Obviously there are aspects of the OC that are reiterated in the NC, and I have not said otherwise.
That is not enough.
The law
NEVER saved. Ever. The only way to God salvifically is through Christ.
That is not new. It goes all the way back to Eden and the Tree of Life. The Mosaic Code is irrelevant because
it cannot save, and never could. That is not what's "new" about the "new covenant." The new aspect to the new covenant is that it is offered to Gentile believers, not
just Jews.
Look it up.
Go back to the first mentions of the new covenant in the OT and verify what I just posted.
Dispensationalism has it wrong.
Dispensationalism teaches a bad soteriology. It also teaches a bad Christology, a bad ecclesiology, and has some fundamental errors in its formal Theology. And it preaches one thing but teaches another. It preaches slvation through Christ alone but as I
have already shown it actually teaches a salvation by works through faith for the Jew.
With you so far, but I think we may disagree on the identity of the olive tree.
Another Dispensational red herring. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, being created in Christ for good works God already has planned for us to perform. By grace through faith for works. The Dispensational salvation for the Jew is by works through faith. It's a bad soteriology.
Olive tree or no olive tree.
That's certainly a leap of logic I am not following...
No, it is not a leap in logic. It is a statement of plain observable fact. Every single NT passage you quoted referenced the OT. This conversation is about the law and this op's claim
only Dispensationalism reconciles the seeming disparity between obeying the law and the law's abrogation. Which is it? Are we to obey it or is it done away with? The op says, "That's easy, we simply see there's one path of the Jew and another for the Christian! Problem solved!
Only Dispensationalism reconciles the seeming contradiction!" It's a pile dross that has no integrity with scripture correctly read.
The
fact is the apostles constantly applied the law and the prophets to the new covenant ekklesia. I'm going to repeat that so it sinks in.
The New Testament apostles constantly applied the Old Testament laws and prophets to the new covenant ekklesia.
The New Testament apostles constantly applied the Old Testament laws and prophets to the new covenant ekklesia.
The New Testament apostles constantly applied the Old Testament laws and prophets to the new covenant ekklesia.
They did so in areas other than salvation and as a means of justification and righteousness. The solution to the seeming dilemma, "Is the law annulled or is it to be obeyed?" is resolved by realizing the law has differing domains to which it is no longer (or never was) applicable and domains where it remains salient, at least in principle (and I cited the muzzled ox as an example).
I was presented an argument of dissent that actually did what I posted: it referenced the NT apostles applying OT law and prophets to new covenant Christians. They were applying the supposedly abrogated law expecting obedience. They were applying fulfilled prophesy expecting change.
No leap in logic required.
Radical discarding of Dispensationalism required. Dispensationalism has it wrong.
I am still in the process of learning all that Dispensationalism teaches...
??????
Then what business have you claiming only Dispensationalism reconciles the matter of obedience to an annulled law? How can you presume to tell a cyberspace full of Christians such a thing? How can you presume to promote a theology you are still in the process of learning?
You want me to tone down the rhetoric? It wasn't rhetoric. What has been posted is dross. You need to open your eyes and
look at it. You need to look at Dispensationalism and stop promoting an awful theology that has divided the church in ways never realized by the Great Schism or the Reformation. It's a bad theology.
...but I doubt you will find an Acts 2 Dispensationalist that teaches what you say. You are aware that there are HUGE differences amongst those who call themselves dispensational, right?
So now we're moving the goal posts, are we? This op doesn't mention "Acts 2 Dispensationalists." It mentions "Dispensationalism." Period. I read,
"The answer to this dilemma is found in Dispensationalism, and nowhere else I am aware of. To the best of my knowledge, Dispensationalism explains that this teaching....."
That statement is wrong. So is Acts 2 Dispensationalism, but I'll attend to that later. 73 posts into this discussion and now clarifying your position to be exclusive to "Acts 2 Dispensationalism," and not Dispensationalsim as a whole because making such a change is imagined will purchase some wiggle room is misguided. It will not. The entire Dispensational paradigm is corrupt. Has been since its inception.
