A verse that single-handedly destroys the dispensational delusion!

[random person]

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Acts 17:30


Lets not forget the following passages:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 10:5-7

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24

and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Luke 24:47

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Acts 3:22-26

And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Acts 13:32-33,46


I say, please repent and escape from the dispensational delusion. God fulfilled His promise to Israel. Christ served Israel first, and the Gospel was first preached to them.

 

[Biblewriter]

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Acts 17:30

And how it is that you even imagine that this scripture has anything to do with dispensationalism. I do not know of even one dispensationalist anywhere that would have even the slightest problem with this scripture.

Again, you are not fighting against dispensationalism, but with your warped impression of what it teaches.

 

[glen55]

Alvin Boyd Kuhn destroyed all literal interpretations in the lost light of interpretation.

 

[duolos]

And how it is that you even imagine that this scripture has anything to do with dispensationalism. I do not know of even one dispensationalist anywhere that would have even the slightest problem with this scripture.

Again, you are not fighting against dispensationalism, but with your warped impression of what it teaches.

Dispensationalism because of its millennial Israel theory implicitly teaches that we don't need to evangelise the Jews/Israel as they will be resurrected in the millennium.

 

[Dispy]

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Acts 17:30

Paul is not speaking to Jewish people here. Why are you using this verse?

Lets not forget the following passages:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matthew 10:5-7

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24

Yes, Jesus came only to the lost sheep of the tribe of Israel to "...confirm (fulfill) the promises made to the (Jewish) fathers" (cf Rom. 25:8)

and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.Luke 24:47

To carry out the "so called" great commission".

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Acts 3:22-26

Peter is still speaking to Jews and proselytes present in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13:32-33

Paul is proving from OT Scripture that Jesus was the long promised Messiah. Paul uses more OT Scripture to prove that Jesus was who He said he was then any other NT writer.

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Acts 13:46

When those Jews rejected Paul's message he turned to the Gentiles.

I say, please repent and escape from the dispensational delusion. God fulfilled His promise to Israel. Christ served Israel first, and the Gospel was first preached to them.

You have not convinced me to do so.

God has still not fulfilled all His promises to the nation of Israel. Israel still has a glorious future to look forward to.

 

[duolos]

Paul is not speaking to Jewish people here. Why are you using this verse?

So "all" here means "everyone but the Jews." can you show me any other usage of the term "all" that isn't modified by "nations" that has this same connotation?

 

[Biblewriter]

Dispensationalism because of its millennial Israel theory implicitly teaches that we don't need to evangelise the Jews/Israel as they will be resurrected in the millennium.

This nonsense is not even a part of dispensational doctrine.

 

[duolos]

This nonsense is not even a part of dispensational doctrine.

Note that I said "implicit" it may not be explicitly taught, but the whole two peoples theory implies that God's placed on hold his plans for Israel, ergo we don't need to evangelise them.

 

[Biblewriter]

Note that I said "implicit" it may not be explicitly taught, but the whole two peoples theory implies that God's placed on hold his plans for Israel, ergo we don't need to evangelise them.

That is neither explicit nor implicit in dispensational doctrine.

Dispensationalists teach that any and every person who dies without faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the sole and only sacrifice for their sins, goes directly to hell and never returns to earth.

The restoration of Israel taught by dispensationalists, because it is clearly taught in scripture, is a restoration of that portion of Israel which survives the great tribulation and the judgments that come when the Lord returns. This is what they teach, and what they have always taught.

The doctrine you are so earnestly fighting is not dispensationalism, but simply your wrested interpretation of it.

 

[Biblewriter]

Alvin Boyd Kuhn destroyed all literal interpretations in the lost light of interpretation.

Who is that? I never heard of him.

 

[random person]

That is neither explicit nor implicit in dispensational doctrine.

Dispensationalists teach that any and every person who dies without faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the sole and only sacrifice for their sins, goes directly to hell and never returns to earth.

