the jews later be in who are saved?


Who said that? I've not seen this proposed in this thread by anyone. Can you reference a post? Perhaps you're thinking that premillinnialism necessitates a division because of the rapture and millennial kingdom. It doesn't really, though I couldn't provide specifics. What it comes down to is that the elect are the body of Christ.



> Are there 2 elect?


There are millions.  But they are all of the church.


----------



## DonP

Wannabee said:


> The bottom line really is hermeneutics and where that places Israel in relation to God and the church.
> 
> The spiritual promises are to the elect of God = salvation.
> The land/physical promises made to Israel stand until the end of time (forever), but are not necessitate salvation. However, they do have spiritual ramifications just as there were spiritual ramifications for them being the harbingers of the law and there are spiritual ramifications to being born into a Christian family or living next door to a biblically sound Christian church..



What are the spiritual ramifications you speak of for the Jew?


----------



## Grillsy

DonP said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line really is hermeneutics and where that places Israel in relation to God and the church.
> 
> The spiritual promises are to the elect of God = salvation.
> The land/physical promises made to Israel stand until the end of time (forever), but are not necessitate salvation. However, they do have spiritual ramifications just as there were spiritual ramifications for them being the harbingers of the law and there are spiritual ramifications to being born into a Christian family or living next door to a biblically sound Christian church..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the spiritual ramifications you speak of for the Jew?
Click to expand...


Wannabee,

The issue I struggle with in your position is the land promises to the "Jews". The problem is that all who are true sons of Abraham are those who are in Christ and that is without ethnic distinction.

You still hold to the land promises to those of a certain ethnic distinction but the Scriptures deny this. If they land promises are too Abraham's Seed then they are to Christ. If that is the case the Church would be the beneficiaries not an ethnic group.


----------



## Wannabee

I tried to make a distinction earlier between Jew and Israelite. It might not be accurate, but I don't use the term "Jew" in these discussions because I perceive it as focusing more on their religion than ethnicity. The term "Israel" focuses on a people group, however. Those who are saved are of the church, regardless of their ethnicity, social status, gender, earthly influence, etc. But God still made the Israelites for a reason and made promises for a reason. I really don't know what all of those reasons are. 
As for the land promises to Abraham, they were reiterated to Isaac and Jacob, not to Ishmael and Esau. And they were referred to by Moses and Joshua, among others. Perhaps it would help to know that I see the spiritual aspects of the Abrahamic covenant realized in the church and the physical/land aspects yet to be fully fulfilled in Israel. All it takes is a reading of Judges 1 to see that they did not possess the land that God gave them. And "forever" has some pretty serious implications... 
As for the spiritual ramifications, Don, I really couldn't tell you. Obviously the law is fulfilled in Christ, so that wouldn't be it. And I don't see them necessarily separate from the church, but I really don't know if all of them will be saved. There is too much that is unknown for me to nail it down that tight. Furthermore, I don't know that I've studied it enough to offer much more than that anyway. Good questions though.


----------



## DonP

Wannabee said:


> Romans,
> I'll not go into depth here, but, simply put, I do not see how anyone can say that Paul is talking about the church when he refers to Israel here. For instance, in 9:4 he refers to his countrymen, "to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the *promises*.." *This is not ambiguous. In the following verses the children of promise are clearly those who God chose, Isaac and Jacob, rather than the heirs according to the flesh, Ishmael and Esau. In other words, the church is not presented here*. One of God's promises to Israel is that they would possess the land "forever" (Ex 32:13). Forever isn't over yet.



Maybe I misunderstood you but it sounded to me like you said here that, 

The children of Promise, God chose, Issac and Jacob, are not the church

Maybe that is not what you meant. 

I would suggest it may help if you consider the possibility that Paul goes back and forth in how he is using the term Jew and Israel. He does not use either term the same way all the time. 

As in Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; NKJV

So care must be used to see when he says Jew as ethnic, and when he means it as children of promise, elect. 
The same is true of Israel. 
And the only way all Israel shall be saved, is that the elect are graft in and we are spiritual Israel. 

The visible and invisible aspect of the covenant mu st be seen. God calls them My People and yet they were not all His people spiritually. 
Just as to day we call all, members of the church or brother but not all are converted. 

So we all must use care to watch for his changes in terminology. 

And as for Mac Arthur, lets admit, he is not standard dispensational.

The normative standard dispesationals write against Mac Arthur and even say he is not a dispensational. 
He has had to defend himself and try to claim he is dispensational. 

So what it seems you hold and he hold are variants of dispensationalism and not traditional 20th century dispensationalism. 

Not saying this is bad. A lot of more honest exegetes have had to find new territory over the decades. 

I am at least glad that you say you don't know the meaning of, So all Israel shall be saved. 
I encourage you to see this a breakdown in your hermeneutic. 

This is not a complex passage and can have only one meaning. The elect. 

There is a physical sense of Israel, there is the typological, and there is the fulfillment, the spiritual Israel is the fulfillment of the promise to the children of Israel, but this promise was really only to the elect who are the spiritual Israel and the church true believers who are converted are also heir of abraham and the promises. 
We are Israel in the elect spiritual meaning of it. 

Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise . NKJV
This is Israel, the real eternal Israel that lasts forever. 

The promises that last forever are the spiritual ones. Not the physical which ended with the end of the nation and the coming of the fulfillment. God was done with Jews and Greeks at that time. We are just people, sinners who need to be saved. 

The fact some part mixbreed Jews came to fight for some Palestinian land has no significance whatsoever in the Plan of Redemption. 
Those people in Israel are denying God, doing false worship and going to hell. 
Only a converted Jew, in the church, would be doing good over there. 

Have you ever considered that while Dispensationalists call the Jews good, and support them to take the land, they are supporting evil and calling evil good, while supporting the jews to kill our Christian brothers? 
A significant amount of Palestinians are Catholic or Orthodox and a small group of other Christians. 
Yet Dispensationalists support the Unbelieving Jew to kill off the brothers in Christ. 

Any hermeneutic that gets to this needs serious re-evaluation. 

Spurgeon may have recanted to see this.


----------



## Wannabee

You are seriously quick on the draw, Don.

I see how this is confusing. I think I'm saying it clearly, but there are overlaps in terminology that lends to some difficulty. 

As for Paul's terminology, yes, he goes back and forth. That's why I attempted to make the distinction in how I said it. Perhaps I didn't communicate well.

Okay, so the only way that all Israel is to be saved is to be grafted in. That's what Paul says. And my understanding in no way precludes that. But I see it as an eschatological fulfillment related to the millennium. 

Don, I was honest about not really understanding the full implication of "all Israel will be saved." But that doesn't necessitate a breakdown in my hermeneutic. It does signify some ignorance on my part. We all have gaps in understanding. And, in regard to eschatology, this is even more so. That doesn't point to a breakdown in hermeneutics. It points to the awesomeness of God and the limits of man. Since my understanding of this statement is eschatological in nature, I really cannot understand it fully. You see it as realized, so think you have the more consistent hermeneutic. But, as I showed earlier, this whole passage in Romans reveals over and over that Paul is not talking about the church when He says Israel. In fact, he contrasts Israel with the elect. This has not be adequately dealt with by covenantalists.

As for your final statements, they have no bearing on my understanding. As I've stated numerous times in this thread, I really see no necessary significance of what passes for Israel in the world today. The video Gil referenced earlier offers MacArthur's clarification as well. It's not "the hermeneutic" that gets this nonsense. Fallible men mishandling Scripture do, just as fallible paedobaptists murdered their anabaptist brethren many years ago. Yes, we are just people, sinners who need to be saved.

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 04:54:42 EST-----

Spurgeon distanced himself from the dispensationalism of his day and really seems to have been covenantal. He was, however, premil and did see a future for ethnic Israel.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Wannabee said:


> Don, I was honest about not really understanding the full implication of "all Israel will be saved." But that doesn't necessitate a breakdown in my hermeneutic. It does signify some ignorance on my part. We all have gaps in understanding. And, in regard to eschatology, this is even more so. That doesn't point to a breakdown in hermeneutics. It points to the awesomeness of God and the limits of man. Since my understanding of this statement is eschatological in nature, I really cannot understand it fully. You see it as realized, so think you have the more consistent hermeneutic. But, as I showed earlier, this whole passage in Romans reveals over and over that Paul is not talking about the church when He says Israel. In fact, he contrasts Israel with the elect. This has not be adequately dealt with by covenantalists.



I've tried to deal with it in my last couple posts, but apparently my voice is not "loud" enough in the shouting match. 

Read Ridderbos's, Paul; An Outline of His Theology, ch. 8 (especially section 58 on the Future of Israel), for a good covenantal explanation, especially of Romans 9-11. 

Robertson is also good, but slightly different in his conclusion. 

With that, I'll bow out.


----------



## Scott1

Here is Dr. MacArthur in his own words describing his "leaky" dispensationalism.

To be fair and take him in context his substantial defense of dispensationalism is included. Portions relating to the parts where he diverges are highlighted (the "leaks).

While well stated, Dr. MacArthur can easily be challenged on his theological basis for supporting the main part of dispensationalism that he does support.