It is patently obvious that there are commands given in the NC that prohibit sin.
Sin is
lawlessness. There is no accounting for sin apart from the law. The law makes you and I aware of sin. The law is good when used lawfully. I believe I've already covered this terrain.
The fact that the vast majority of these commands come from the OC does not change the fact that the Law of Moses as a whole is no longer binding on the Christian.
And yet the NT apostles constantly applied it to the new covenant Christian in a binding manner, and
you are on record demonstrating that fact by quoting the apostle applying the supposedly annulled law to the new covenant Christians. It can't be had both ways, food4thought. That's not reconciling anything; it's self-contradictory.
If the law was truly annulled in all domains of life then there would be no applying it to the Christian at all anywhere at any time for anything.
But that's not what we see in the epistolary.
So both this op and the theology its based upon need to be rethought, because both are seriously flawed when rendered by whole scripture and reason. It is illogical to claim something is annulled and then apply that which has been annulled.
So you have not understood the "dilemma" between the law's annulment and the requirement to obey it and Dispensationalism is not the only theology that resolves the dilemma.
I have no problem with the "undeniable irrefutable fact" that aspects of the OC are reiterated in the NC... not sure why you think I would have a problem with that.
Because this op states the solution to the seeming dilemma of obedience versus abrogation lies in the Dispensational theology of two-covenant salvation but that is not a solution to the problem.
It is not simply that the OC is reiterated in the NC. That's a red herring. What we are discussing is the "dilemma" between the commands (plural) to obey the law and the teaching the law has been annulled. What we are discussing is the claim Dispensationalism alone solves the seeming dilemma.
I have have resolved the dilemma and done so without appealing to Dsipensationalism and I have shown how Dispensationalism does not actually resolve the dilemma.
That is why I think there are problems (plural) in what I'm reading.
No doubt. I am wondering how you come to the conclusion that this is some kind of earth shattering revelation to me...
Cut the cr@p. At no time did I say anything was an "earth shattering revelation" to anyone. I don't appreciate having words put into my posts I didn't write.
I come to that conclusion because of the scripture-contradicting, the self-contradictory content of the posts, and the factual errors posted. This op asserts the solution to the dilemma is to realize, as Dispensationalism teaches, the law is still binding for the Jew but annulled for the Christian. This op states,
"Dispensationalism explains that this teaching was either, 1) for the Millennial Kingdom, or 2) this teaching was directed only to ethnic Israel. Either way, this teaching of Jesus is not DIRECTLY applicable to the predominantly Gentile church during this dispensation."
That is not the solution to the dilemma of obedience versus annulment because we see obedience to the law taught to the new covenant Christian, not the old covenant Jew, throughout the epistolary. This teaching "we're to obey
the entirety of the Law and prophets, and teach others to do so," is not "directed only to ethnic Israel." The op is incorrect. Dispensationalism does not solve the dilemma. Acts 2 Dispensationalism does not solve the dilemma. Dispensationalism is not the only theology that does resolve the seeming dilemma.
This op is wrong.
And before you post dross like this again you should become more learned about Dispensationalism
and its older more established, more orthodox, more mainstream competitors.
I suggest starting with the Counterpoint Series book. "
Five Views on Law and Gospel," edited by Stanley Gundry. I then recommend reading Lewis Sperry Chafer's book titled, "
Dispensationalism," followed by Kim Riddlebarger's "
A Case for Amillennialism." I am loath to have you read anything about Dispensationalism but if you're going to explore it then at least read one of the best sources. Chafer's book is among the best, if not the best. I do not recommend the Riddlebarger book because I think you should become an amillennialist. I recommend his book because his critique of Dispensationalism is well-mannered and not mean-spirited. It's also fatal to Dispensationalism.
Whatever you do, you should not presume to tell other Christians only one theology solves a problem when you yourself are still learning about that theology and don't know much about its competitors. That's just bad form.