Posted on 04/12/2007 8:31:50 AM PDT by xzins
No, there were several dispensations before THAT ONE.
The fact that you agree that the Gentiles were not included in the church from Adam to Christ is evidence that you are a dispensationalist.
Like it or not every Christian is a dispensationalist. God worked differently at different times with different peoples.
I didn't know I was supposed to do that. Is there a style book for debates here?
I'd hate to be the victim of yet another word game.
Always playing the victim, eh? Or you you a Victim?
Typically, if one is referring to an actual recognized system it is capitalized, versus a generic usage of a term.
Always playing the victim, eh? Or you you a Victim?
*sigh* Yeah, cause I always play the victim.
To give you an example, there have been plenty of discussions surrounding "prevenient grace." In the strictest sense of the term, Calvinists believe in grace which is prevenient (comes before) faith. However, the intent and function of that prevenient grace is entirely different from that of the Arminian version, which is commonly referenced as Prevenient Grace because it refers to a specific type.
So, in this case I am asking for clarification. If you are using "dispensation" in the generic sense, then it might be reasonable to apply the term to Covenant Theology. However, if you're referring specifically to the system known as Dispensationalism then the term does not apply at all.
So, you can ridicule me if you wish, but I was simply asking for clarification of terms so that we can have something approaching a productive conversation. I don't think that's too much to ask, do you?
From my vantage point:
You have been unable to demonstrate from the text how Jesus was ever “consistently ambiguous” as you have claimed. Your “analysis” is based on merely quoting one verse from Christ where He uses the phrase “this generation”.
You have failed to appreciate that the word “generation” alone is different in context and meaning that the phrase “this generation” or “that generation” or “this evil and adulterous generation”. You have only resorted to interpretation by lexicon rather than actually dealing with the text of the Bible.
In keeping with your lexicon justification, you have failed to deal with the phrase “this generation” in Deut. 1:35 and how it was particular to the generation of Jews that died in the wilderness for their sin against God. The parallel to events in Jesus’ day with the sin of the Jewish nations is striking. Again, the significance of the phrase vs. a mere lexicon analysis of the word is necessary to get Jesus’ correct meaning.
You have failed to appreciate the contrast of “this generation” of Ninevah vs. “this generation” of the Jews and the significance that Jesus placed on the prophetic image of Jonah to that generation vs. Himself to “this generation”. The clear meaning of Jesus is that that generation of pagan Ninevites actually repented at the preaching of Jonah ("Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"), but “this generation” of Jews refused to repent when one greater than Jonah had appeared with an even greater sign, His own resurrection from the dead after three days. The prophetic result; “this generation” of Jews would be destroyed.
As I pointed out, Paul’s mention of “asking for a sign” wrt the Jews does not change the meaning of the gospels or make Jesus “consistently ambiguous”. That specific generation of sign-seeking Jews was about to feel the wrath of God because they had been given the only sign they needed to believe the gospel and repent.
You have failed to recognize the significance of God’s commandment in Exodus 20:5 and Deut 34:7 regarding punishment to the “third and fourth generation” and how that obviates any future judgment of divine wrath against the Jewish “race”.
These seem to be major items that really need to be addressed before we can move on.
I don't believe will you find any writings prior to the 1800s that would state God works differently at different times with different people. God works exactly the same way in exactly the same manner with each person throughout time. He saved you and I exactly the same way He saved Abraham and Paul; through His grace by the faith He has given us. There has always been only ONE chosen people of God.
But there WERE Gentiles included from Adam to Christ. Naaman and Nebuchadnezzar are examples. There is no evidence they "kept the Law" but they certainly were believers. Nebuchadnezzar gave his personal testimony in scripture. They simply had a different set of problems but they were saved in the same fashion; through grace by faith.
What about the even bigger picture that I pointed out here?
When Abraham circumcised all the members of His house, “gentiles” were included in that covenant promise and identified with the Church.
When Moses was told to circumcise any stranger who wanted to participate in the Passover, “gentiles” were included in that covenant promise and identified with the Church (Exodus 12:). By the time Israel entered the promised land, it’s clear they are far from a genetically related group of people. Lots of “gentiles” were now part of “the Church” (Israel).
And the fact that the “land prophecy” of Ezekiel 47:21-23 included “strangers” is also evidence that “the Church” (Israel) was always intended to include gentiles.
God's people have always been identified primarily by covenant, not by race. That's the real basis for identifying Israel and the Church.
Dispensationalists miss this big picture.
If Israel and the Church have always been indistinguishable, then why are you putting bacon on your cheeseburger? Why are you worshipping on Sunday?
Israel as a nation was the visible covenant people of God. With the life, death and resurrection of Christ, God expanded the scope of His covenant to all tribes, tongues and nations. The sabbath finds its fullness in Christ, who is our rest (See Heb 3-4).
The scope of God's covenant people has been expanded, but the nature of it has never changed (See Rom 4:13, 9:8; Gal 3:7-9,29)
The scope of God's covenant people has been expanded, but the nature of it has never changed (See Rom 4:13, 9:8; Gal 3:7-9,29)
Amen.