> The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-16, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.
> 
> ...
> 
> Question
> 
> What is dispensationalism? And what is your position, from Scripture, on the subject?
> 
> Answer
> 
> I will try to condense this because I don't want to get too bogged down. Dispensationalism is a system. It is a system that got, sort of, out of control. I think it started out with a right understanding. The earliest and most foundational and helpful comprehension of dispensationalism was:
> 
> "That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God's promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews)."
> 
> Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that's all I want to take of it, that's where I am on that), *dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded. Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel. And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system. You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places. If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.
> 
> I really believe that they got carried away and started imposing on Scripture things that aren't in Scripture. For example, traditionally, dispensationalism says, "The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has nothing to do with us, so we don't need to worry about it." When I went through the Sermon on the Mount in writing my commentary, as well, I pointed out how foolish that is. *
> 
> *So let me tell you, I have been accused through the years of being a "leaky dispensationalist" and I suppose I am.* So let me take you down to where I believe dispensationalism (I don't use that term because it carries too much baggage), but let me take you down to what part of dispensationalism I affirm with all my heart--it is this: "That there is a real future for Israel," and that has nothing to do with some kind of extrabiblical system. That has nothing to do with some developed sort of grid placed over Scripture. The reason that I believe you have to have a future for Israel is because that is what God promised. And you see it in Jeremiah, in Jeremiah, chapter 30, right on to the 33rd chapter, there is a future for Israel--there is a new covenant. Ezekiel, chapter 37, the Valley of Dry Bones is going to come alive--right? God's going to raise them back up; God's going to put a heart of flesh in and take the stony heart out and give them His Spirit. And you have the promise of a kingdom to Israel; you have the promise of a king; a David's line; a Messiah; a throne in Jerusalem. You have the promise that there is going to be a real kingdom.
> 
> So my dispensationalism, if you want to use that term, is only that which can be defended exegetically or expositionally out of the Scripture, and by a simple clear interpretation of the Old Testament--it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel. And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on them. The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an "amillennialist," or a "Covenant Theologian" that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel--an amillennialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom.
> 
> My answer to them is simply this, "You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church--show me!" Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says "Israel" He means the "Church"? Where does it say that? That's where the burden of proof really lies. A straightforward understanding of the Old Testament leads to only one conclusion and that is that there is a kingdom for Israel. One way to understand that is to ask yourself a question. In the Old Testament . . . and if you wanted to get sort of a general sense of what the Old Testament is about, it's simply about this--it reveals God and His Law, and it tells what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and what's going to happen to you if you don't--and then it gives you a whole lot of illustrations of that--right? It reveals God and His Law and it tells you what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and if you don't--blessings and cursing.
> 
> Now, when Israel sinned, disobeyed God--what happened? Judgment, chastening, cursing, slaughter--was it literal? Yes. Was it Israel? Yes. So if Israel received all of the promised curses--literally--why would we assumed they would not receive the promised blessings literally, because some of those are in the same passages? And how can you say in this passage the cursing means literal Israel, but the blessings means the Church? There is no exegetical basis for that and you now have arbitrarily split the verse in half--you've given all the curses to Israel and all the blessing to the Church--on what basis exegetically?
> 
> I remember when I was in Jerusalem one time and we were in the convention center, right near the Knesset in Jerusalem, and I was there with Dr. Charles Feinberg, who was the keynote speaker, and David Ben-Gurion was there, who was the Premier of the Land of Israel at that time, and Teddy Kalik (sp.) who was the mayor of Jerusalem. We were sitting on the platform and an amillennialist had come to speak, it was the Jerusalem conference on prophecy, it was a tremendous event, and it was an amillennialist who got up to speak and he made the great announcement to David Ben-Gurion and to some of the Knesset members, and the mayor of Jerusalem, and all these Jewish dignitaries as well as the three thousand people that were there, that the promises to Israel in the Old Testament were being fulfilled in the Church. Now it is one thing to say that, but you don't need to take a trip to Jerusalem to say that. There would be no kingdom . . . he preached on Isaiah 9:6, "The government will be upon His shoulders" (9:6ff), and he said that means the government of your life, and he's talking about personal conversion here and so on and so forth. Well, I remember when that message was done, and I sat through it with Dr. Feinberg--Dr. Feinberg was, to put it mildly, "upset." And his opening line, because he gave the next address, was, "So we have come all the way to Jerusalem to tell you that you get all the curses but the Gentile Church gets all the blessings." And then he launched into a message about the promises of God.
> 
> If you take a literal approach to Scripture, then you cannot conclude anything other than that God has a future for Israel. What that means is that the Church is distinct from Israel, and when God is through with the Church, and takes the church to glory then He brings that time of Jacob's distress, that we read about earlier, purges, redeems Israel, and the kingdom comes.
> 
> *I don't want to say any more than that about dispensationalism. I don't believe there are two different kinds of salvation. I don't believe there are two different covenants. I don't believe there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. I don't believe the Sermon of the Mount is for some future age. I don't believe that you can hack up New Testament books--some for the Jews and some for the Church.* I think that the only thing the Bible really holds up in that kind of system is that there is a future for Israel, and that's an exegetical issue.
> 
> It is probably more than you wanted to know, but it is very, very important, because it preserves the literal interpretation of Scripture. Listen folks, once you're not literal, then who's to say? Right? I mean, then why not just say, "Well, Israel really means 'left-handed Texans'--if it's not exegetical--if it's not in the text, it could mean 'Canadians'" How can you say, if you can't say what's literally there?


----------



## Grillsy

"I remember when I was in Jerusalem one time and we were in the convention center, right near the Knesset in Jerusalem, and I was there with Dr. Charles Feinberg, who was the keynote speaker, and David Ben-Gurion was there, who was the Premier of the Land of Israel at that time, and Teddy Kalik (sp.) who was the mayor of Jerusalem. We were sitting on the platform and an amillennialist had come to speak, it was the Jerusalem conference on prophecy, it was a tremendous event, and it was an amillennialist who got up to speak and he made the great announcement to David Ben-Gurion and to some of the Knesset members, and the mayor of Jerusalem, and all these Jewish dignitaries as well as the three thousand people that were there, that the promises to Israel in the Old Testament were being fulfilled in the Church. Now it is one thing to say that, but you don't need to take a trip to Jerusalem to say that. There would be no kingdom . . . he preached on Isaiah 9:6, "The government will be upon His shoulders" (9:6ff), and he said that means the government of your life, and he's talking about personal conversion here and so on and so forth. Well, I remember when that message was done, and I sat through it with Dr. Feinberg--Dr. Feinberg was, to put it mildly, "upset." And his opening line, because he gave the next address, was, "So we have come all the way to Jerusalem to tell you that you get all the curses but the Gentile Church gets all the blessings." And then he launched into a message about the promises of God.

If you take a literal approach to Scripture, then you cannot conclude anything other than that God has a future for Israel. What that means is that the Church is distinct from Israel, and when God is through with the Church, and takes the church to glory then He brings that time of Jacob's distress, that we read about earlier, purges, redeems Israel, and the kingdom comes."

Says Macarthur in the above post.
____

Apparently Dr. Feinberg thinks that are two different churches with two different promises as does Macarthur.
So the message I take from Johnny Mac's conclusion "don't try to stand up for what you believe in front of a crowd the disagrees with you, because you will upset them".

He really didn't prove anything with the above story. Really went for the emotions that was about it.

We see MacArthur articulating a division among God's chosen with regards to the promises. Even though he says he believes the opposite.


----------



## DonP

Acts 28:20 For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for* the hope of Israel *I am bound with this chain." NKJV

Was Paul in chains for the unregenerate or the elect? He says he is the apostle to the Gentiles, how then is he in chains for the hope of Israel if Israel is not also used to mean elect at times? 

Rom 11:2 God has not cast away *His people whom He foreknew*. NKJV
Now he is referring to Israel here. But he says God has not cast them off, How so, they can be converted and therefore be part of the promises to Israel. 

1 Cor 10:18 Observe Israel after the flesh: NKJV
In distinction to what other Israel? If it only refers to those of the flesh there is no need to say this. Only to make the distinction between Israel after the promise or the elect. 

Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. NKJV

Peace upon the unregenerate false worshipers??? No the Israel of God is the elect here also.

Heb 8:8 Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the *house of Israel *and with the house of Judah — 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." NKJV

Now is this not The new covenant, the church? He made the covenant with the House of Israel and Judah. Those of promise. The spiritual aspect of Israel .

Am I missing something here? 

Its not that your hermeneutic is so much flawed as it is your presuppositions are. With your hermeneutic, you can see this clearly is what scripture says. 
Just have to be willing to consider it as possible. 

Thanks for the dialogue.


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Don,

Possible, yes. I will not be crestfallen if I one day find out that I'm wrong. But I disagree with your conclusions. And neither of us is going to persuade the other by throwing verses at one another. Furthermore, because of the overwhelming odds of trying to defend such a position on a board such as this one, I'm just not up to it. In the end, you're just as settled in your presups as I am. We all bring them to the table and perceive God's Word through our preconceived grid. I'm okay with that and hope that some greater understanding has been garnered for our efforts here.

For now, I'm preaching on the armor of God. It reminds me of the incredible wonders of God that we do agree on. And they're overwhelmingly more vast in number than our disagreements.

Blessings,


----------



## Peairtach

Puritan Sailor said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Q is, does Romans 11 teach a future national conversion of the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is much bigger than that. Does the NT anywhere teach a national conversion of ethnic Jews? I would challenge you to prove that first before you try to interpret Romans 11 that way. Whenever the OT promises are spoken of in the NT, it's always in reference to their fulfillment in the Church (Jewish and Gentile believers) as the true children of Abraham and heirs of the same promise. In Galatians 3, Paul makes it clear that was the intention from the get-go, that God intended to bring the promises to the Gentiles. In Hebrews 11, we see how the OT saints themselves interpreted the promises, not in terms of land and ethnicity but in terms of a better resurrection and a city whose builder and maker is God. Indeed, if Romans 11 is teaching a national conversion of Jews, then it is the only place in the NT teaching such.
> 
> What you seem to be missing, and I tried to point it out to you in my last post, is that Paul is providing a theological justification for evangelizing the Jews, even though they are so hostile to the gospel. Paul's concern is for the remnant according to the election of grace, not the nation. He includes himself in that remnant. And what he describes in Romans 11 is the evangelization process, through which the remnant will be gathered and re-engrafted to _during_ the "time of the Gentiles." The "And so" in vs 26 means "and in this manner" all ethnic Israel will be saved, not "afterward all Israel will be saved." By interpreting this as some future national conversion, you are ripping this passage out of the first century context.
> 
> Why is it that Paul always went to the Jews first, then the Gentiles? We see his theology of evangelism here in Romans 9-11, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. He was provoking that remnant to jealousy, Rom 11:14, "in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save _*some*_ of them." By bringing the gospel to the Gentiles he was provoking the remnant to envy and believe now. Rom 11:31 "so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may _*now*_ receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you." The hardness upon the Jews was only partial, the remnant will still believe as they are provoked to jealousy. It's through that process that the remnant of Israel (the true Israel) is saved.
> 
> Paul's concern is evangelism now, during the time of the Gentiles, not some end-times conversion.
Click to expand...


Good post. I'll check out Robertson.

What about Matthew 23:39?


----------



## DonP

Wannabee said:


> Thanks Don,
> 
> Possible, yes. I will not be crestfallen if I one day find out that I'm wrong. But I disagree with your conclusions. And neither of us is going to persuade the other by throwing verses at one another. Furthermore, because of the overwhelming odds of trying to defend such a position on a board such as this one, I'm just not up to it. In the end, you're just as settled in your presups as I am. We all bring them to the table and perceive God's Word through our preconceived grid. I'm okay with that and hope that some greater understanding has been garnered for our efforts here.
> 
> For now, I'm preaching on the armor of God. It reminds me of the incredible wonders of God that we do agree on. And they're overwhelmingly more vast in number than our disagreements.
> 
> Blessings,



I think we can and others have changed their positions by what they have been exposed to. 

As for me remember I was raised on dispensational teaching and so I would say I am and others are not unwilling to drop our grid and look at the scriptures from other perspectives to see if we are wrong. 
I did have to do this while I was at Mac Arthurs church, my dad a deacon. 
I used to try to convince John of election and he wouldn't hear of it. He was a 1/2 point Calvinist like many Evangelicals who might think of themselves as Calvinist because they not want to be Arminian. But they are Arminian. To say I am a 1/2 point Calvinist, Eternal Security, is not a Calvinist. I would think one would need to be at least 3 point Calvinist to be more Calvinistic than Arminian. 
Anyway eventually others in his church who got the 5 points, including my father, thank God, helped John to see them too. 

But I had to be willing to drop my grid and be open to having been very wrong, leaving an Asst. pastorate position I was to take at another Grace Baptist church. 

So no. We do not all bring and only see the scriptures through our grid. 

Maybe this is something a man cannot do on his own and takes a work of God, I am willing to admit, but it can happen.

