how to disprove dispensatioalism

[Jerusalem Blade]

Welcome to Puritan Board, Jordan!

 

[Alive in Christ]

(Forgive me I am new here, I do not know if there is a better way to include all of you in my response)

I want to give you all an example of what @Sam Jer means when he said:


My wife comes from a church that is heavily influenced by dispensational doctrine. When I simply made my argument of the flaws of dispensationalism when we were dating, she was open to consideration, but not exactly willing to take a deeper look at it with me because of my approach (I believe). Since we have been married, she has been surrounded by 1689 Baptist Confession teaching. It wasn't until we were going through Songs of Solomon together that she realized the flaw when reading a commentary who was dispensationalist in his thinking that she said "how could this text be taken so literal? It obviously speaks towards Christ and His Church"
Brothers, I have thought about this before I had seen this thread, but I truly think it was not my persistence in talking about the topic, but the fact that when my wife and I go through Scripture, it is my constant commentary on the text and how Christ fulfilled the Old Covenants through His life, death and resurrection. I believe this made her question the history of dispensational thought that she has been fed all her life. Once you understand two sides you can compare, which is how I was also brought out of the dispensational view, it was my Pastor challenging me to study, not telling me I am dead wrong in all points. He would ask me "Well where do you get that thought in Scripture?" (emphasis added)

Romans 11 is pretty much the go-to text for dispensationalists. I will admit that Romans 11:25 gives me the most trouble as a covenantalist. It's important to remember that "fullness of the gentiles" does not mean "fullness of the Christian church". I think that's the primary mistake a lot of dispensationalists make: they see that the church has historically been comprised of gentile believers, so they equate Jews with Israel and gentiles with the church. Nevermind that Paul said that there is neither Jew nor Greek...we are all one in Christ Jesus. How can Jews and gentiles be one in Christ if Israel is seperate from the church? Are elect Jews not part of the body of Christ? Dispensationalists have a lot of problems that they consistently fail to address.

 

[dsanch1120]

Romans 11 is pretty much the go-to text for dispensationalists. I will admit that Romans 11:25 gives me the most trouble as a covenantalist

There’s a lot of good resources on Romans 11:25 from a reformed perspective. If you do some poking around on the PB there have been good discussions

 

[Student of Doctrine]

Romans 11 is pretty much the go-to text for dispensationalists. I will admit that Romans 11:25 gives me the most trouble as a covenantalist. It's important to remember that "fullness of the gentiles" does not mean "fullness of the Christian church". I think that's the primary mistake a lot of dispensationalists make: they see that the church has historically been comprised of gentile believers, so they equate Jews with Israel and gentiles with the church. Nevermind that Paul said that there is neither Jew nor Greek...we are all one in Christ Jesus. How can Jews and gentiles be one in Christ if Israel is seperate from the church? Are elect Jews not part of the body of Christ? Dispensationalists have a lot of problems that they consistently fail to address.

Well, I believe that since Romans 9, Paul has been talking about the distinction of ethnic Israel and Spiritual Israel, see Romans 9:6. When we get to Romans 11 he says in the beginning of the chapter, "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. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew." (v. 1-2a) So he is saying that he is one of the elect who is an ethnic Israelite and confirms he is talking about the elect Jews in verse 7: "What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded." So when Paul says "All Israel will be saved" in verse 26, I believe he is speaking towards Spiritual Israel because I do not think he has left that thought in Romans 9:6. There is argument that he is talking about the elect of Israel, I believe R.C. Sproul held that view.

All that to say, I don't have much to say to verse 25 because I myself am sometimes perplexed and still doing my studying, but we can at least know that there is not two people of God, Gentiles: the church, and Jews: Israel. One thing I heard from Sproul was that there has been time in the past that God has focused on the Jews and then on the Gentiles the shift we could see is in Acts 13:46, but then you also have Peter who focused his ministry to the Jews during the time of Paul, so I mean I am unsure and will refer to @dsanch1120 comment.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Well, I believe that since Romans 9, Paul has been talking about the distinction of ethnic Israel and Spiritual Israel, see Romans 9:6. When we get to Romans 11 he says in the beginning of the chapter, "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. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew." (v. 1-2a) So he is saying that he is one of the elect who is an ethnic Israelite and confirms he is talking about the elect Jews in verse 7: "What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded." So when Paul says "All Israel will be saved" in verse 26, I believe he is speaking towards Spiritual Israel because I do not think he has left that thought in Romans 9:6. There is argument that he is talking about the elect of Israel, I believe R.C. Sproul held that view.

All that to say, I don't have much to say to verse 25 because I myself am sometimes perplexed and still doing my studying, but we can at least know that there is not two people of God, Gentiles: the church, and Jews: Israel. One thing I heard from Sproul was that there has been time in the past that God has focused on the Jews and then on the Gentiles the shift we could see is in Acts 13:46, but then you also have Peter who focused his ministry to the Jews during the time of Paul, so I mean I am unsure and will refer to @dsanch1120 comment.

Thanks for your insight. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. And I agree with you - I think Paul clearly distinguishes between ethnic Israel and the Israel of promise. Yes, verse 25 is a head scratcher for me. But I still have so much to learn. Truth be known, I haven't spent near as much time studying as I should.

There’s a lot of good resources on Romans 11:25 from a reformed perspective. If you do some poking around on the PB there have been good discussions

Thank you! I just love the PB. It has been such a blessing. I have already looked up those discussions. I guess the thing that I find jarring about the verse is that it seems, at least on the surface, to indicate a time in which the gentile church will no longer be in focus. But it could be that I am reading too much into it.

In any case, one cannot support a doctrine on just one verse. I don't know what Paul is talking about. But I do know that Jews who are saved are also a part of the church, and the church is the body of Christ. No one is saved who is not a part of Christ's body. Any future Jews who are saved will be saved into the church. In fact, the church began with Jewish members. So perhaps Paul is simply referring to a future time in which the gentile nations fall away, after which there is a revival among ethnic Jews.

Notice that everywhere the Gospel has been preached, or really have had a foothold, the sin is on another level. Places like the Middle-East and in various tribal communities throughout the world, where the Gospel has not had a foothold, the gentiles have not run the gamut of Romans 1. There is a certain reprobation that occurs when there is continued exposure to the Gospel. Perhaps this is why the Gospel must first be preached throughout the whole world before the great apostasy can occur. Much of the world is already apostate (the Christianized world). Perhaps when the Gospel is preached throughout the whole world, and then with the falling away, the fullness of the gentiles will be reached. Perhaps at that point, there will be a revival among ethnic Jews, who will pour into the church - and perhaps this will result in a massive global revival, or "life from the dead" as Paul puts it. Maybe it will result in eventual salvation for the entire world. After all, if their rejection led to the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean, but life from the dead?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I read some materials by a guy named William Cox years ago that helped out a lot. My first inclinations something was incorrect with Dispensational's had to do with the Church only being a mystery to the old Testament. We are grafted into the Church. Romans 11.

Anyway, You might read Vern Poythress' book on dispensationalism. He also covers Pregressive Dispensationalism if I remember correctly.

Here is something William Cox wrote..
Why I Left Scoffieldism