The restoration of Israel taught by dispensationalists, because it is clearly taught in scripture, is a restoration of that portion of Israel which survives the great tribulation and the judgments that come when the Lord returns. This is what they teach, and what they have always taught.

The doctrine you are so earnestly fighting is not dispensationalism, but simply your wrested interpretation of it.

There is no biblical physical Israel anymore, the church represents spiritual Israel now.

The Chosen Seed And Circumcision Part 1​

At this juncture, we must take note of a vital issue that is virtually ignored in the modern discussions about Israel and God's promises to her, and that is the subject of circumcision. It is all but impossible for moderns to appreciate the passion that this topic generated in the New Testament times. To Christians, circumcision is about hygiene; to the Jews it was about God's covenant. It was about being a child of God, their election by Him. It was about the Land. It was about the Temple. It was everything.

What Paul taught about circumcision was considered "the offense of the Cross" (Galatians 5:11), by the Jews and Judaizers. The Jews wanted to kill Paul for what he taught about circumcision. And what did Paul teach? He taught that, "If you become circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing"; "I testify to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law"; "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love" (Galatians 5:2-6). So what is the big deal about this? As just noted, we today cannot easily grasped why Paul's doctrine about circumcision would incite such violent reactions. The reason why we have such a difficult time appreciating this is because we are unfamiliar with the true meaning of covenant.

For brevity, we will list just a few of the main themes associated with circumcision in the mind of the Jews.

1.) Genesis 17:7-14 -- Circumcision and the Identity Of God's People.

When Jehovah called Abraham, He made a covenant of circumcision with him. The Lord told Abraham that if anyone was born in his house or a slave purchased by any of descendants was not circumcised, "he shall be cut off from the people" (Genesis 17:14). This meant he was to die.

Simply stated, no circumcision meant you were not of the Abrahamic seed, and if you were not of the Abrahamic seed, you were "outside". For Paul, prior to Christ, there were only two classifications of mankind, the circumcised and the uncircumcised, and the uncircumcised were, "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in this world." (Ephesians 2:11f). To put it another way, no circumcision, no hope.

Now, if you had been taught, as a people, for 1,500+ years that circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with you, to identify you as His, and all of a sudden someone started saying that circumcision now meant nothing, how would you react? If this act identified you as a child of God, blessed above all people and now you were told that it no longer had any special significance in God's eyes, wouldn't you consider that man a heretic, a rabble-rouser and a revolutionary?

2.) Joshua 5 -- Circumcision and the Land.

As Joshua led the children of Israel to the borders of the promised land, it was realized that the men had not been circumcised. The generation that had come out of Egypt had died out, and failed to have their sons circumcised. As a result, Israel could not possess the land.. Joshua had all the men circumcised and God said: "This day have I rolled the approach of Egypt from you" (Joshua 5:9). Now if, even as a descendant of Abraham, you could not possess the land if you were not circumcised, how incredible was it for Paul to say, "Circumcision avails nothing." Covenantally, no circumcision meant no land. And now, Paul said circumcision avails nothing. The umbilical cord between circumcision and the Land was being cut by the gospel of the Messiah.

3.) Acts 21:27f -- Circumcision and the Temple.

In Acts, the Jews thought Paul had taken Trophimus, an uncircumcised Greek, into the Temple. A riot broke out, and Paul would literally have been killed on the spot had not the Roman commander rescued him. It will be remembered that although the Romans had removed the authority of capital punishment from Israel prior to this occasion, they had actually made exceptions in cases involving violation of the Temple. Thus, there were plaques placed all around the Temple complex, with inscriptions warning all Gentiles that to proceed past a certain point would result in their death.

The Temple was the most sacred place in the world. It was the center of the world for the Jews. The privilege of worshipping there was one of the greatest blessings in the world. Circumcision provided passage into those hallowed courts. Without circumcision, no one could enter its holy gates. No circumcision, no Temple privileges.

