DISPENSATIONALISM, DO WE AGREE TO THIS OR REJECT IT ?

[Marilyn C]

12 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

In my view, the church is a new assembly. It is something new. With a New Covenant, unlike the Mosaic covenant. When a person becomes a believer, they become a new creation while the children of Israel are not new creations. The children of Israel, if not believers which most are not, are not new creations, but using biblical terminology are in Adam.

The parable of the Olive Tree from the NT is an interesting one. In it, the natural branches are the children of Israel, most being cut off.  That means that the root of the Olive Tree is not Israel. In the OT, Israel received the promise of the Messiah, but also, the OT prophesies that the Gentiles will be drawn to the Messiah. The breaking off of most of the natural Israel branches is based on the rejection of the Messiah, and the inclusion of wild Gentile branches is based on the Gentile accepting the Messiah. So the root is the promise of the Messiah as He is the basis of being on the Olive Tree in that NT parable. Since the children of Israel, mostly broken off natural branches, are still called Israel, they are now a separate assembly.

The statement in scripture about there being no Jews or Greek, refers usually to the way of salvation. That scripture usually also states, there are not male or female, bond or free. The statement is in relationship to the way to be saved. In light of salvation, Jews and Gentiles, men and women, bond and free are all saved the same way. There is no difference in how one must be saved. Of those who are saved, there is no superiority between Jews and Gentiles, men and women, bond and free as all are equal in that assembly.

The term, One Nation under God, is a U.S. slogan. The term sees nation as meaning country. In Hebrew, the word translated as nation is goy, which refers to a people group. In historical biblical terminology, a nation/people group is basically an ethnic group. A groups of people with a common ancestor. The Egyptians are a nation/people group. What that means is a member of a ethnic group, is a member of that ethnic group, whether they live in the land of the ethnic group or not. So, and Egyptian who does not live in Egypt is still an Egyptian.

The church is a new nation, made up of people from different ethnic groups. That is unlike any previous nation. It is something entirely new, without a common ancestor, but is a new nation, as the people are a new creation.      

 

Hi Qnts,

You spoke very well I believe. Clear, biblical & informative.

Blessings. Marilyn.

[Omegaman 3.0]

I would not consider myself to be a dispensationalist. Certainly, we can see that God's ways of dealing with people, how much He has revealed and to whom, is not constant. So it is not as though the basic notion is absent in scripture. However, some of the specifics that most dispensationalists bring, do not seem scripturally warranted to me, which is why I do not accept it for the most part.

Among dispensensationalists themselves, there are different numbers of dispensations, and the details and degrees vary, so it is hard to speak to topic as a whole, as if it were some unified theory.

I think my biggest issue with it, is that it tends to become a lense through which some people read scripture, and that leads them to interpret some verses and passages differently than they likely would without their dispensational glasses., I think that is a concern. They would probably reply, that "since dispensationalism is true, you cannot properly understand scripture UNTIL you wear dispensational glasses."

I tend to see some of these differences, as differences in covenants, not really as dispensations. I think in common among the covenants, salvation has always been by grace, through faith. I am a bit uncomfortable (personally) with a tendency among some dispensationalists, to divide God's chosen into two peoples. I do not see that He has one plan for Israel, another for His church. It is my understanding, that Jesus is the only way to the Father, and have to disagree with any dispensationalists who think that Jews can be saved some other way. I think there is neither Jew nor Greek, and it is the Gentiles, who have been grafted into the olive tree of the elect of God, not two distinct elections.

I can agree with or reject ideas within dispensationalism, when they are specified, just as I also agree with a lot of what it taught by the Roman Catholic Church, or Seventh Day Adventism, or other denominations. I view the specifics, one by one, and accept or reject, based on what scripture teaches, not buying into any 'isms', lock stock and barrel.

The chart of the History of dispensationalism, is from the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

From that same article, come the following chart explaining some dispensational theories:

[thereselittleflower]

4 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I would not consider myself to be a dispensationalist. Certainly, we can see that God's ways of dealing with people, how much He has revealed and to whom, is not constant. So it is not as though the basic notion is absent in scripture. However, some of the specific that most dispensationalist bring, do not seem scripturally warranted to me, which is why I do not accept it for the most part.

Among dispensensationalists themselves, there are different numbers of dispensations, and the details and degrees vary, so it is hard to speak to topic as a whole, as if it were some unified theory.

I think my biggest issue with it, is that it tends to become a lense through which some people read sripture, and that leads them to interpret some verses and passages differently than they likely would without their dispensational glasses., I think that is a concern. They would probably reply, that "since dispensationalism is true, you cannot properly understand scripture UNTIL you wear dispensational glasses."