Thanks for the interaction. And now I understand your beliefs so I understand why our differences are there which I didn't when we started this thread. 
We all are daily in need of His grace as we study and serve Him and seek to advance the kingdom. May God have mercy on us all and Come Quickly.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Richard Tallach said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Q is, does Romans 11 teach a future national conversion of the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is much bigger than that. Does the NT anywhere teach a national conversion of ethnic Jews? I would challenge you to prove that first before you try to interpret Romans 11 that way. Whenever the OT promises are spoken of in the NT, it's always in reference to their fulfillment in the Church (Jewish and Gentile believers) as the true children of Abraham and heirs of the same promise. In Galatians 3, Paul makes it clear that was the intention from the get-go, that God intended to bring the promises to the Gentiles. In Hebrews 11, we see how the OT saints themselves interpreted the promises, not in terms of land and ethnicity but in terms of a better resurrection and a city whose builder and maker is God. Indeed, if Romans 11 is teaching a national conversion of Jews, then it is the only place in the NT teaching such.
> 
> What you seem to be missing, and I tried to point it out to you in my last post, is that Paul is providing a theological justification for evangelizing the Jews, even though they are so hostile to the gospel. Paul's concern is for the remnant according to the election of grace, not the nation. He includes himself in that remnant. And what he describes in Romans 11 is the evangelization process, through which the remnant will be gathered and re-engrafted to _during_ the "time of the Gentiles." The "And so" in vs 26 means "and in this manner" all ethnic Israel will be saved, not "afterward all Israel will be saved." By interpreting this as some future national conversion, you are ripping this passage out of the first century context.
> 
> Why is it that Paul always went to the Jews first, then the Gentiles? We see his theology of evangelism here in Romans 9-11, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. He was provoking that remnant to jealousy, Rom 11:14, "in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save _*some*_ of them." By bringing the gospel to the Gentiles he was provoking the remnant to envy and believe now. Rom 11:31 "so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may _*now*_ receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you." The hardness upon the Jews was only partial, the remnant will still believe as they are provoked to jealousy. It's through that process that the remnant of Israel (the true Israel) is saved.
> 
> Paul's concern is evangelism now, during the time of the Gentiles, not some end-times conversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good post. I'll check out Robertson.
> 
> What about Matthew 23:39?
Click to expand...


That as well refers to the remnant. Their house was left desolate. They're no longer the chosen nation. Only those who believe will say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Only the Remnant recognize the Messiah. Again, look at the rest of the NT. Look at Philippians 3. Paul says "we are the circumcision" refering to those in Christ and he throws out his Jewish credentials, even calling those who still practiced circumcision "dogs" and "mutilators of the flesh". If "we" are the circumcision, then the Jews no longer are. In Gal 3, he says that the promise to Abraham was pointing to the gathering of the Gentiles, not national Israel. We who believe are heirs of all the promises. That's how the OT saints interpret the promises too in Hebrews 11. Peter says that we, the Church, are the chosen people. You can't interpret Roman 11 to say the opposite of all these other Scriptures. 

And when you analyze the grammar of the passage, especially in Greek, (which both Robertson and Ridderbos do) it simply doesn't hold up. Paul's concern in the chapter is present ministry (notice the "nows" and "at this time"). The Jews are so hardened (note the end of Chapter 10) so should we just give up on them? Paul says no, and chapter 11 is the answer. Yes they are hardened, but only partially. There is a remnant that will be gathered in as they are provoked to jealousy by the conversion of the Gentiles, a fulfillment of Moses' own prophecy (Rom 10:19). That how "all" ethnic Israel, the true Israel (Rom 9:6), will be saved during the time of the Gentiles. The "and so" in vs. 26 is not a temporal marker but explaining the outcome of the process previously discussed, meaning "in this manner". That's how it works in Greek.


----------



## MW

I don't think the fact that Rom. 11 might be the ony NT passage teaching the conversion of the Jews can be a barrier to accepting this teaching. 1 Cor. 15, death is the final enemy to be destroyed, and Christ delivering up the consummated kingdom to the Father, are not really explicated elsewhere. Besides, Rom. 9-11 deals with God's promises to Israel in the OT, so it only requires one interpretative statement to place the OT eschatology in NT perspective.

I have always found John Murray's exegesis quite persuasive. The apostle speaks of a cutting off and an ingrafting, a hardening and restoring. At the time of the apostle there were Jews being saved; it was only the mass of the Jews who were hardened. Clearly, then, the apostle did not envisage merely a few Jews here and there being converted down through the ages, but spoke of the ingrafting and restoring of the mass. What that eventually entails is a mystery, but nevertheless it is a general concept which should be hoped for by the church.


----------



## Grillsy

armourbearer said:


> I don't think the fact that Rom. 11 might be the ony NT passage teaching the conversion of the Jews can be a barrier to accepting this teaching. 1 Cor. 15, death is the final enemy to be destroyed, and Christ delivering up the consummated kingdom to the Father, are not really explicated elsewhere. Besides, Rom. 9-11 deals with God's promises to Israel in the OT, so it only requires one interpretative statement to place the OT eschatology in NT perspective.
> 
> I have always found John Murray's exegesis quite persuasive. The apostle speaks of a cutting off and an ingrafting, a hardening and restoring. At the time of the apostle there were Jews being saved; it was only the mass of the Jews who were hardened. Clearly, then, the apostle did not envisage merely a few Jews here and there being converted down through the ages, but spoke of the ingrafting and restoring of the mass. What that eventually entails is a mystery, but nevertheless it is a general concept which should be hoped for by the church.



But you would mean, obviously, the mass of elect Jews. Again this would not entail a mass conversion of the Jews at one time in the future. My reasoning would be because if you want to interpret it the way that wrote above then it would apply to only the Jews broken off in Paul's time and then they would be restored before they died. I don't see a large, future conversion of Jews in Romans 9-11. If it is a mass of Jews, and it very well could be, it seems that the said mass would be acquired over time via God's election.


----------



## Turtle

*not yet, or now*



Scott1 said:


> As I understand it, dispensationalism says the "real kingdom" is not now...
> 
> Covenant theology says the kingdom of God really came with Christ's first advent...



Hi Scott, enjoy reading your posts. I especially liked your concise DT and CT definitions. Wouldn’t it be easier if the kingdom was the only distinctive point to defend? CT and DT seem to possess extra points depending on who defines them, making it a challenge to “prove” one system or the other. It might seem even more daunting that some who generally accept the label of DT or CT don’t even hold to the respective kingdom view normally associated with DT or CT. 

But should we be surprised? DT and CT are really just propositions. They are conclusive in nature, summaries. They are effectively “secondary sources” and secondary sources are inadequate to prove themselves or disprove another secondary source. Just as with differing hermenuetics, if the point of departure begins with a secondary source, we cant’ be surprised when folks end up concluding the discussion with the same disagreement they started with.  Even verses (“primary sources”) sometimes seem inadequate to convince folks of DT or CT, which isn’t a surprise either since niether system rests on just a couple verses. 

I do like the focus your definitions provided (the kingdom now vs. not now). Certainly from a systematic approach the kingdom question raises many more passionate thoughts about associated implications, such as who it is for. But it seems it sometimes devolves into attempts (or assumptions that there was an attempt) to prove an entire system of theology rather than just consider a focused question of the text.

How about a couple verses that speak to just the “kingdom now, or not yet” question? No attempt to prove either DT or CT.

In the beginning of Acts, Jesus appeared to his disciples for forty days, “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God”. Right before He ascended they asked Him if He would at that time restore the kingdom. He told them it was not for them to know the times but it was instead for them to be witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth. If their question indicated they misunderstood the teaching they had received about the kingdom (ie. It seems they thought that the kingdom was not yet), was it a misunderstanding that could be allowed to persist, and even be propogated by their witness, far and wide? If we were to teach a group of folks and send them out as witnesses to spread the teaching, the Larger Catechism seems to explain our duty in the ninth commandment would require us to clarify misunderstandings in order to preserve and promote truth, as well as preserve the good name of our neighbor . 

In the same vein (asking is the kingdom now or not yet), in Act 4 the desciples are threatened for speaking out. They pray for the Lord to grant that they would speak the word with boldness (in order to be the witnesses they were told they would be immediately before Christ ascended). An additional basis of their request to God was Psalm 2. In effect, “See now, the kings and rulers are doing what was told by the mouth of David”. The kings, rulers, etc. all gathered against the Lord and His Christ. “Help us to be bold witnesses”. Psalm 2 also mentions that Christ will break the kings and rulers with a rod of iron and dash them like a potters vessel. If it were the case that the kings and rulers were then being dashed it seems inconsistant that the desciples would have needed intervention to have boldness. I think it fair to consider, were the desciples asking for boldness to tell the kings that they were being dashed, or that they would be dashed if they didn’t become wise and fear the Lord?

The above verses don’t prove DT or CT but I think they are close enough to speak to the focused question of the kindom “now or not yet”. Many more of course should be considered, and if they seem to be at odds then I suppose a resolution might be discoverable, or not... till much later.

Bryan
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## DonP

armourbearer said:


> I have always found John Murray's exegesis quite persuasive. The apostle speaks of a cutting off and an ingrafting, a hardening and restoring. At the time of the apostle there were Jews being saved; it was only the mass of the Jews who were hardened. * Clearly, then*, the apostle did not envisage merely a few Jews here and there being converted down through the ages, but spoke of the ingrafting and *restoring of the mass*. What that eventually entails is a mystery, but nevertheless it is a general concept which should be hoped for by the church.



How does the mass of Jews living at that time, and now dead, imply a mass of Jews at some later time? 

Can you show me, "mass of Jews" in the scripture?


----------



## MW

Grillsy said:


> But you would mean, obviously, the mass of elect Jews.



No, I mean an election of the mass, that is, the Jews as a people are not cast off by God, but there is a purpose of election which envisages their restoration at a future period in accord with the covenant promise of God.


----------



## MW

DonP said:


> How does the mass of Jews living at that time, and now dead, imply a mass of Jews at some later time?
> 
> Can you show me, "mass of Jews" in the scripture?



The passage in Rom. 11 is concerned to explain God's purpose for Israel as a "people," verse 1. The idea of "mass" comes from that corporate context. In dealing with this corporate purpose the apostle explicitly states that the "remnant" were being saved according to the election of grace at that present time, verse 5. He explained that this remnant salvation was owing to blindness which had come in part on the nation, 7-10; but this blindness was only temporary, verses 11, 12. While at the present time there is casting away and a cutting off of the people, in the future it is expected there will be a receiving and ingrafting of them, verses 15-32, and this because God has not cast them off from being His people but continues to own and acknowledge them on account of the promises made to the fathers.


----------



## kceaster

Wannabee said:


> Kevin, you seem to place an emphasis where it is not necessary. Premillennialism sees the church ultimately united after the millennium. Both CT and DT see OT saints taken to heaven before Pentecost. Could that not also be viewed as diving God's people in the same way? Again, perspective seems to be forced on a position instead of stepping back and really understanding what the other party is saying. Like I said earlier, Spurgeon was premil, as was Ryle and others. Do you think they "divided the people of God"?



I guess I must be post-millenial or amillennial...

I do not see a rapture, either secret or otherwise. I do not see the saints being taken out of the world for a tribulation, since saints go through tribulation as it is now. So to my thinking there is a separation between the peoples of God. There would necessarily be a separation in the parousia of Christ, "For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord."

This sounds necessarily to me that this is the final chapter of the history of redemption. There is nothing after this. There is no history, or anyone left on the earth. He actually says until the coming of the Lord. This is the Day of the Lord.

So to take others out of the world in a secret rapture, that leaves no one on earth to preach the gospel, does it not? God is free to use means or not use them, so I suppose He could save others after the rapture without the succession of the keys of the kingdom, and those to preach the gospel. But I would think that contradicts Scripture. There are too many hoops to jump through in order to connect the dots. I just can't see it.