Considering these facets of Israel's identity, perhaps we can begin to have a basic grasp of the passion with which circumcision was viewed by the Jews of Paul's day. No circumcision placed one outside the covenants, outside the land, outside the city, outside of God's favor.

Is it any wonder why Paul considered such a heretic? Is it any wonder why the Jews sought to kill him? Is it any wonder why his gospel was such an offense to them? For Paul to argue that true circumcision is of the heart (Colossians 2:11-12), and belongs to those of faith, not of the flesh (Philippians 3:1-3), meant that God's election of national Israel was coming to a close. It meant that Israel was being re-defined along spiritual lines, as hinted at by the prophets, but never grasped by those focused on earthly things. It meant, positively, that the time of fulfillment had come, the time anticipated in Genesis 28 and 49 when the scepter would pass from Judah. This was truly good news, except to those who were mindful of the flesh and who trusted in the flesh (Philippians 3).

What is the implications of Paul's doctrine of circumcision for the belief that national Israel remains God's chosen people? It is devastating. For Paul, the Abrahamic seed was now being determined by faith, not by circumcision, "Only those who are of faith are of Abraham" (Galatians 3:6f). This means that physical circumcision no longer determined if a person was of the Abrahamic line. How incredibly important.

Paul taught that in God's eyes the Abrahamic seed is no longer determined by the flesh and circumcision. How then can one speak of the restoration of national Israel as God's chosen people without rejecting Paul's gospel? Talk about a replacement theology!

Jesus said his word, his New Covenant wherein physical circumcision means nothing, would never pass away (Matthew 24:35). Well, if the gospel of Jesus will never pass away, and if the gospel message is that physical circumcision avails nothing with God, how can one teach that national Israel, identified by circumcision, will be restored? You cannot restore national Israel-identified by obedience to the Abrahamic Covenant of circumcision--to God's favor without annulling the Gospel of Jesus Christ that says, "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything." The choice is clear. Circumcision means no Christ, but Christ means no circumcision. No circumcision means that all emphasis on ethnic identity, all claims to the Land and all emphasis on the City and Temple is nullified.

Thus, religiously, Israel is no longer Biblical Israel, because Jehovah removed the Old Covenant, along with circumcision, the sacrifices, the temple, the priesthood, in AD 70. And ethnically, Israel is no longer Biblical Israel, because Jehovah destroyed the genealogical records in AD 70, and, the majority of those calling themselves Jews today, are atheists, or are of Gentile descent.

To make 1948, or any other modern time, the restoration of national Israel to God's favored position one must be willing to affirm the rejection and replacement of the blood bought gospel of Jesus Christ with the obsolete doctrine of circumcision. It is imperative that the modern evangelical world come to grips with these vital truths. The events of 1948 have nothing to do with Old Covenant Biblical Israel.

Israel 1948: Countdown To No Where pgs 45-48.

 

[random person]

Is present Israel a fulfillment of prophesy?​

One of the most common assertions of the premillennial dispensationalist today is that the formation of the State of Israel in 1948 is proof that the Jews are still "God's Chosen People," and that He still has prophetic plans for them. (This has been asserted more vigorously than ever due to the recent hostilities in the Middle East). It is claimed that God was at work bringing the Jews back to their "ancient homeland," and that they have a Biblical right to claim Palestine as their own. Are these claims correct? Was the formation of the State of Israel evidence of God's blessing? Of God's election?

Just what Scriptures do dispensationalists use to support these claims? How do they come to their conclusions? As you may know already, the dispensationalist uses what he calls a "literal hermeneutic." That is, he claims to interpret the words of the Bible at face value, understanding them in their "normal," everyday usage and meaning. This extremely literal hermeneutic is then used to "interpret" the prophecies of the Old Testament that speak of the return of God's people to the Holy Land. However, this literalism is also used as an excuse to ignore the plain reinterpretation by the New Testament writers of these very same prophecies. Even when the inspired writers of the New Testament give a meaning to the Old Testament. prophecies other than a "literal" one, the dispensationalist will say that this is not the complete meaning, and that these prophecies "remain to be realized for Israel."

