Can a just God be a dispensationalist?

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I have already given you the answer. The promises of the Lord to Israel was Jesus Christ. He fulfilled all the hopes Israel had as a nation. He was their glory and their hope (Lk 2:32, Acts 28:20). What you fail to see is that the promises of God depended on their response of faith, for without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6).

You also forget that Israel lived under the old covenant which was conditional at heart. For the most part, Israel refused to believe God at His word and at the end, they killed the promise that God had given to them (Jesus). Jesus was the God of Israel who gave Himself to them.

I think we have gone through this too long. I'm stopping here.

Have a good day,

View attachment 263142
You are using your interpretation of the meanings of a relatively small number of scriptures, that never actually say what you claim they mean, as an excuse to deny the explicit statements of a very much larger number of other scriptures.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Danoh
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,851
194
✟27,525.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The scriptures clearly show a very distinct difference between how God related to mankind before and after the fall in the garden of Eden.
No, they don't.

The scriptures clearly show a very distinct difference between how God related to mankind before and after the flood of Noah.
No, they don't.

The scriptures clearly show a very distinct difference between how God related to mankind before and after God called Abraham.
No, they don't.

The scriptures clearly show a very distinct difference between how God related to mankind before and after the law was given through Moses.
No, they don't.

The scriptures clearly show a very distinct difference between how God related to mankind before and after the cross.
No, they don't.

The scriptures clearly show a very clear difference between how God will relate to mankind before and after He comes in power and glory to judge the world for its wickedness.
No, they don't.

Dispensationalists see dispensations in the bible that aren't there. When people see things that aren't there they call that hallucinating.
 
Upvote 0

thomas15

Be Thou my vision
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2019
206
67
65
Lehighton
✟57,685.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Dispensationalists see dispensations in the bible that aren't there. When people see things that aren't there they call that hallucinating.

I have read several full sized books on covenant theology and none that I have in my collection can show even the slightest Biblical evidence for the "covenant of redemption" that they think was made between the Godhead in the beginning. Some attempt to prove the covenants of works and grace with slightly better success but still fail to prove it. All of them are completely successful in ignoring the actual covenant details (Sinatic, Abrahamic, Davidic and New). Great lengths to avoid the obvious and that is that Jehovah deals with different groups of people with differing sets of circumstances in different times. Even the most energetic covenant theologians will concede 2 or 3 dispensations.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,833
1,311
sg
✟216,930.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, they don't.

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

Dispensationalists see dispensations in the bible that aren't there. When people see things that aren't there they call that hallucinating.

Do you still come to God in prayer, making sure you sacrificed a lamb before that, just in case he might decide to strike you down in your sins?

Are you aware that people had to do that in the past?
 
Upvote 0

thomas15

Be Thou my vision
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2019
206
67
65
Lehighton
✟57,685.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As a review, the OP question we are supposed to be debating is "Can a just God be a dispensationalist?"

A better question to ask is "Can a just God break his unconditional promises, given to one specific group of people, and give it to another group of people?"
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
No, they don't.

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

No, they don't.

Dispensationalists see dispensations in the bible that aren't there. When people see things that aren't there they call that hallucinating.
Denying everything changes nothing. It only demonstrates either your ignoraance or your stubbornness, or both.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Guojing
Upvote 0

William Lefranc

Active Member
Aug 4, 2019
140
34
53
Wyoming
✟22,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have read several full sized books on covenant theology and none that I have in my collection can show even the slightest Biblical evidence for the "covenant of redemption" that they think was made between the Godhead in the beginning. Some attempt to prove the covenants of works and grace with slightly better success but still fail to prove it. All of them are completely successful in ignoring the actual covenant details (Sinatic, Abrahamic, Davidic and New). Great lengths to avoid the obvious and that is that Jehovah deals with different groups of people with differing sets of circumstances in different times. Even the most energetic covenant theologians will concede 2 or 3 dispensations.

What you are saying is absolutely not true. God has always had one people who believed in Him and obeyed Him: One people means one people, not two or three. Even those who were at one time called His chosen people, were judged because they rejected His word. One example is the people who refused to cross the Jordan into the Promised Land. God cut them off and not one of them was able to enter 40 years later. As a matter of fact, the rebels died in the wilderness (Num. 26:65; Deut. 1:35-36).