I rather believe that God will continue the world until the end of days, Christ will return, just as Paul writes above; and the judgment will come, Christ will receive His reward, and we shall receive ours. But there is no reason to think that there are two separate ingatherings, one for the saints before the millennium and one for the saints (Israel or otherwise) after. It doesn't jive with what Paul is saying here.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## DonP

armourbearer said:


> DonP said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the mass of Jews living at that time, and now dead, imply a mass of Jews at some later time?
> 
> Can you show me, "mass of Jews" in the scripture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The passage in Rom. 11 is concerned to explain God's purpose for Israel as a "people," verse 1. The idea of "mass" comes from that corporate context. In dealing with this corporate purpose the apostle explicitly states that the "remnant" were being saved according to the election of grace at that present time, verse 5. He explained that this remnant salvation was owing to blindness which had come in part on the nation, 7-10; but this blindness was only temporary, verses 11, 12. While at the present time there is casting away and a cutting off of the people, in the future it is expected there will be a receiving and ingrafting of them, verses 15-32, and this because God has not cast them off from being His people but continues to own and acknowledge them on account of the promises made to the fathers.
Click to expand...


According to Paul, the only evidence God has not cast off the Jews is that some are currently being converted. 
Those are the only ones not cast off.

In fact the whole point was to prove that God is faithful to His promises because his promises were never made to their fathers. That it was only to the faithful Jew not just any Jew of the flesh. 

The promise was spiritual, they thought it was earthly, ethnic. 

This is the consistent teaching from Jesus through the apostles. 

The blindness has happened so that the gospel is spread to the Gentiles. 

I have heard the word "until" is not absolutely to be understood in the way we now think of it. 
Rather it is really: 
Looking back when the blindness first came on the Jews, it would remain on them "until" the time came when the Gentiles would be gathered, and though there has always been a few Gentiles coming in, the blindness is until the time when the fullness of Gentiles comes, which is now when large numbers of Gentiles come in. 
The Jews had it for a a couple thousand years and now the Gentiles have had it for 2000.

Even if you understood it in the simpler sense of until the fullness. I do not see that there is anything after that. 

ie. blindness until all the Gentiles come in then we are done. 

Would you at least say that the texts are not specific about this latter mass conversion of some mixbreed Jews some where in the world, and you just choose to believe this


> idea of "mass" comes from that corporate context



There is no statement that there is anything after, until. 
They will be blind until the last gentile and last person is saved. 
They will be blind the whole time until the end. 

At least these are all valid understandings and something after the fullness of Jews is only speculation?
Thanks


----------



## Wannabee

Dear Kevin,

I have not argued for a seven year tribulation period. I hold that aspect of eschatology very loosely. I see it as a mere possibility. But, since I take the 144,000 literally just as I do the 1000 years, I see more to the equation in this regard than you do. 

Blessings,


----------



## Scott1

Great thoughts, Bryan!



Turtle said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, dispensationalism says the "real kingdom" is not now...
> 
> Covenant theology says the kingdom of God really came with Christ's first advent...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Scott, enjoy reading your posts. I especially liked your concise DT and CT definitions. Wouldn’t it be easier if the kingdom was the only distinctive point to defend? CT and DT seem to possess extra points depending on who defines them, making it a challenge to “prove” one system or the other.
> Mr. Riddlebarger, in his book, _The Case for Amillennialism, p. 33
> 
> 
> 
> *Everyone has presuppositions which color how they read the Scriptures. The assumption that any one of these millennial views is the result of a straightforward, unbiased reading of Scripture is overly simplistic... Presuppositions are especially problematic is they go unstated and even more so if people don't believe they have any.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Overall, this book is helpful, even refreshing in the way it facilitates understanding of these difficult issues.
> 
> _
> 
> It might seem even more daunting that some who generally accept the label of DT or CT don’t even hold to the respective kingdom view normally associated with DT or CT.
> 
> But should we be surprised? DT and CT are really just propositions. They are conclusive in nature, summaries. They are effectively “secondary sources” and secondary sources are inadequate to prove themselves or disprove another secondary source. Just as with differing hermenuetics, if the point of departure begins with a secondary source, we cant’ be surprised when folks end up concluding the discussion with the same disagreement they started with.  Even verses (“primary sources”) sometimes seem inadequate to convince folks of DT or CT, which isn’t a surprise either since niether system rests on just a couple verses.
> 
> I do like the focus your definitions provided (the kingdom now vs. not now). Certainly from a systematic approach the kingdom question raises many more passionate thoughts about associated implications, such as who it is for. But it seems it sometimes devolves into attempts (or assumptions that there was an attempt) to prove an entire system of theology rather than just consider a focused question of the text.
> 
> I think the systems of dispensationalism and covenant theology are really only broad frameworks from which to understand the whole of God's redemptive plan. One basic problem with dispensationalism, whether one takes four, seven or eight dispensations or even waters them down to mean less than different ways of redemption (e.g. "economies") is that it would make God discontinuous and reacting more to what man does. A totally different approach than looking at God as completely, infinitely and eternally in control of absolutely everything, within His Triune self.
> 
> How about a couple verses that speak to just the “kingdom now, or not yet” question? No attempt to prove either DT or CT.
> 
> In the beginning of Acts, Jesus appeared to his disciples for forty days, “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God”. Right before He ascended they asked Him if He would at that time restore the kingdom. He told them it was not for them to know the times but it was instead for them to be witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth. If their question indicated they misunderstood the teaching they had received about the kingdom (ie. It seems they thought that the kingdom was not yet), was it a misunderstanding that could be allowed to persist, and even be propogated by their witness, far and wide? If we were to teach a group of folks and send them out as witnesses to spread the teaching, the Larger Catechism seems to explain our duty in the ninth commandment would require us to clarify misunderstandings in order to preserve and promote truth, as well as preserve the good name of our neighbor . Yes, another reason this matters.
> 
> In the same vein (asking is the kingdom now or not yet), in Act 4 the desciples are threatened for speaking out. They pray for the Lord to grant that they would speak the word with boldness (in order to be the witnesses they were told they would be immediately before Christ ascended). An additional basis of their request to God was Psalm 2. In effect, “See now, the kings and rulers are doing what was told by the mouth of David”. The kings, rulers, etc. all gathered against the Lord and His Christ. “Help us to be bold witnesses”. Psalm 2 also mentions that Christ will break the kings and rulers with a rod of iron and dash them like a potters vessel. If it were the case that the kings and rulers were then being dashed it seems inconsistant that the desciples would have needed intervention to have boldness.
> Maybe.
> 
> But God ordains both the ends and the means- He chooses to use sinful, fearful, disobedient people whom He loves to accomplish His ends. That's right now- and it's part of the what the Kingdom coming is about.
> 
> I think it fair to consider, were the desciples asking for boldness to tell the kings that they were being dashed, or that they would be dashed if they didn’t become wise and fear the Lord?
> 
> The above verses don’t prove DT or CT but I think they are close enough to speak to the focused question of the kindom “now or not yet”. Many more of course should be considered, and if they seem to be at odds then I suppose a resolution might be discoverable, or not... till much later.
> 
> And to make this even more complete, we need to acknowledge there is both a "now" and a "not yet" aspect- certainly there is within covenant theology. How one leans or apportions the two can affect millennial eschatology.
> 
> (Even Dr. GI Williamson said you can call him either an optimistic amillenialist or a non-utopian postmillenialist.)
> 
> Bryan
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Wannabee

Dear Scott,

It's hard to read your authoritative position on dispensationalism. You continue to make assertions that are not necessary for dispensationalism: "whether one takes four, seven or eight dispensations or even waters them down to mean less than different ways of redemption (e.g. "economies") is that it would make God discontinuous and reacting more to what man does. A totally different approach than looking at God as completely, infinitely and eternally in control of absolutely everything, within His Triune self."
I've provided proofs that this is not the case. Even Ryrie points out that there is only one means of salvation. How much more dispensational can one get than Ryrie? If you must make such assertions, it would be more credible if you at least tempered them with some limiting adjectives such as "some" or "many." Such broad brush assertions really only exacerbate the disagreements and fail to embrace the verity of the relationship between DT and CT.


Blessings,


----------



## Scott1

Wannabee said:


> Dear Scott,
> 
> It's hard to read your authoritative position on dispensationalism. You continue to make assertions that are not necessary for dispensationalism: "whether one takes four, seven or eight dispensations or even waters them down to mean less than different ways of redemption (e.g. "economies") is that it would make God discontinuous and reacting more to what man does.
> When dispensationalism was popularized by Mr. Scofield he came up with seven dispensations and then wrote the books "Rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (into the seven dispensations) with the clear implication that seven was a biblical number of perfection. Then, with a little further study, the number got shifted around. Dr. J. Vernon McGee believed there were eight, presently there is a popular "four dispensational periods" now (really, see Wikipedia's description).
> 
> There is no dispensational system left without those highly distinguished dispensations- after all that's what it is composed of- a certain number of dispensations based on, it is said, God's testings of man.
> 
> Now, that has been mostly downplayed so it's only separation of people who have some ethnic Jewish ancestry from the Body of Christ. That used to be forever in dispensationalism. Now, most say they do eventually get together in the future state of glory.
> 
> Believing only that there will be a special, notable work of redemption among people with some Jewish ancestry is not enough to be a dispensationalist.
> 
> 
> A totally different approach than looking at God as completely, infinitely and eternally in control of absolutely everything, within His Triune self."
> I've provided proofs that this is not the case. Even Ryrie points out that there is only one means of salvation. How much more dispensational can one get than Ryrie? If you must make such assertions, it would be more credible if you at least tempered them with some limiting adjectives such as "some" or "many." Such broad brush assertions really only exacerbate the disagreements and fail to embrace the verity of the relationship between DT and CT.
> 
> 
> Blessings,


.


----------



## kceaster

Wannabee said:


> Dear Kevin,
> 
> I have not argued for a seven year tribulation period. I hold that aspect of eschatology very loosely. I see it as a mere possibility. But, since I take the 144,000 literally just as I do the 1000 years, I see more to the equation in this regard than you do.
> 
> Blessings,



So, are these 144,000 made up of the Jews that will turn to God in the latter days (Chap 14)? They are the firstfruits for God and the Lamb? They have not defiled themselves with women and are virgins? They are no liars and are blameless?

And since we're talking about being literal, you believe that an angel, that is, a heavenly being, is going to literally preach the gospel to those who dwell on earth of every nation and tribe and language and people? There is no imagery in that at all?

And after this happens, vs 13 says, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." Does that point to the future from today, or is it in the past?

And after that, there will literally be a sickle swung across the earth to reap the earth?

Joe, some of this has to be mystery, doesn't it? We can't take it all literally can we? If if we can't take it all literally, then we have to discern what is past, what is now, and what will be. And we have to take these numbers of 144,000 and 1,000 as something that _*could*_ be symbolic. I am quite happy to take them literally, too, but then, I don't claim to understand it at all. It could be just as you say, but I could just as easily be convinced it is not as you say.