One of the Scriptures the dispensationalist claims was fulfilled by the 1948 formation of the State of Israel is found in Ezekiel 36-37. This prophecy was given to Ezekiel during the Babylonian captivity (Ezekiel 1:1-2), and foretold the eventual return of Israel to their land. Tied in with this prophecy was the prediction of the coming Messiah (Ezekiel 38), and the inauguration of the New Covenant. As we know from both secular history and the New Testament, the people did return to the land and the Messiah did come and establish the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28). Despite this, dispensationalists deny fulfillment of either of these prophecies, saying they found only a "partial fulfillment" in Israel's return and Christ's first advent. They further allege that the re-gathering of Jews to form the current State of Israel is part of the final fulfillment. They say the blessings of the "Palestinian Covenant" are only now coming into existence. The promises of such passages as Deuteronomy 30 are touted as "Scriptural basis" for Israel's re-gathering. How should we answer such claims?

According to Deuteronomy 30:1-8, a necessary condition for the re-gathering of Israel to Palestine was returning to the Lord (verses 2-3). Based on this clear passage of Scripture, it can be definitely concluded that the State of Israel, which now exists, was not formed as a result of the blessings of this covenant (the "Palestinian Covenant" of the Scofield Bible).

The Jews of 1948 (except for maybe a few isolated individuals) did not turn to the Lord. And, to base the formation of Israel upon their alleged "faithfulness" to Judaism is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what Judaism is. Some think the Jew of today has a special advantage, perhaps even salvation without Christ, because they believe in the God of the Old Testament, and follow the Old Testament religion. This overlooks the fact that the religion of the Old Testament was based on making sacrifices for sins (Leviticus 17:11). It also ignores the statements of the New Testament that there is absolutely NO salvation outside Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:10-12), and that the Old Testament religion was no longer efficacious (Hebrews 7-10). The Lord of the New Testament is Jesus. This revelation casts light on who the Lord of the Old Testament is. For example, Peter quotes Joel 2:32 as being fulfilled in Jesus (Acts 2:21).

What shall we answer when the dispensationalist claims the existence of the State of Israel today is "proof" of God's covenant blessing upon them? With the clear backing of Scripture, we can say, "NO!" We can then point to Deuteronomy 30:1-8 as proof that the Israel of today is definitely not the Israel of the Bible! But, what about the land promised to Abraham?

Paul, in citing the promise to Abraham, does not limit the territory to Palestine: It was NOT through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith (Romans 4:13). This is an extension of the statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:5, in which the meek shall inherit not merely Palestine, but the earth. As you can see, the inheritance is for Abraham and his offspring. The dispensationalist believes Jewish people are entitled to the inheritance based on their racial extraction or ethnic heritage. But, Paul counters this idea in Galatians 3:7,29. In case he hasn't made it clear enough, Paul reiterates for those who expect some special privilege for physical descendants of Abraham: "Now to Abraham's and his seed the promises were made. He does not say, And to seeds' as of many, but as of one, And to your seed, who is Christ" (Galatians 3:16). The only way to inherit anything is in Christ! The Jewish leaders who came to John the Baptist thought the Kingdom was theirs automatically by virtue of their heritage. (Matthew 3:9). The Apostle Paul states the nature of true Jewishness in Romans 2:28,29; 9:6-8; 11:5-7.

The full scope of Israel's prophets was not nationalistic, but universal, with an increasing cosmic dimension which took in heaven and earth (Isaiah 65:17; 24:21-23). The writer of Hebrews assures them Abraham was not looking merely to Palestine for fulfillment of the promises. He looked for "a better country," and a city "whose builder and maker is God" (Hebrews 11:10,16). The continuity of the Old Testament terms and Middle East images in Hebrews assures the church that God's promise has neither failed nor been postponed, but is experienced now in Christ (Hebrews 6:5), And, the land promises made to Abraham are fulfilled in the universal Kingdom of God.