I tend to see some of these differences, as differences in covenants, not really as dispensations. I think in common among the covenants, salvation has always been by grace, through faith. I am a bit uncomfortable (personally) with a tendency among some dispensationalist, to divide God's chosen into two peoples. I do not see that He has one plan for Israel, another for His church. It is my understanding, that Jesus is the only way to the Father, and have to disagree with any dispensationalists who think that Jews can be saved some other way. I think there is neither Jew nor Greek, and it is the Gentiles, who have been grafted into the olive tree of the elect of God, not two distinct elections.

I can agree with or reject ideas within dispensationalism, when they are specified, just as I also agree with a lot of what it taught by the Roman Catholic Church, or Seventh Day Adventism, or other denominations. I view the specifics, one by one, and accept or reject, based on what scripture teaches, not buying into any 'isms', lock stock and barrel.

Dispensations are indeed found in the bible, but "Dispensationalism" is something very new in the history of Christianity, being less than 200 years old.   I agree with you, it presents a lense through which scripture is interpreted, and in a way it wasn't interpreted before that I find concerning.  

 

[Ezra]

6 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Dispensations are indeed found in the bible, but "Dispensationalism" is something very new in the history of Christianity, being less than 200 years old.   I agree with you, it presents a lense through which scripture is interpreted, and in a way it wasn't interpreted before that I find concerning.  

Dispensationalism would not have been "new" in history if people had not followed the ideas of Augustine and others slavishly.  The reason it is relatively new is that nobody dreamed that the nation of Israel would come into existence before 1948. When that actually happened, it created a tremendous interest in Bible prophecies pertaining to Israel and its future on earth as seen in the Prophets. Basically Christianity had written off Israel, and introduced Replacement Theology, where everything pertaining to Israel was blindly applied to the Church.  

The truth of the matter is that the Church was a mystery hidden from Israel until it was revealed to Paul as Jew and Gentile in one Body without distinction. At the same time, before the Church came into existence the apostles specifically asked Christ if He would restore the kingdom to Israel after His resurrection. This meant that Israel as a kingdom on earth was clearly in the minds of the apostles right from the beginning.  They were not to know the times and the seasons, but were to preach the Gospel instead. Then Paul said that when the fullness of the Gentiles within the Church was completed, Christ would resume His direct dealings with national Israel and the Jews worldwide at His Second Coming (Romans 11).

And why in the world should it be "concerning" to properly interpret Scripture via Dispensationalism? Our greater concern should be how the Vatican re-interprets the Gospel and Scripture and misleads people.

 

[thereselittleflower]

55 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Dispensationalism would not have been "new" in history if people had not followed the ideas of Augustine and others slavishly.  The reason it is relatively new is that nobody dreamed that the nation of Israel would come into existence before 1948. When that actually happened, it created a tremendous interest in Bible prophecies pertaining to Israel and its future on earth as seen in the Prophets. Basically Christianity had written off Israel, and introduced Replacement Theology, where everything pertaining to Israel was blindly applied to the Church.  

The truth of the matter is that the Church was a mystery hidden from Israel until it was revealed to Paul as Jew and Gentile in one Body without distinction. At the same time, before the Church came into existence the apostles specifically asked Christ if He would restore the kingdom to Israel after His resurrection. This meant that Israel as a kingdom on earth was clearly in the minds of the apostles right from the beginning.  They were not to know the times and the seasons, but were to preach the Gospel instead. Then Paul said that when the fullness of the Gentiles within the Church was completed, Christ would resume His direct dealings with national Israel and the Jews worldwide at His Second Coming (Romans 11).

 

 

I don't think Paul was the one who introduced the mystery of the Church, and I agree the Apostles, before Jesus suffered, died, was buried and rose from the dead were of the mind that God would restore the kingdom of Israel as it had been in ages past.  They would not have understood the New Covenant yet.  Just because something was in their mind at that point doesn't mean it stayed that way.   Jesus said their were many things he wanted to tell them but they weren't ready to hear it, but the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.

If today's version of dispensationalism it's not a new teaching, then we should be able to find it in the teachings and beliefs of the first Christians, shouldn't we?

 

[simplejeff]

No.

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

And why in the world should it be "concerning" to properly interpret Scripture via Dispensationalism? Our greater concern should be how the Vatican re-interprets the Gospel and Scripture and misleads people.

Perhaps so, but it is not an either/or situation, and Vatican teachings are another subject than this one. There is no need to disrupt the topic with different specifics. It is a matter of opinion, whether dispensationalism, should be included in the same breath, with the phrase: "properly interpret".