I guess in the end, I'd say we can't know for sure. If we could, it wouldn't be a mystery, would it?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Roldan

kceaster said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Kevin,
> 
> I have not argued for a seven year tribulation period. I hold that aspect of eschatology very loosely. I see it as a mere possibility. But, since I take the 144,000 literally just as I do the 1000 years, I see more to the equation in this regard than you do.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are these 144,000 made up of the Jews that will turn to God in the latter days (Chap 14)? They are the firstfruits for God and the Lamb? They have not defiled themselves with women and are virgins? They are no liars and are blameless?
> 
> And since we're talking about being literal, you believe that an angel, that is, a heavenly being, is going to literally preach the gospel to those who dwell on earth of every nation and tribe and language and people? There is no imagery in that at all?
> 
> And after this happens, vs 13 says, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." Does that point to the future from today, or is it in the past?
> 
> And after that, there will literally be a sickle swung across the earth to reap the earth?
> 
> Joe, some of this has to be mystery, doesn't it? We can't take it all literally can we? If if we can't take it all literally, then we have to discern what is past, what is now, and what will be. And we have to take these numbers of 144,000 and 1,000 as something that _*could*_ be symbolic. I am quite happy to take them literally, too, but then, I don't claim to understand it at all. It could be just as you say, but I could just as easily be convinced it is not as you say.
> 
> I guess in the end, I'd say we can't know for sure. If we could, it wouldn't be a mystery, would it?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Your awesome!!


----------



## MW

DonP said:


> Even if you understood it in the simpler sense of until the fullness. I do not see that there is anything after that.
> 
> ie. blindness until all the Gentiles come in then we are done.



It is the casting away of the Jews which has brought gospel salvation to the Gentiles. Paul speaks of something greater when the Jews are received.


----------



## Scott1

Wannabee said:


> Dear Scott,
> 
> It's hard to read your authoritative position on dispensationalism. You continue to make assertions that are not necessary for dispensationalism: "whether one takes four, seven or eight dispensations or even waters them down to mean less than different ways of redemption (e.g. "economies") is that it would make God discontinuous and reacting more to what man does. A totally different approach than looking at God as completely, infinitely and eternally in control of absolutely everything, within His Triune self."
> I've provided proofs that this is not the case. Even Ryrie points out that there is only one means of salvation.
> Yes, after dispensationalism finally got some biblical scrutiny, most quickly backed off the inference that salvation was by the law or somehow through the patriarchs.
> 
> What didn't change, however was the viewpoint that God was "testing" man as if to see how man might respond to His God. It is as if God had to keep trying different things because God failed in trying to get man redeemed.
> 
> Think of it this way, stated or unstated assumptions of dispensationalism:
> 
> 1) Jesus tried to be Messiah and Redeemer to Israel but they would not accept Him so He had to leave and postpone His Kingdom till later because, Israel would not allow it.
> 
> 2) God had to keep testing man to try and find a way that would work redemption with man. Each dispensation failed, so God had to try something different- a new "economy" a new dispensation.
> 
> That's the shell of what this system is based on. The more I think about it, the more it seems aggrandizing of man and demeaning of our grand and glorious God.
> 
> How much more dispensational can one get than Ryrie? If you must make such assertions, it would be more credible if you at least tempered them with some limiting adjectives such as "some" or "many." Such broad brush assertions really only exacerbate the disagreements and fail to embrace the verity of the relationship between DT and CT.
> 
> 
> Blessings,


.


----------



## DonP

armourbearer said:


> DonP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you understood it in the simpler sense of until the fullness. I do not see that there is anything after that.
> 
> ie. blindness until all the Gentiles come in then we are done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the casting away of the Jews which has brought gospel salvation to the Gentiles. Paul speaks of something greater when the Jews are received.
Click to expand...


Could the something greater be the Jews currently being saved. As Paul was converted and uses the example that this is the proof God has not cast them off. 

I would suggest, Paul had no idea of a later mass gathering or he would have said this. 

"God hasn't cast off his people, He will save a whole bunch of them after all the Gentiles come in." 

Or, "There will be a day that God will save all the Jews living at that time, in this way all Israel will be saved". 

"...until the fullness of the Gentiles, then once again Israel shall have glory as the fleshly children of Abraham no matter how mix-bred by then, well as long as they ar at least 1/8 Abrahamic, or Judahish, God will open their eyes and they will want to believe and be saved. 

No, Paul does not hold out any other hope for Jews or any man than salvation now. 

I know I went waaaaay beyond your thinking, but not all Dispensationalists, 
but 1st of all this interpretation, is inconsistent with Calvinism. 

The Jews are no more blinded during the time of the Gentiles than any other unregenerate. 

This blindness has happened or ( God has not chosen to save many Jews now) so that we his disciples are driven to the Gentiles to take the gospel to them. 

We cannot take Paul's illustration of blindness beyond its intended implication. It was the means God used to get the gospel to the Gentiles. 

To make more of this as some parenthesis and latter happenings goes beyond Paul's illustrative use of blindness. 

We know ultimately that there is no blindness on the Jews but such as is common to all man. And what is really happening is that God is not opening the eyes of many Jews. 
There is no blindness. It is a figure of speech. They are just plain old ordinary unwilling unregenerates. 


So if Paul would not use the defense of God's character that you and the dispensationals use, why would you want to? 

God is done with nations and races, there would be no reason or need. 
He has fulfilled all His promises. And they were to the children of promise.


----------



## MW

DonP said:


> Could the something greater be the Jews currently being saved. As Paul was converted and uses the example that this is the proof God has not cast them off.
> 
> I would suggest, Paul had no idea of a later mass gathering or he would have said this.



He did say this:

Verse 5, "Even so then *at this present time* also there is a *remnant* according to the election of grace."

Verse 12, "Now if the *fall of them* be the riches of the world, and the *diminishing of them* the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their *fulness.*"

The *remnant* was the result of the partial blindness of the nation, and led to the salvation of the Gentiles; their *fulness* is envisaged as something future which will bring even greater blessing to the world.


----------



## DonP

armourbearer said:


> DonP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could the something greater be the Jews currently being saved. As Paul was converted and uses the example that this is the proof God has not cast them off.
> 
> I would suggest, Paul had no idea of a later mass gathering or he would have said this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did say this:
> 
> Verse 5, "Even so then *at this present time* also there is a *remnant* according to the election of grace."
> 
> Verse 12, "Now if the *fall of them* be the riches of the world, and the *diminishing of them* the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their *fulness.*"
> 
> The *remnant* was the result of the partial blindness of the nation, and led to the salvation of the Gentiles; their *fulness* is envisaged as something future which will bring even greater blessing to the world.
Click to expand...


Yes, their fullness is those being saved at this present time. It is the full, complete number of all of them who get saved at this present time and going forth in this same manner. 

Come on now 
Nothing here about masses later. 

*Fullness does not mean a one time mass number.* 
*It does not mean all living in Jerusalem at some time. *

It simply means:
So much more when their complete number has entered just as the fullness of the gentiles has entered. 

*So does fullness of Gentiles mean some later masses of Gentiles conversions??*

Don't you feel the need to be consistent here with the meaning of fullness?


----------



## Wannabee

Dear Scott,

What you present is not necessary for dispensationalism. Please consider carefully the fact that you present your view as absolute though evidence has been given to refute your claims. And you claim to be able to label a group that you are not a part of and tell them what they are to think in order to be a part of that group. Does not this strike you as at least a little bit arrogant? But, you are right, I don't fit your definition. There's not much more I can say on this. I will ask, at least once more brother, that you consider that not all dispensationalists can fit into the box you have built for them.



Dear Kevin,

You really are awesome.  
This thread is all over the map, eh? Your observations are pretty valid, other than forcing the literal aspect of it a bit. Note that I said that "I" take it literally. I certainly don't have the lid down on this stuff, as is evidenced in my previous posts. 

I do take the 144k literally. And I take the 1000 literally. And, you know as well as I that "angel" and "messenger" are the same word. I really don't know what that entails. Is there imagery in that? I dunno. And, yes, I would take the sickle as figurative because of the imagery. And, no, Jesus is not a literal door. And I don't pluck my eyes out so I can avoid hell. But I don't think the Song of Songs is about the church either, though there is some valid application. If you go back to my post that pointed out the literal aspect of my hermeneutic it also made linguistic devices a part of that literalism. Of course, you already know that, but are trying to make a point. 

So, we all land somewhere. You take 1k figuratively or symbolically and I take it to be a literal 1000 years. In fact, if the article were not there in both the millennium and the 144k I would be hard pressed to do so. But I accept it at face value because I am persuaded that such language necessitates it, whether I fully grasp the ramifications or not; and I don't.

And you do see the rapture, but not from the same perspective. You even quoted the verse that makes it clear that some sort of rapture takes place. My point in my post was that I have not espoused a seven year tribulation, which you linked to another post of mine. I was simply attempting to make that clarification.

Whether my understanding is correct or not there is one thing we both agree on; we can both rejoice in and look forward to the return of Christ. I look forward to meeting you here, there or in the air (I just had to say that   ). May He come swiftly.


Blessings,


----------



## MW

DonP said:


> Yes, their fullness is those being saved at this present time. It is the full, complete number of all of them who get saved at this present time and going forth in this same manner.



The apostle specifically says of the present time that the *remnant* is being saved, explains that this is due to *partial* blindness or blindness "of the parts," and contrasts this with a *fulness* which shall mean nothing less than life from the dead for the world.

Yes, the fulness of the Gentiles refers to the nations in their fulness and not simply as remnants turning to the Lord, as is testified in many passages of the Old Testament.


----------



## kalawine

ReformedWretch said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur wants one verse? Verse headings or divisions are not inspired so how about a whole sermon? Stephen's _apologia_ for Christ found in Acts 7.
> 
> But if one verse is needed how about Acts 7:38? "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us"
> 
> N.B.: 'congregation' is _ekklesia_ in the Greek, or the word we translate as 'church' in English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wants an old testament verse
Click to expand...


OK... he wants not only ONE verse but he demands an Old Testament verse. Hmmm... and at which seminary did he study hermeneutics?  Or (the answer to) a much more horrifying question might be: at which seminary does he TEACH hermeneutics?


----------



## Turtle

Scott1 said:


> Mr. Riddlebarger, in his book, _The Case for Amillennialism, p. 33
> 
> 
> 
> *Everyone has presuppositions which color how they read the Scriptures. The assumption that any one of these millennial views is the result of a straightforward, unbiased reading of Scripture is overly simplistic... Presuppositions are especially problematic is they go unstated and even more so if people don't believe they have any.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> __Overall, this book is helpful, even refreshing in the way it facilitates understanding of these difficult issues.
> _


_
Yes, Scott, the hope of my previous post was to propose/embark on a way past the unending discussions of presupositions (and maybe hermenuetics?) of which you, and the author you cite, speak of. Even the best of authors or proponents of DT, CT or millenial views are all essentially sencondary sources, and cannot prove themsleves or disprove others (not by their own summaries and statements). If we doubt the inability of a secondary source to be authoritative, just imagine if a lawyer showed up to probate with a very good summary or paraphrase of the last will and testament of a very rich uncle. We have the book able to shed the light on errors, incuding presups (and our own, even if they dwell in our joints). 

By asking a focused question (such as kingdom now or not yet) we can be more confident to find a text that explicitly speaks to the question we ask it. If we read a single text and then expand the question to address DT, CT, or milenial views then we may be expecting too much. We have to at least be aware we changed our question or maybe didn’t explore the one we at first intended.