In conclusion, we have studied the subject of who God's Chosen People are, and have found that, according to the Bible, Israel is now composed of all those who believe in Jesus as Messiah. It is not correct, therefore, to state that the church has REPLACED Israel. Rather, the church IS the continuity of the Old Testament Israel of God; it has only replaced the Jewish nation. There is no more "Jew" and "Gentile" racial distinctions. All nations are now a part of Spiritual Israel in Christ. Christ's kingdom is here now in fullness. All (who were a part of the true spiritual) Israel were saved and given the inheritance (Romans 11:26).

With the advent of the war in the Middle East, many people are wondering what is taking place in a prophetic sense. As preterists, we can say with assurance that the events now taking place are NOT a fulfillment of prophecy. We know that all prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70, at which time the New Covenant was fully established, making the Kingdom available to all who would believe in Jesus as Savior (Messiah). Some emotionalism is understandable in time of war. However, we need not fear the Great Tribulation or being "left behind" in the Rapture. We know by the time limitations recorded in the New Testament that these things have already occurred, and we are living in the new spiritual promised land.

Speaking of Jews, here is what the scripture says:

Isaiah 65:15, "And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:"

Matthew 21:43, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

The above two verses were fulfilled in 70 AD, when the Jews were slayed, the temple burned down, and the Kingdom of God was taken from the Jews and given to all who believe in Christ.

Today, being a Jew simply means that one is of the Judaistic religion or a convert to it, or else in a "brotherhood" of those who are. Therefore, being a Jew has nothing to do with race. We are familiar with a number of notable figures, such as Sammy Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna, and Tom Arnold, in fact, who became Jews by conversion to the religion of Judaism.

Therefore, we can clearly and confidently assert that there is no such thing as a Jewish race, nor ever can there be. Since the fall of Jerusalem, and the scattering of the nation of Israel in the first century, the nation calling itself Israel has consisted of a collection of people from nearly every nation in the world, with no relation to the twelve tribes of the historical nation known as Israel. Any attempts to state that there is, or will ever again be, a race of Israelites are proven to be futile and of no force. There is no Jewish race.

What should a follower of Christ think of Jews?

Romans 2:28-29, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Followers of Christ ARE Jews! Followers of Christ have not REPLACED Israel…the followers of Christ ARE Israel. Spiritual Israel.

Final Thoughts​

Jews do not practice "Old Testament religion;" they are not almost Christians, lacking only acceptance of the Messiah and the New Testament. They do not worship the true God, not even the “God of the Old Testament” Jesus was quite adamant: If they had believed Moses, they would believe Him. (John 5:46-47) They don't believe the Old Testament either. The religion of Judaism is a Talmudic faith, not Biblical. Those who support, as the majority of premillenialists do, the secular nation of Israel at this time, simply because they are so-called Jews, and claim the premillenial system relies on Israel as a pivotal aspect of itself, give succor to apostates and enemies of Christ, and actually encourage them in their unbelief.

Who Are God's Chosen People?

 

[Dispy]

Paul is not speaking to Jewish people here. Why are you using this verse?

So "all" here means "everyone but the Jews." can you show me any other usage of the term "all" that isn't modified by "nations" that has this same connotation?

Paul is speaking to ALL the unbelievers on Mars Hill.

 

[duolos]

Paul is speaking to ALL the unbelievers on Mars Hill.

Nope, that doesn't work, as he talks of "all everywhere..." all pretty much means all without exception here, Paul hasn't turned exclusively away from the Jews, as we see him back in Jerusalem doing temple ordinances to try and win more Jews!

 

[ivanc0]

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Acts 17:30


Lets not forget the following passages:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 10:5-7

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24

and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Luke 24:47

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Acts 3:22-26

And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Acts 13:32-33,46


I say, please repent and escape from the dispensational delusion. God fulfilled His promise to Israel. Christ served Israel first, and the Gospel was first preached to them.