In the NT God dealt with the Jews through Christ the Lord. Those who rejected Him died in Jerusalem in the Jewish wars A.D. 66-70. The Jews that believed in Christ received their inheritance and entered into life. The same thing with us who have believed in Christ. No difference.

Ephesians 4:4–6 (NASB95)
4 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

By the way, "God is covenant" and does not relate to anyone without covenants. So either you are in covenant with God through Christ or you are outside of it. There is no middle term.

JESUS PLUS NOTHING.jpg



 
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If dispensationalism is true, isn't God being a giant jerk?
Seriously? Do you think that you could do better than God? Such an attitude is nothing more than the claypot finding fault with the master potter.
Because there is nothing objective in scripture showing the dispensations that dispensationalists believe in.
Said by someone who doesn't understand the theology of dispensation.
No one who understands it and sees how it works has any criticism against it.
You're just making them up as you go along. They're very arbitrary. So if your interpretation actually turns out to be true, wouldn't it just point to God being unjust?
Without dispensations the people interpret any scripture irregardless of a timeframe built into each verse that deals with a particular timeframe.

In other words. Without dispensation. People just make things up as they go along. Which is why those people think that God is arbitrary. Which is why they come up with the idea that God is unjust.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Guojing
Upvote 0

thomas15

Be Thou my vision
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2019
206
67
65
Lehighton
✟57,685.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What you are saying is absolutely not true. God has always had one people who believed in Him and obeyed Him: One people means one people, not two or three. Even those who were at one time called His chosen people, were judged because they rejected His word. One example is the people who refused to cross the Jordan into the Promised Land. God cut them off and not one of them was able to enter 40 years later. As a matter of fact, the rebels died in the wilderness (Num. 26:65; Deut. 1:35-36).

In the NT God dealt with the Jews through Christ the Lord. Those who rejected Him died in Jerusalem in the Jewish wars A.D. 66-70. The Jews that believed in Christ received their inheritance and entered into life. The same thing with us who have believed in Christ. No difference.


Do you think by saying this over and over by force of will you make it true? Is this the Gary Burge school of winning the argument?

As a dispensationalist I have the Word of God on my side. No one reading the Bible would ever in a million years come to the conclusion you have. It is simply not possible.

For your reading pleasure:
"For Jacob My servant's sake, And Israel My elect, I have even called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me. " Isaiah 45:4
 
Upvote 0

William Lefranc

Active Member
Aug 4, 2019
140
34
53
Wyoming
✟22,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Seriously? Do you think that you could do better than God? Such an attitude is nothing more than the claypot finding fault with the master potter.
Said by someone who doesn't understand the theology of dispensation.
No one who understands it and sees how it works has any criticism against it.

Without dispensations the people interpret any scripture irregardless of a timeframe built into each verse that deals with a particular timeframe.

In other words. Without dispensation. People just make things up as they go along. Which is why those people think that God is arbitrary. Which is why they come up with the idea that God is unjust.

Dispensations are man-made from beginning to end. It is the dispensationalists that have made up things that are unbiblical, like the so-called "Millennium", "the tribulation", the separation of old covenant Israel and God's people in Jesus Christ who makes up the new covenant congregation.

The Bible is about covenants, not dispensations.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Dispensations are man-made from beginning to end. It is the dispensationalists that have made up things that are unbiblical, like the so-called "Millennium", "the tribulation", the separation of old covenant Israel and God's people in Jesus Christ who makes up the new covenant congregation.

The Bible is about covenants, not dispensations.
When you deny that in the future there will indeed be a physical kingdom on this earth, with the physical nation of Israel restored to its ancient homeland, you are denying a very large number of explicitly stated scriptures. And when you deny that this kingdom will last 1000 years, you are denying something the Bible explicitly says SIX TIMES over.