Bryan
.
.
.
._


----------



## Scott1

> *Wannabee*
> 
> Dear Scott,
> 
> What you present is not necessary for dispensationalism. Please consider carefully the fact that you present your view as absolute though evidence has been given to refute your claims. And you claim to be able to label a group that you are not a part of and tell them what they are to think in order to be a part of that group...



It's not really about labeling a group at all... it's about defining our terms.

Dispensationalism has been defined by those who hold to it and it is what it is- a framework for viewing different ways of salvation at different of man's time periods and redemption separation of those with some Jewish ancestry from the Body of Christ.

Dispensationalism has been changed and watered down considerably since its introduction in the late 1800's because it is so inconsistent with scripture and logically inconsistent.

It is not merely or even primarily about whether one believes there will be a future redemptive work, on the basis of Christ, among people with some Jewish ethnicity.

With dispensationalism, as a framework for interpreting the whole of scripture having been defined sufficiently here on this thread, it has become clear that what you are holding to... is not really dispensationalism. You describe a few aspects of it, but mainly you are agreeing the substantive covenantal framework points (which are logically inconsistent with the dispensational framework).

That's not a criticism, just a point of observation. What you describe is mostly covenantal with some significant unresolved dispensational attributes mixed in. They are not consistent with the whole of the dispensational system, and cannot be wished into being so.

This is a matter of defining our terms and the presuppositions of the systematic approach being used. I would submit that what you have been posting is more consistent with covenant theology than with dispensationalism


----------



## kceaster

Wannabee said:


> Dear Scott,
> 
> What you present is not necessary for dispensationalism. Please consider carefully the fact that you present your view as absolute though evidence has been given to refute your claims. And you claim to be able to label a group that you are not a part of and tell them what they are to think in order to be a part of that group. Does not this strike you as at least a little bit arrogant? But, you are right, I don't fit your definition. There's not much more I can say on this. I will ask, at least once more brother, that you consider that not all dispensationalists can fit into the box you have built for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Kevin,
> 
> You really are awesome.
> This thread is all over the map, eh? Your observations are pretty valid, other than forcing the literal aspect of it a bit. Note that I said that "I" take it literally. I certainly don't have the lid down on this stuff, as is evidenced in my previous posts.
> 
> I do take the 144k literally. And I take the 1000 literally. And, you know as well as I that "angel" and "messenger" are the same word. I really don't know what that entails. Is there imagery in that? I dunno. And, yes, I would take the sickle as figurative because of the imagery. And, no, Jesus is not a literal door. And I don't pluck my eyes out so I can avoid hell. But I don't think the Song of Songs is about the church either, though there is some valid application. If you go back to my post that pointed out the literal aspect of my hermeneutic it also made linguistic devices a part of that literalism. Of course, you already know that, but are trying to make a point.
> 
> So, we all land somewhere. You take 1k figuratively or symbolically and I take it to be a literal 1000 years. In fact, if the article were not there in both the millennium and the 144k I would be hard pressed to do so. But I accept it at face value because I am persuaded that such language necessitates it, whether I fully grasp the ramifications or not; and I don't.
> 
> And you do see the rapture, but not from the same perspective. You even quoted the verse that makes it clear that some sort of rapture takes place. My point in my post was that I have not espoused a seven year tribulation, which you linked to another post of mine. I was simply attempting to make that clarification.
> 
> Whether my understanding is correct or not there is one thing we both agree on; we can both rejoice in and look forward to the return of Christ. I look forward to meeting you here, there or in the air (I just had to say that   ). May He come swiftly.
> 
> 
> Blessings,



I completely agree with everything you said except for your statement that I am awesome. I can assure you, I'm not...

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee

Thank you Kevin.



Dear Scott,

Perhaps you missed the definition Ryrie supplied, which is consistent with what I've submitted. Here's another:


> Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
> 1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church. [NOTE: He goes on to say that this is not in regard to salvation]
> 2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
> 3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.


To be fair, it does appear that Ryrie's definition is a bit reactionary. He obviously distances himself from Scofield in many respects. Block and Blaising's book is helpful too, particularly the conclusion (though some attempt at defining is in the intro). Incidently, they point out the challenges of narrowing dispensationalism down because of its lack of a confession too. But they also note that defining dispensationalism does not necessitate the inclusion of Scofieldism because of its development since his writings. And they call "Lindseyism" (nice word I'd not seen before) as a derivative of dispensationalism, but not necessary by any means.
Perhaps the absence of a clear confession is much of the problem. Of course, there are many confessions associated with covenantalism. But which one is an accurate representative? And even the LBC 89 can be accepted by many dispensationalists. So is the unity really as present as supposed? Either way, what would be different from the LBC 89 if it were dispensational? Perhaps the hermeneutic would be defined. The eschatological future of ethnic Israel would be a part of it. The focus on the glory of God is inherent in the confession already. Would it go on to attempt to propose two means of salvation though, as you see as non-negotiably inherent in dispensationalism? I don't think so. And, if it did, then I would know I wasn't dispensational.
I don't wear the label because I covet it. I shunned it for a long while. However, as this definition came up repeatedly I realized I could not deny it. It's my hermeneutic. God's glory is central. I do perceive that Scripture teaches a future for national Israel. It may be that progressive dispensationalist fits better. Perhaps history will show that you are right. For now, I am persuaded that you are not and that you impose your understanding of much that is wrong with dispensationalists as endemic to dispensationalism.

-----Added 7/23/2009 at 11:51:05 EST-----

Perhaps, Scott, you could query me on what is central to covenantalism in order to realize that I am decidedly not a covenantalist.  Are not the covenant of works and covenant of grace, two extrabiblical terms, inherent in covenantalism? Do covenantalists see the New Covenant as a "renewed covenant"? If, as you say, I am not a dispensationalist; And if, as you say, there is no middle ground; then I have a huge problem, because I find myself in the middle according to your terms.


----------



## Scott1

> *Wannabee*
> Mr. Ryrie is quoted as saying:
> 
> Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
> 1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church. [NOTE: He goes on to say that this is not in regard to salvation]
> 2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
> 3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.



You've posted there is no different way of redemption in dispensationalism yet point#1 is that, a different means of redemption for one group verses another. Language like "different program" cannot hide that fact. It's like saying all people who are pro-life are not anti-abortion. Dispensationalism cannot say... "there's a different (redemptive) program, but not in relation to salvation."

You've accepted that dispensationalism does not always use "a consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation." It does so when when it suits the framework and is done so without interpretation of the latter revelation in the New Testament. This is a larger error in the dispensational framework.

Dispensationalism is focused on man's time periods, how man was tested, how he reacted... not centered on the glory of God, despite Mr. Ryrie's (defensive) claims to the contrary. That's why in Arminian influenced churches, the broadly evangelical ones, dispensationalism is by far predominate.

Covenant theology is, above all centered on the glory of God, beginning with a covenant among the three persons of the Trinity to bring forth redemption and justice (covenant of redemption). Covenant theology begins and ends with that focus.

Dispensationalism begins with (man's) time periods, testings of man (which man failed), failed Kingdoms (why Jesus had to leave the earth because the Jewish nation rejected Him), and ends with 1,000 years (on man's Julian?) calendar for the real Kingdom...all because after all dispensationalism is not centered on the glory of God. That doesn't mean it doesn't mention the glory of God or acknowledge it, but it is not central to the dispensational framework.

As a final summary, you are not defining dispensationalism as it is. The London Baptist Confession of Faith is not dispensational and could not be, so asking hypothetically what something might be does not justify dispensationalism.

There are reasons none of the historic creeds reflect a dispensational framework and that is that it does not flow naturally and consistently from a reading of the whole of God's revealed will through Scripture.

I think we have covered the basic points here now sufficiently and those following have a basis for evaluating this biblically so will not address them further here. 

You may want to start another thread on what you are now calling "progressive dispensationalism," define that and defend it. I think we all would recognize that is not what Dr. MacArthur holds to ("progressive dispensationalism") so it might be helpful to address that in a new thread.


----------



## Wannabee

You've attempted to do a summary post like this already, but continue with erroneous statements that should be addressed. So, I'm glad you've decided not to address them further here. I don't expect to win. But much fo the problem is that many covenantalists can't even say "dispenstationalism" without clenching their teeth and spewing it out as though just saying it would sully their souls. Much of this is due to mischaracterization within the reformed camp and among those who, if any, should recognize that they are nothing but for the grace of God illuminating the truth so that they could understand it. And central to the argumentation put forth in this thread has been a focus on peripheral issues in an effort to discredit all dispensationalists in one fell swoop. You, Scott, have been gracious in this discussion. But you have also presented yourself as the expert on dispensationalism and, in fact, have shown great prejudice in how you perceive it. Unfortunately much of the validity of what you have stated is lost in the perceived necessity to construct a dispensationalism box.
Obviously, in regard to this, I am a lone voice on this forum. But I have come to love the people here and care about what is said. So, against overwhelming odds, I have attempted to offer some balance and help others here understand that they have brethren who are also dispensationalists and love Christ just as much, or more, than they do; and are just as faithful, if not more, than they are. May we all resist the temptation toward elitism. It is with this in mind that I find it necessary to continue to point out erroneous accusations.



Scott1 said:


> You've posted there is no different way of redemption in dispensationalism yet point#1 is that, a different means of redemption for one group verses another. Language like "different program" cannot hide that fact. It's like saying all people who are pro-life are not anti-abortion. Dispensationalism cannot say... "there's a different (redemptive) program, but not in relation to salvation."


You impose "redemptive" to assert a point. And as far as how the future of Israel relates to salvation, I think Matthew, clearly a covenantalist, did a much better job of explaining that in this thread than I ever could. Did God have a different plan for Moses than David? How about Joseph and Noah? Of course He did. Just because He works differently in the lives of different people does not necessitate alternate means of salvation.


> You've accepted that dispensationalism does not always use "a consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation."


No, I didn't. I noted that many, if not most, dispensationalists are inconsistent in their application of the dispensational hermeneutic. The point is quite different.


> Dispensationalism is focused on man's time periods, how man was tested, how he reacted... not centered on the glory of God, despite Mr. Ryrie's (defensive) claims to the contrary. That's why in Arminian influenced churches, the broadly evangelical ones, dispensationalism is by far predominate.


Again, this is historically accurate but not necessary for dispensationalism. It's interesting that you don't allow for the development of dispensationalistic thought even though covenantalism, as a system, is relatively new as well (generously, certainly less than 400 years old).


> Dispensationalism begins with (man's) time periods, testings of man (which man failed), failed Kingdoms (why Jesus had to leave the earth because the Jewish nation rejected Him), and ends with 1,000 years (on man's Julian?) calendar for the real Kingdom...all because after all dispensationalism is not centered on the glory of God. That doesn't mean it doesn't mention the glory of God or acknowledge it, but it is not central to the dispensational framework.


Isn't or wasn't. You describe many dispensationalists well. But you continue painting with a broad brush. Furthermore, many covenantalists are premillennial, undermining your assertion.


> I think we have covered the basic points here now sufficiently and those following have a basis for evaluating this biblically so will not address them further here.


Good, this has grown tedious, hasn't it? No, you don't have to answer that question... 



> You may want to start another thread on what you are now calling "progressive dispensationalism," define that and defend it. I think we all would recognize that is not what Dr. MacArthur holds to ("progressive dispensationalism") so it might be helpful to address that in a new thread.


I have no intention of doing so...