And Most of them were so evil that killed HIM, So they deserve Nothing, The Gentiles have the gospel and every human is now equal , the law was abolished, and the Jews sent to exile, they were evil as evil they are know. They did Genocide on the old days, and they do genocide today.
sorry for them, Repent and learn from Jesus, and Love your enemies.

 

[Job8]

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Acts 17:30

If anything, this verse teaches that there were at least two dispensations: (1) the times of ignorance and (2) the time for universal repentance.

Dispenationalism is made out to be a bogeyman by those who fear the truth. There are both covenants and dispensations in the Bible, and we are commanded to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

 

[Biblewriter]

So random person, like most anti-dispensationalists, believes that the God that cannot lie will break His very many explicitly stated promises that He will bring all Israel back to their ancient homeland, and bless them there.

If He could legitimately tell them that He was not really speaking of them, he was speaking of another people who would come into the world at a later time, what would keep Him from telling us the same thing?

This false doctrine attacks the very central essence of Christianity, which is the reliability and faithfulness of God.

 

[duolos]

So random person, like most anti-dispensationalists, believes that the God that cannot lie will break His very many explicitly stated promises that He will bring all Israel back to their ancient homeland, and bless them there.

Some of us believe that this has happened, and that Christ comes into the full fulfillment of it, or don't you believe that "In Him every promise of God is yes, and amen."?

If He could legitimately tell them that He was not really speaking of them, he was speaking of another people who would come into the world at a later time, what would keep Him from telling us the same thing?

You believe in a remnant theology, just as the people who disgree with your timetable do, the question is not about whether or not God will/has removed the unbelievers from Israel, but when. I believe, as others do that this happened in the first century, you believe this will happen in some future time because well the Church is a parenthesis in God's dealing with Israel, where does it say that? Where is the change? Why is it so implicit that noone in Christian history believed this until Irving, or Darby, etc.

This false doctrine attacks the very central essence of Christianity, which is the reliability and faithfulness of God.

Which is manifested in Christ and His work on the Cross, something which you are more than willing to deny to establish some notion of the promises of God finding their yes and amen outside of Christ.

 

[Biblewriter]

So random person, like most anti-dispensationalists, believes that the God that cannot lie will break His very many explicitly stated promises that He will bring all Israel back to their ancient homeland, and bless them there.

If He could legitimately tell them that He was not really speaking of them, he was speaking of another people who would come into the world at a later time, what would keep Him from telling us the same thing?

This false doctrine attacks the very central essence of Christianity, which is the reliability and faithfulness of God.

Some of us believe that this has happened, and that Christ comes into the full fulfillment of it, or don't you believe that "In Him every promise of God is yes, and amen."?


You believe in a remnant theology, just as the people who disgree with your timetable do, the question is not about whether or not God will/has removed the unbelievers from Israel, but when. I believe, as others do that this happened in the first century, you believe this will happen in some future time because well the Church is a parenthesis in God's dealing with Israel, where does it say that? Where is the change? Why is it so implicit that noone in Christian history believed this until Irving, or Darby, etc.

You have this backwards. We believe that the church is a parenthesis because the scriptures explicitly tell of many specific details that have unquestionable never happened. As God is faithful, we conclude that they will happen in the future.

And this conclusion did not begin with Irving, or Darby, but was found in some of the oldest Christian commentaries that have survived to the present. It was also presented in extreme detail more that a hundred years before Irving.

Which is manifested in Christ and His work on the Cross, something which you are more than willing to deny to establish some notion of the promises of God finding their yes and amen outside of Christ.

We do not even imagine that even one of these promises will find its fulfillment outside of Christ. The scriptures very plainly say that He will do it, and they just as plainly say that He will do it after, not before, He comes "with fire, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire."

 

[2ndCovanent]

Who is that? I never heard of him.

Someone who taught that Jesus never existed. AKA some random athiest dude.