This article further clarifies the distinctions between dispensational and non-dispensational (covenant) theology in the area of theological method.
I actually think this is my first post on FR ...
I am not fully a 'replacement ' believer.. I do see the replacement of spiritual israel with the church, the bride of Christ .. Jews along with with gentiles form the church..it is not exclusive to non Jews
However God has protected and preserved national Israel and cultural Israel and the land of Israel in faithfulness to His covenant with Abraham..
The nation/people of Israel will not have a separate means of salvation, it will have to repent and accept Jesus as the Messiah or they will be lost just as all those that refuse to come will be.. Once they do that, they are then a part of the church..
The importance of consistent literalism to the dispensationalist cannot be overstated. Dispensationalists like to argue that consistent literalism is their first principle and that the dichotomy and parenthesis theories logically follow from the application of this first principle to the study of Scripture. I believe that the reality is the reverse: dispensational interpretation uses the degree of literalism necessary to interpret prophecy in terms of the dispensational dichotomy and parenthesis assumptions. Beyond this, differing degrees of figurativeness and literality can be found in dispensational interpretations.Dispensationalism: Consistent Literalism by Grover Gunn
Literalism is considered by many a test of orthodoxy--the only hermeneutic by which one may correctly interpret and understand the Bible. Dispensational premillennialists who reject other eschatological views in the belief that they tend toward "spiritualization"[1] and "allegorizing" claim the distinction of being consistent literalists. One author who holds that literalism is a superior method of interpretation writes, "I am a dispensationalist because dispensationalism generally understands and applies Scripture--particularly prophetic Scripture--in a way that is more consistent with the normal, literal approach I believe is God's design for interpreting Scripture." …These inconsistencies have caused many to distance themselves from dispensational literalism. Various "progressive dispensationalists" have rejected "as inadequate the strict literalist hermeneutic of earlier thinkers [and] no longer adhere to the sharp distinction between Israel and the church, but place both under the one program of God for the world. . . ." Others have rejected as "too simplistic" the literalism of their predecessors. This confusion over literalism has dispensationalists debating among themselves, searching for definition, and questioning the essentials of their system.
The Myth of "Consistent Literalism" by Jack Van Deventer
Why would you NOT think the Old and New Testaments are a complete set of scripture-tying back and forth? The New Testament writers didn't have any problems in pointing back to Old Testament scripture to prove their points.
To be honest, and I realize this is your first thread so I don't wish to offend, but I found this author's writing rather confusing. My eyes glazed over in reading the S sub-O thru the S sub-T. And I read it twice. Nothing that he writes about points to any scriptural evidence. And his conclusion is that for 1900 years the church has just not had the right information seems to be a dangerous position. While people can come to "enlighten" conclusions, the general rule of thumb is to believe you may be holding a heretical position.
I make no claim to be a covenant theologian or a dispensationalist. And, frankly, I don't give two hoots on which view you hold. However, the Bible is very clear on ONE thing that dispensationalists like to talk about-"replacement theology"-that somehow the church fathers were simply a bunch of bigots and we are so enlightened today.
Well, contrary to this stupid and knuckleheaded belief, God does make a distinction between believers and non-believers. The term "replacement theology" is a bogus term meant to under mind this position. It seeks to under mind the special relationship a believer has with his Creator. Instead, it replaces this relationship that God saves men according to His divine providence with the idea men are equal before the Lord and free to choose. One has to wonder WHO has the "replacement" theology.
Well, all men don't have the same status before God. Never has the scripture nor the church taught otherwise. God chose Moses. God chose Abraham. God chose Jacob. God chose Samson. God chose Peter, and James, and John. God chose Paul. And, yes, God even chose Judas. Shall I go on?
Believers enjoy the love and comfort of God's Holy Spirit, although they face righteous chastisement from our loving Father when we stray. Those who are disobedient to the truth of the gospel are looked at as wicked and sons of the devil. That's just the way it is. It was this way in the Old Testament when God compared the Philistine or Canaanites to Israel. It still remains the same in the New when our Lord compared his disciples to the Pharisees. Nothing has changed.
Our Lord called us sons of Abraham and of the Father, Paul called us the new Israel, and Peter called us a royal priesthood. These, and many other titles, are given to those who believe in the Lord Jesus. We are Israel-regardless of how much people try to spin this. To think otherwise borders on blasphemy in my opinion.
so this guy , ccwoody and drstevej walk into a bar......