----------



## kalawine

kalawine said:


> ReformedWretch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur wants one verse? Verse headings or divisions are not inspired so how about a whole sermon? Stephen's _apologia_ for Christ found in Acts 7.
> 
> But if one verse is needed how about Acts 7:38? "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us"
> 
> N.B.: 'congregation' is _ekklesia_ in the Greek, or the word we translate as 'church' in English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wants an old testament verse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK... he wants not only ONE verse but he demands an Old Testament verse. Hmmm... and at which seminary did he study hermeneutics?  Or (the answer to) a much more horrifying question might be: at which seminary does he TEACH hermeneutics?
Click to expand...


Friends,
I have received a private message from someone who is offended by the post that I made above and called it unchristian. I would like to apologize for any MacArthur fans for my sarcasm (which was meant to be humorous). I am aware that MacArthur is a great teacher and I'm glad he is among us especially with most TV and radio preachers we have today. The purpose of my post was to point out that I don't believe he uses good hermeneutics in the case where he wants one verse from the Old Testament to prove or disprove a doctrine.


----------



## MW

Wannabee said:


> It's interesting that you don't allow for the development of dispensationalistic thought even though covenantalism, as a system, is relatively new as well (generously, certainly less than 400 years old).



I'm sure Justin Martyr would be flattered to be considered so young.


----------



## Wannabee

armourbearer said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you don't allow for the development of dispensationalistic thought even though covenantlism, as a system, is relatively new as well (generously, certainly less than 400 years old).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Justin Martyr would be flattered to be considered so young.
Click to expand...


That was funny. You're talking about the premil church father, right?



> Although the idea of the covenant existed since the early church, particularly in Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Augustine, covenant theology was first systematized during the Reformation. Ulrich Zwingli, Henry Bullinger, Zacharias Ursinus, Caspar Olevianus, Francis Turretin, John Preston, and William Ames were some of the early Reformation and poormation covenant scholars. - source



Not that this quote is authoritative. But it does show a covenantalist who did not see the systemization of CT until the reformation. It is true that Justin Martyr shows some infant form of covenantalism in his writing, particularly his Dialogue with Trypho. But claiming that he had a systemetized understanding is quite a stretch. I must admit, however, that the claims that his premillennial perspective is in any way related to dispensationalism is a bit embarrassing.


----------



## DonP

Not all who call themselves dispensationalists agree as much as they used to. 

When Scofield and Darby invented this approach to scripture anyone who agreed with it followed it, as it expanded and more study was done seeing its errors some have changed. 

So there is what is historically Dispensational defined by its inventors. 

There is that which more moderate Dsispensationals hold to. 

So we should be careful not to say a man must think one way if he holds to parts of dispensationalsim. 

But he must define his own breed of dispensationalism so he is not challenged on the other historical beliefs. 

But I do not understand how Glory of God would be a distinctive anyway. Not only do I agree with what was written above about it being a man centered system but this concept is not novel. 

Westminster Larger Catechism
*
Question 1*: What is the chief and highest end of man?

Answer: Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.

So to me what is distinct about Disp is 

1. It forces literal where possible, except when this contradicts #2 or our presuppositions 

2. The church is a parenthesis in God's dealing with Israel, His main program. 

So I do not how you can consistently see them as one body of believers. Most Dispensationalists I have talked to don't. And they are stumped as to what to say when I ask the question. 

If you do, then I say you are learning more and more in the word and god is drawing you away from dispensationalism, as I said earlier, I think you are covenantal, you just have some reservations that have not been answered yet. 

You are distinct from most dispensationals. I hope more and more of them are thinking as you do. I praise God for that and am glad you enjoy the discussions here and appreciate that you have been willing to put up with our rough explanations as you explained your position.

I am not even sure you would agree with my statement above that Israel was His main plan. Maybe equal parts of His plan. 

But I hope one day you and others will see the church is just the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham to make him a father of many nations, starting with Issace and Jacob then the 12 tribes on to the Israelites and then to the entire the world. And it was never for the Israelites alone they were to gather others in who would be circumcised. Now after the messiah comes, we shift from types to remembrances, and continue the same gospel of obey the law or die, or make use of the sacrifice of the messiah. 

We are Jews. We are Jews by faith, or proselytes as in the OT, Jews of *The Way.* The sect of Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

The fact is just more Gentiles became proselytes at this time, eventually after some discussion, where the Jews began realizing this was the prophecy and promise to them all along, lots of Gentiles coming in. 

The same plan. The same gospel of a messiah to come who will be king and redeem the people from sin, and make them all into one temple. 

The Jews had the same struggle Dispensationalists do today. It was hard for them to accept the Gentiles coming into the people of God. 

This is the full development of the promises to Israel. Israel was to become all nations. 

The only thing that throws Dispensationalists is that this expansion began in mass and focus at the time Christ came and many Jews rejected it. 
This did not change anything really. It was what the Jews should have expected and things just continued on the same. Just the types that foreshadow the messiah stop naturally as the reality appears and are replaced by new symbols and signs. 

All else continues the same; 
the fact some Jews disbelieved does not annul the promises before. 

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, *cannot annul the covenant* that was *confirmed before by God in Christ*, that it should make *the promise of no effect*. NKJV

The promise still is in effect. Israel continues to expand as promised to many nations. 

The promise is confusing because it was never to the ethnic Jews, but to those of the Seed. Not the ethnic seed, but the Seed Christ. So the promise was only to those in Christ, not those of flesh. 

So, (in this way) all Israel Shall be saved. 

Whether a lot of Jews or Italians are saved somewhere in the future will not affect the promise or the plan or the one original covenant that is still in effect. 

God making Abraham a father of many nations starting with the nation of Israel first through the faith in Christ. 

So for those Dispensationalists who know Jews were saved by faith not works, this should be the Literal interpretation of the NT. 

As far as this being new thinking because it was codified by Westminster, they only codified what the church had believed all along. This was not new. 
This was incidental and completely accepted before. 

It only became noteworthy as heretics opposed it. And it was no doubt taught all along in the church, by word, prior to the invention of printing. 

God did preserve His word, and He preserved its understanding else there would be no point to preserve the word. The word is so the people understand.

The church was not teaching a false gospel for 2000 years until Ryrie saves us with a dispensational view and Carnal christian gospel as an excuse to preserve the obvious failure of his system to have converts who are holy in lifestyle. 
See: Balancing the christian Life. At least he says one is a false gospel. 

Let the scriptures determine which one. 
Matt 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' NKJV

Luke 6:46 "And why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? NASB

The answer is not, because you are a carnal christian, it is because they are unconverted. They have not turned away from the worldly life. 
1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. NKJV


----------



## MW

Wannabee said:


> Not that this quote is authoritative. But it does show a covenantalist who did not see the systemization of CT until the reformation. It is true that Justin Martyr shows some infant form of covenantalism in his writing, particularly his Dialogue with Trypho. But claiming that he had a systemetized understanding is quite a stretch. I must admit, however, that the claims that his premillennial perspective is in any way related to dispensationalism is a bit embarrassing.



I doubt Justin can be claimed for the premil view as his "literalistic" language simply echoes the language of Scripture without placing a theological interpretation on it. What is clear is that he was not dispensational but clearly covenantal in the way he viewed the Old Testament's continuity in the New Testament and especially the relation of Israel to the Church. It is of course to be expected that this covenantalism lacked systematisation because this was an early period in the church's history where there was little to no systematic treatment of any doctrine.


----------



## Wannabee

No, not dispensational. But clearly premillennial.

But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (Dialogue ch. 80)

For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: ‘For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create...
Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection. (Dialogue - ch. 81)


Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, _The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus_, Dialogue of Justin, 239.​

Don, I think this shows that your understanding of the literal aspect of dispensationalism is slightly off. Justin Martyr, along with many other church fathers, saw a future millennial reign which included the Israelites. Would you see them as imposing a dispensational presupposition as well?

-----Added 7/24/2009 at 09:46:29 EST-----

This, from Schaff (a postmillennialist), is interesting.


> The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius; while Caius, Origen, Dionysius the Great, Eusebius (as afterwards Jerome and Augustin) opposed it.
> 
> _History of the Christian Church_, II.XII.158 - Chiliasm


----------



## MW

Wannabee said:


> No, not dispensational. But clearly premillennial.



Premillennial = Christ returns before the millennium. Certainly Justin speaks in a "literalistic" manner concerning the millennium, but where does he bring this into a specific relationship to the second coming of Christ?


----------



## Wannabee

I see what you're saying. It would seem to be self evident. Perhaps 1 Thes 4:16 helps.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.


Perhaps I misunderstand, but this seems to show the chronology he speaks of when he says, "there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged..." I thought it was well received that Justin, and many of the early church fathers, were premil. It's obviously well received with many who are not premil.

-----Added 7/24/2009 at 11:03:02 EST-----

At the beginning of chapter 81 Justin quotes Trypho:



> But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came?



This is the context of the above quote, to which Justin graciously replied:


> I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.




This testimony does point to premillennialism, even made more evident by the nature of his defense.


----------



## MW

Wannabee said:


> Perhaps I misunderstand, but this seems to show the chronology he speaks of when he says, "there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged..."



Then what do you make of this statement? "that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place."

I think it is inevitable that an ancient writer will be misunderstood where a consistent exegetical theology by modern standards is thrust upon his statements.


----------



## Wannabee

I would take that to mean the White Throne Judgment. It seems consistent to me. But, you may have a point. It is difficult to get into the mind of a man who thought and wrote in a different language, time and culture with consistent accuracy.


----------



## MW

Wannabee said:


> I would take that to mean the White Throne Judgment. It seems consistent to me. But, you may have a point. It is difficult to get into the mind of a man who thought and wrote in a different language, time and culture with consistent accuracy.



Yes; what is undeniable is his literalistic millennialism, but without a correlating statement which relates that millennialism to the second coming of Christ we are left without a clear marker which can identify his view as pre- or post- millennialism.


----------



## Wannabee

From a post perspective, what ushers in the millennium? I'm not familiar with postmillennialism from a millenniaristic perspective.


----------



## DonP

I won't argue much on the millennium. I think God intentionally made this as it is. Not so clear. It is vision language. Do you think Issiah's vision or Ezekiels Wheels are exactly what we will see one day or were they the interpretations of one peering into something indescribable the best they can? I see Revelation this way. It was a vision, not the reality. Do you think Christ is a wounded lamb and also has a sword coming out of His mouth? 
If there is anywhere we are not to be literal certainly it is the vision. 

But where in any of this are the Jews ??? 

You are off into millennial views, but whether a historic pre mil or a mil or post mil there is no need for dispensationalism in any of these. 

Also remember there is only *one Last Day*, *only one Last Trump* and *one Second coming*. And it is loud and noisy with trumpets and everyone will know when it is here. 
Though we do not know when it will come as far as timing, it is as a thief in the night. We don't know when he will come. But once he busts your door down and takes things you know he is here. 
When it is here it is no silent secret rapture. It is the Last day. 

when he disciples asked about the Last Day or the Coming of the lord there is no 2 comings or one in the air and 2 on the land etc. This is the teaching we should use on the Last Day and Coming of Christ. We should answer as the inspired authors did, not as Darby and Scofield did. 
1 Thess 4:15 we who are alive and remain until *the coming* of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself *will descend* from heaven *with a shout,* with the voice of an archangel, and with *the trumpet of God*. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words. NKJV

John 11:24 Martha said to Him,"I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the *last day*." NKJV

John 6:54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at *the last day*. NKJV

1 Cor 15:51 We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed — 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at *the last trumpet*. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. NKJV

2 Thess 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning *the coming of our Lord* Jesus Christ *and our gathering together to Him*, NKJV

2 Thess 1:7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is *revealed from heaven *with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire* taking vengeance *on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 *when He comes, in that Day,* to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe,
NKJV

Where is a 2nd and 3rd coming and a secret catching of part of the body then a later rapture of another part of the body, maybe those jews, or do they live right into the new Jerusalem that descends from above onto the earth where we all live?