So YOU are the one who is making up things that are unbiblical.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: fwGod
Upvote 0

thomas15

Be Thou my vision
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2019
206
67
65
Lehighton
✟57,685.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28

... that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Luke 22:30

...To this promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. Acts 26:7
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Many people imagine that the many scriptural promises of a future restoration of Israel, both to her ancient homeland and to her God, are contained only in the Old Testament and no longer apply. But it is not only the Old Testament that declares that Israel will eventually be restored. The New Testament also teaches this, both in the direct words of our Lord himself, and in the words of the Holy Spirit, given through the Apostles. We read, for instance, that Jesus said:

“37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Matthew 23:37-39)

And:

“34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Luke 13:34-35)

We need to notice what was addressed here. These words were not addressed to the individuals standing around. Nor were they addressed to the priests that had rejected Him. Nor to the Pharisees and Sadducees. They were addressed, and specifically addressed, to a city, Jerusalem. Jesus said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!” (And in both passages, the wording of this sentence is identical.) The fact that Jesus accused Jerusalem of killing “the prophets” and of stoning “those who are sent to her,” Jesus was unquestionably addressing the city of Jerusalem in a multi-generational sense.

Why is this important? Because Jesus did not say that Jerusalem would see Him no more “unless” they said “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” He said it would see Him no more “till” or “until” until it said this. The Greek word translated “till” in Matthew 23:39 is the same one translated “until” in Luke 13:35. This is the Greek word “heos” (word number 2193 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary.) In the KJV, this Greek word is translated “till” 39 times, “until” 25 times, “unto” 27 times, and “to” 16 times. This Greek word does not imply that the event referred to “might” happen. It implies that the event “will” eventually happen. This is not interpretation. It is the basic meaning of the Greek word used in these two scriptures. So Jesus was unquestionably saying that there was a time coming, in which this wicked and rebellious city would finally say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (And again, in this sentence as well, the wording of both of these passages is identical.)

So from these two passages alone, we know that there will be a day when Jerusalem will say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” This would be plain even if no other passage spoke of it. But that is not all we see in these passages. We also see, in the words of our Lord Jesus himself, that although Israel is now rejected, that rejection is only temporary, and will end when they finally say “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Many people imagine that the many scriptural promises of a future restoration of Israel, both to her ancient homeland and to her God, are contained only in the Old Testament and no longer apply. But it is not only the Old Testament that declares that Israel will eventually be restored. The New Testament also teaches this, both in the direct words of our Lord himself, and in the words of the Holy Spirit, given through the Apostles. We read, for instance, that Jesus said:

“37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Matthew 23:37-39)

And:

“34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Luke 13:34-35)

We need to notice what was addressed here. These words were not addressed to the individuals standing around. Nor were they addressed to the priests that had rejected Him. Nor to the Pharisees and Sadducees. They were addressed, and specifically addressed, to a city, Jerusalem. Jesus said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!” (And in both passages, the wording of this sentence is identical.) The fact that Jesus accused Jerusalem of killing “the prophets” and of stoning “those who are sent to her,” Jesus was unquestionably addressing the city of Jerusalem in a multi-generational sense.

Why is this important? Because Jesus did not say that Jerusalem would see Him no more “unless” they said “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” He said it would see Him no more “till” or “until” until it said this. The Greek word translated “till” in Matthew 23:39 is the same one translated “until” in Luke 13:35. This is the Greek word “heos” (word number 2193 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary.) In the KJV, this Greek word is translated “till” 39 times, “until” 25 times, “unto” 27 times, and “to” 16 times. This Greek word does not imply that the event referred to “might” happen. It implies that the event “will” eventually happen. This is not interpretation. It is the basic meaning of the Greek word used in these two scriptures. So Jesus was unquestionably saying that there was a time coming, in which this wicked and rebellious city would finally say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (And again, in this sentence as well, the wording of both of these passages is identical.)

So from these two passages alone, we know that there will be a day when Jerusalem will say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” This would be plain even if no other passage spoke of it. But that is not all we see in these passages. We also see, in the words of our Lord Jesus himself, that although Israel is now rejected, that rejection is only temporary, and will end when they finally say “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”

Again, we read:

“24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24)

And:

“25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” (Romans 11:25)

Again, the Greek word translated “until” in these two passages is also the same. But for these two passages, the Greek word is “achri.” (word number 891 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary) In the KJV, this word is translated “until” 16 times, “unto” 13 times, “till” 6 times, and “even to” 2 times. (It is also translated “while” 2 times, but only if accompanied by the Greek word “hos,” word number 3739 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary, which means “who,” “which,” “what,” or “that.”)