I think the rest of your post, was well stated.

[SINNERSAVED]

8 hours ago, Ezra said:

Dispensationalism would not have been "new" in history if people had not followed the ideas of Augustine and others slavishly.  The reason it is relatively new is that nobody dreamed that the nation of Israel would come into existence before 1948. When that actually happened, it created a tremendous interest in Bible prophecies pertaining to Israel and its future on earth as seen in the Prophets. Basically Christianity had written off Israel, and introduced Replacement Theology, where everything pertaining to Israel was blindly applied to the Church.  

The truth of the matter is that the Church was a mystery hidden from Israel until it was revealed to Paul as Jew and Gentile in one Body without distinction. At the same time, before the Church came into existence the apostles specifically asked Christ if He would restore the kingdom to Israel after His resurrection. This meant that Israel as a kingdom on earth was clearly in the minds of the apostles right from the beginning.  They were not to know the times and the seasons, but were to preach the Gospel instead. Then Paul said that when the fullness of the Gentiles within the Church was completed, Christ would resume His direct dealings with national Israel and the Jews worldwide at His Second Coming (Romans 11).

And why in the world should it be "concerning" to properly interpret Scripture via Dispensationalism? Our greater concern should be how the Vatican re-interprets the Gospel and Scripture and misleads people.

 

well said Ezra, I will note your comments in my note book for you are so correct about this, thank you brother

[Qnts2]

12 hours ago, SINNERSAVED said:

I have brought this about ,because, to bring into a separation of Jews and Gentiles as two different , and keeping both at bay, I do not believe God intended that we stay separated and that this is His plan, the jews are jews , and the Gentiles are the Gentiles,  but we are ,brought together in one tree the olive tree the original and the wild branches, mixed and yet, forged together to be of one root, and of one God , and all that he expects us to be as believers, ?

 I do not think God wants us to be puffed up and boasting in this fact that , we are called in by grace and we are the outsider the alien,

and yet in the day that the lord has appointed Israel will come back into the tree , so I believe this is what the definition of the do not boast against the original branches, and we are not to say what was good for the people of days past and Israel does not go for us today as Gentiles coming in, we are one people, in One spirit , and One God that is our calling to HIm in obedience, and truth , for we are of Judah , so to speak ? and this is what I was trying to bring to the table , we are no longer different ,

let me try to give a Example of this, we have a Israeli family dad ,mom sister and then they adopt a new gentile brother, they are not all the same but they have become one family , a new step son and brother , and family , now they are all subjected to the rules and traditions and customs of one family of there origin , and as we are Gentiles brought in to the family of the olive tree the isreali , and gentiles are together , under the father God in heaven of Jacob , Isaac and Abraham , so this is how we should look at todays church and the jews of the chosen land of God, I pray this helped and made sense for we continually try to separate the two , in every Christian church I attendend , but now I see it clear,

You are looking at this as a family. but go back to the concept of a nation/people group.

Jeremiah 31:35  Thus says the Lord,
Who gives the sun to light the day,
    moon and stars to light the night;
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar,
    whose name is Lord of hosts:
³⁶ If ever this fixed order gives way
    before me—oracle of the Lord—
Then would the offspring of Israel cease
    as a people before me forever.
 

So, God says the Israel is a people before Him until the sun ceases to give light, the children of Israel will cease to be a people before Him. At this time, the sun still gives light, so the people/nation/Israel exist before God.

Now for another verse.

Deut 32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

In Deut 32:21, the verse is spoken to the children of Israel. The people who are not a people, are people from a bunch of different nations (ethnicities), brought together as a nation. This nation is called a foolish nation because it is a diverse people brought together and made into a nation by God. This particular verse is applied to the church.

Romans 11:¹¹ Hence I ask, did they stumble so as to fall? Of course not! But through their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make them jealous.

So according to Romans 11:11 Through Israel's transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous. This is what Deut 32:21 is speaking about. The foolish nation/the church, made up of predominantly Gentiles, is to make the nation of Israel jealous. Those verses show Two Nations. Israel is still a nation before God, and the Church is a Nation before God. Israel is not a saved Nation (although individuals are saved), and the Church nation is a saved nation.

In the future, when all of Israel is saved, probably in the time of the New Earth, all of the people living on the New Earth are of the 'foolish' nation, as all will be believers. So, yes, in the future there will be one nation before God. But, not yet.

[Ezra]

8 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

I don't think Paul was the one who introduced the mystery of the Church,...

Well you must not be reading his epistles.  Please take another look.