Gen 1:1 - Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
NKJV


----------



## MW

Wannabee said:


> From a post perspective, what ushers in the millennium? I'm not familiar with postmillennialism from a millenniaristic perspective.



The historicist version speaks of a spiritual advent of Christ as marking the beginning of the godlen age in which Christ overcomes antichrist with the spirit of His mouth; this is the angel which binds Satan a thousand years and resurrects the church. There are varying interpretations with respect to the Jews, some speaking as literally as Justin while others recognising OT prophecies as spiritual blessings couched in earthly forms. The idealist version simply holds to a progress within history which leads to the conversion of the nations.


----------



## Peairtach

There is a thread here on Palmer Robertson's treatment of Romans 11, in which he argues against a future national conversion of the Jews, but only for an ongoing remnant.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/palmer-robertson-romans-11-a-51401/#post662822


----------



## LawrenceU

rat brains!


----------



## DonP

DonP said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DonP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could the something greater be the Jews currently being saved. As Paul was converted and uses the example that this is the proof God has not cast them off.
> 
> I would suggest, Paul had no idea of a later mass gathering or he would have said this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did say this:
> 
> Verse 5, "Even so then *at this present time* also there is a *remnant* according to the election of grace."
> 
> Verse 12, "Now if the *fall of them* be the riches of the world, and the *diminishing of them* the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their *fulness.*"
> 
> The *remnant* was the result of the partial blindness of the nation, and led to the salvation of the Gentiles; their *fulness* is envisaged as something future which will bring even greater blessing to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, their fullness is those being saved at this present time. It is the full, complete number of all of them who get saved at this present time and going forth in this same manner.
> 
> Come on now
> Nothing here about masses later.
> 
> *Fullness does not mean a one time mass number.*
> *It does not mean all living in Jerusalem at some time. *
> 
> It simply means:
> So much more when their complete number has entered just as the fullness of the gentiles has entered.
> 
> *So does fullness of Gentiles mean some later masses of Gentiles conversions??*
> 
> Don't you feel the need to be consistent here with the meaning of fullness?
Click to expand...


Still hoping to see someone explain the difference in the word Fullness as used here.

Rom 11:25 until *the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.*

Why use in one place it is a varying number coming in over a period of 2000 years but when used for Jews it doesn't mean this same thing it now means a whole lot at once time. 

Can someone better in the languages, and grammar help me here as to why the word intrinsically have have opposite meanings? 
Thanks. 
If it can't, can we all rationally go back to seeing this verse does not teach a large number at once, that has to be forced on it by a preconceived belief. The stop using this verse and go find somewhere else to support the idea?

Also note that he says, the fullness of the Gentiles coming in is how All Israel shall be saved. They are the LAST part of the promise to Abraham.

Rom 11:25 until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 
26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins." 
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. NKJV

And regarding the gospel they are enemies. 
The only way they are beloved are those who are elect. 

PS what is "die" and "Rat Brains"?


----------



## Herald

LawrenceU said:


> rat brains!



Rat brains?


----------



## DonP

Here is a link to an excellent post and thread on the church not replacing Israel that addresses some of this subject

http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/israel-has-not-been-replaced-church-50717/http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/israel-has-not-been-replaced-church-50717/


----------



## Herald

Joshua said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> rat brains!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat brains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rat brains!
Click to expand...


Is this a southern thing?


----------



## DonP

Reflecting on the classical Dispensationalists view of Jews I wonder how they can think there can be a future for Jews who admittedly are mostly if not all mixbreed now in light of this scripture 
John 4:9
How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) NASB
Mix Breeds were not considered Jews. 
So who are the Jews that will come at the end times? Sons of Ishmael? 
Sons of Esau or just sons of Judah? And will mix-breed sons be counted or are they not Jews?

And Was Jesus teaching Judaism or Christianity? Did he teach Old covenant Judaism or new covenant Judaism? 
The new covenant with the House of Israel ? Or was He teaching for the church? 

I say there is only one truth and Christ taught truth, the same truth. He taught the gospel Abraham got with the promises and taught the New covenant Judaism which is was the Gentiles get grafted into. 
"I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You. You who fear the LORD, praise Him! All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him, And fear Him, all you offspring of Israel!" (Psalm 22:22,23)

I am an intended descendant of Jacob, I am a descendant of Israel by promise and faith, one whom the promises of Abraham have come to

John 4:21-23
"Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. 22 "You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. NASB

Jesus taught that No Longer will men worship in Jerusalem. That is done. Now we worship anywhere in Spirit. 

To hold out a hope for Jerusalem is to oppose the clear teaching of Christ.


----------



## busdriver72

I believe that "Israel" has a future, and that it is somehow connected to historic/national Israel.
While I do not dare to claim such profound wisdom as to exactly how it will all come about, I do like the statement that Israel will be part of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Apart from their Messiah, there is no salvation.
If there is no future for something called Israel, then much of Scripture makes no sense at all.
_MAT 19:28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
_
This statement by Jesus is, of course, future. But if there is no "Israel" after the regenration, then Jesus' statement makes no sense.
_ACT 1:6 ¶ And so when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
_
Now, of course, the answer was "no," but there was some understanding or expectation that it would come....and notice Jesus never says it will not happen, just that it is not for us to know the times and seasons.
I kinda wish He HAD said a bit more, but He knows all and knows best.
I hear some dismiss so many references to Israel in tne N.T. as being the church, but that is not being honest with the context. For example, in GAL 6:16 "And those who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." The context here does suggest that this is a spiritual reference to the church, but not all N.T. references to Israel should be handled that way. (I'm not saying that anyone on this board does.)
In Romans, starting at chapter 9, the context makes it clear Paul is not referring to "Israel" in a generic manner. In v.3 he says "my kinsmen according to the flesh"...(V.4) who are Israelites..".
From that point he doesn't break context or flow.
In chapter 11:1-2 He says that God has not rejected His people, and then he clarifies what he means by referring to himself as an Israelite of the Tribe of Benjamin.
Later, he speaks about them being "grafted in again," of course, this will not happen apart from faith in Christ.
In 11:25 he mentions a "partial hardening" of Israel has happened, then he says "until," pointing toward the future, suggesting that the "partial" hardening will soften after the "fullness" of the Gentiles has come.
_
REV 7:4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
REV 21:12 It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are those of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
_
These references to Israel are interesting as well, especially that Israel proper is inscribed on New Jerusalem itself.
I'm not claiming to have real understanding of exactly what all this involves, but I don't buy into what I hear so many fellow Baptist say "God is through with Israel."


----------



## A2JC4life

Thank you, Ralph. You said what I was not able to say, given that my ultimate understanding of my eschatological beliefs is so fuzzy.


----------



## tcalbrecht

busdriver72 said:


> I believe that "Israel" has a future, and that it is somehow connected to historic/national Israel.
> 
> While I do not dare to claim such profound wisdom as to exactly how it will all come about, I do like the statement that Israel will be part of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Apart from their Messiah, there is no salvation.
> 
> If there is no future for something called Israel, then much of Scripture makes no sense at all.
> 
> _MAT 19:28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, *judging the twelve tribes of Israel*.
> _
> 
> This statement by Jesus is, of course, future. But if there is no "Israel" after the regenration, then Jesus' statement makes no sense.



Is it your view then that there will be a reconstitution of the physical twelve tribes of Israel prior to the Second Coming? 



busdriver72 said:


> _ACT 1:6 ¶ And so when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
> _
> 
> Now, of course, the answer was "no," but there was some understanding or expectation that it would come....and notice Jesus never says it will not happen, just that it is not for us to know the times and seasons.


The problem with that argument is that it somewhat ignores the context, since Jesus goes on to explain how the Kingdom will be established and enlarged. Jews and gentiles are included in that process. A physical manifestation of the kingdom to just one nation is not in keeping with the entire tenor of the new covenant. 


> But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (v. 8)


I do believe it is significant that the apostles never again spoke in the NT of the kingdom being restored to physical Israel, although the opportunities were there (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:24). It’s hard to image that if the kingdom wrt physical Israel was important the apostles would have made that point clear, esp. to their Jewish audience. But they never do that. In fact, they continually downplay the significance of genetics/lineage in the kingdom of God.


----------



## A2JC4life

They downplay the distinction between male and female, too, but, as has been pretty well established in other threads on the board, the fact that we are equal with regard to salvation does not inherently make us equal in all other ways. There is "no male or female," and yet we have different roles within the church and within our families. So I don't think that this line of reasoning is necessarily effective.

And I'm not the author of that post, but I do agree with it, and my personal answer would be, "I don't know." I don't understand how all of that interrelates, nor do I pretend to. But the Bible seems to make it clear that there is a place for physical Israel, even while also making it clear that there is one people of God. I can't fully wrap my mind around it any more than I can fully wrap my mind around the fact that we have complete free agency and God's sovereignty and predestination are still fully at work.


----------



## tcalbrecht

A2JC4life said:


> They downplay the distinction between male and female, too, but, as has been pretty well established in other threads on the board, the fact that we are equal with regard to salvation does not inherently make us equal in all other ways. There is "no male or female," and yet we have different roles within the church and within our families. So I don't think that this line of reasoning is necessarily effective.
> 
> And I'm not the author of that post, but I do agree with it, and my personal answer would be, "I don't know." I don't understand how all of that interrelates, nor do I pretend to. *But the Bible seems to make it clear that there is a place for physical Israel, even while also making it clear that there is one people of God.* I can't fully wrap my mind around it any more than I can fully wrap my mind around the fact that we have complete free agency and God's sovereignty and predestination are still fully at work.



No one here denies there is a place for physical Israel within the kingdom of God. The question is, using the male/female analogy, what is the unique role of physical Israel within the kingdom over and distinct from gentiles?


----------



## busdriver72

> Is it your view then that there will be a reconstitution of the physical twelve tribes of Israel prior to the Second Coming?


I don't know how it will all work out. We'll see.



> A physical manifestation of the kingdom to just one nation is not in keeping with the entire tenor of the new covenant.



Good point...the kingdom referring to the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom of Israel. Good point.




> do believe it is significant that the apostles never again spoke in the NT of the kingdom being restored to physical Israel, although the opportunities were there (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:24). It’s hard to image that if the kingdom wrt physical Israel was important the apostles would have made that point clear, esp. to their Jewish audience. But they never do that. In fact, they continually downplay the significance of genetics/lineage in the kingdom of God.


Okay, I see what you're saying. You know, I don't think there will be two seperate "Kingdoms," just one, the Kingdom of God made up of all true believers in Christ be they Jew or Gentile.
Yet, _somehow_ Israel remains recognized somehow in it all.
The Kingdom will not be restored to Israel, but Israel is restored to the Kingdom of God through Christ (their Messiah)?


----------