And this has been the majority opinion of the historic and orthodox Christian church for 2,000 years.
I did not say “indistinguishable”. Why the need to put words in my mouth?
We can certainly distinguish between the people of God under the old covenant and the people of God under the new covenant. But that does not make them two different people, just one people under two different “dispensations” (i.e., administrations of the same covenant of grace. I have used that word properly in this case. There are two “dispensations” in the Bible, not seven or ten or thirteen. We refer to them as the Old Testament and New Testament).
The old covenant was marked by shadows, types, and predictions.
The new covenant is marked by substance, anti-types, and fulfillment.
The old covenant worship was via a human priesthood in a physical temple with bloody animal sacrifices that all pointed forward to the anticipated Messiah.
The new covenant worship is marked by a remembrance of that Messiah by name, Jesus Christ, who came into the world to redeem a people from their sins. Animal blood is gone because the True Lamb as appeared. The human priesthood is gone because the true High Priest after the order of Melchizedek has appeared. The physical temple is gone because the true temple that was raised up in three days has appeared.
The old covenant was marked by separation along nationalist lines with “strangers” being included on special occasions. Food and clothing laws were given to highlight this nationalist distinction.
The new covenant is marked by inclusion of all the nations of the world becoming part of Christ’s kingdom. We no longer need to eat certain foods or wear certain clothes to be marked as Christ’s people. The only “food” by which we are identified is the Lord’s Supper of bread and wine, His body and blood shed for our sins. "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.” (Matt. 28:18-20)
But at the very core, the very essence, the thing which made them one is the promise to Abraham that he would be the father to many nations, and the fulfillment by the blood of the Lamb shed from before the foundation of the world. “And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:29)
The new covenant was made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” even while the old covenant was decaying and fading away (Heb. 8). That’s why Peter proclaimed the Church as the expanded Israel of God.
“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.” (1 Peter 2:9,10)
The apostles were not mistaken on the relationship between the two. “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near [to the commonwealth of Israel] by the blood of Christ.” (Eph. 2:13)
The old covenant was marked by shadows, types, and predictions.
The new covenant is marked by substance, anti-types, and fulfillment.
The old covenant worship was via a human priesthood in a physical temple with bloody animal sacrifices that all pointed forward to the anticipated Messiah.
The new covenant worship is marked by a remembrance of that Messiah by name, Jesus Christ, who came into the world to redeem a people from their sins. Animal blood is gone because the True Lamb as appeared. The human priesthood is gone because the true High Priest after the order of Melchizedek has appeared. The physical temple is gone because the true temple that was raised up in three days has appeared.
AMEN!
Anyone who believes otherwise would have to rip the book of Hebrews out their Bibles.
The Old Testament was preparatory as God's instruction to all men that works of any kind, no matter what they entail, cannot save them. The New Testament was revelatory of the fact that the ONLY righteousness that can and does save any man is the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
The Bible may read progressively to our human perception, but all Scripture was written in an instant and declared true from before the foundation of the world by the predestining mind and purpose of God. Christ on the cross is the center and fulfillment and meaning of every thought and action on earth for all time.
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." -- Colossians 1:16-18"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
I didn't have time to respond to that piece but that was one of the best analysis I have read of who the true Israel is. It's very difficult to argue with logic although many do. Your reward will be in heaven.
I didn't know I was supposed to do that. Is there a style book for debates here?
Ha! The rule is "whatever you can get away with".
4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
Chapter 7
A discussion which you ducked out of, quite abruptly.
I hate to be a pest, but I’m still waiting for you to interpret Matthew 16:28, “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Reminds me of Jesus’ question during the encounter with the chief priests, “The baptism of John--where was it from? From heaven or from men?" And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?'” 26 But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet." 27 So they answered Jesus and said, "We do not know." And He said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things." (Matt. 21:25-27)
If you say that this “coming of Son of Man in His kingdom” is about some far future event, the Second Coming, then His words make not sense to those people and Jesus was acting as a deceiver. But if you say that it is in reference to an event witnessed by those people in that generation, then you have conceded the possibility, even probability, regarding my point and the phrase “coming with clouds” in Matthew 24 also being witnessed by those people in that generation.
So, which is it, or is there some other possibility?
Beginning with rudeness is no way to start what could be an honorable discussion.
You have absolutely no knowledge of other responsibilities I have. Is it possible that I had other meetings scheduled, deadlines to meet, folks to visit in hospitals, family members in need, and/or a host of other important things to do?
It was rude of the way you left in such a hurry without so much as an “I’ll be baaack!” I saw you posting on other threads and thought maybe you were dissing me.
You have absolutely no knowledge of other responsibilities I have.
Hey, no problem. I thought you were back in the hunt.
Take as much time as you need. I look forward to your studied response on the topic at hand and passage in question.
Apology accepted. I don’t always get a chance to make a final post.
Tax deadline tonight. I’m deep into Schedule C.
Pray for me.
Will do. Have fun with Uncle Sam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.