But again, we need to notice the subject of these two pronouncements. The first pronouncement is, as in the first two passages we noticed, about the city of Jerusalem. Now some want to pretend that the words, “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,” refer to the events of A.D.70, when the Romans sacked Jerusalem. There can be zero doubt that the entire preceding part of this paragraph referred to this time. For it says:

“20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles.” (Luke 21:20-24a)

But we need to notice that the time specified by the words “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” does not end at the fall of Jerusalem. Instead of ending at that time, it begins at that time, running forward to an undefined later time. (I speak here only of the specific wording of this sentence. For the ending of that time is indeed specified, and clearly specified, in other scriptures.) So again this statement, which speaks of the city of Jerusalem over a period of time that is not defined in this passage, is again speaking of that city in a multi-generational sense.

But what of the second of the two pronouncements we are currently discussing? In Romans 11:25 we read that “blindness in part has happened to Israel.” Now many want to insist that in the New Testament, “Israel” means “the church.” But this passage is clearly not saying that “blindness in part” has happened to “the church.” Such an idea would be contrary to many other scriptures, such as John 16:13, where we read, “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth.” So this passage is clearly speaking of the physical nation of Israel.

This is indeed made crystal clear when the entirety of this very long passage is considered. For it begins three chapters earlier by clearly speaking of Paul’s “brethren,” his “countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.” (Romans 9:3-4a) So this pronouncement is very unquestionably about the nation of Israel. And it unquestionably speaks of a judicial “ blindness” inflicted upon that ancient and evil nation. But that “blindness”is is only “in part,” and this “blindness” is unquestionably temporary. For rather than being permanent, it is only “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” And this word “until” clearly speaks of a time when that judicial blindness will end. It could hardly be more obvious that this time has not yet come, for the vast bulk of that nation remains partially blinded to spiritual truth, even to the present day. But when “the fullness of the Gentiles has come in,” that judicially inflicted blindness will come to an end.

When Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25 are examined together, it becomes obvious that they both refer to the same time, that is, that the time when “the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,” or the time when “the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” So we see that both of these passages say, in one case, that “Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles,” or, in the other case, “Israel” is inflicted with a judicial “blindness,” until that time. And that time is when “the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,” or when “the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”

Both of the two Greek words translated “till” or “until” in these four passages, clearly indicate a temporary condition, that will have a distinctive ending. Their difference is that “heos,” which is used in Matthew 23:39 and Luke 13:35, stresses that the condition described will continue until the time is reached, while “achri,” which is used in Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25, stresses that the condition described will end at a specific time.

So now we have seen four different places in the New Testament, all of which clearly show that the current rejection of Israel is only temporary, and that it will end at a specific time, which is still future even now, nearly two thousand years since these pronouncements were made.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
But now we need to go back and re-consider the last of these four passages we have noticed.

“25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” (Romans 11:25)

For this passage continues as follows:

“26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’ 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:26-29)

The context of this entire passage, Romans 11:25-29, existing as it does in immediate connection with verse 25, highlights its unified message. The judicial “blindness” inflicted upon Israel is only temporary, “and so all Israel will be saved.” “For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” Between these statements we read that even though “they are enemies for your sakes,” they yet remain “beloved for the sake of the fathers.” That is, this passage is not speaking of that portion of Israel that has come to faith in Crist, but of that portion of that ancient and rebellious nation that have rejected the message of the gospel. This is the context of both the statement that “all Israel will be saved” and the statement that “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” This message is stated so clearly that nothing but prejudice can keep a person from understanding it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
This is also stated in Romans 9, where we read:

“25 As He says also in Hosea: ‘I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.’ ‘26 And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, “You are not My people,” There they shall be called sons of the living God.’ ” (Romans 9:25-26)

In the very place “where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.” That is the context given by the Holy Spirit himself, speaking through the Apostle Paul, for the words “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.”

Now we are not told exactly where Hosea was standing when God told him, “Call his name Lo-Ammi, For you are not My people, And I will not be your God.” (Hosea 1:9) But as he was a prophet of Judah, this would have been said somewhere in Judea, the country now called Israel. So here, in Romans 9:25, which is a quotation from Hosea 1:10, the Holy Spirit clearly said that there was a day coming when, within the physical borders of the modern nation of Israel, the people of Israel “shall be called sons of the living God.”

But this brings us back to the beginnings of this ninth chapter of Romans, where we read:

“1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.” (Romans 9:1-5)
We noticed earlier that this passage clearly defines the people under discussion as Paul’s “brethren,” his “countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.” Thus, there can be zero question that the people group under discussion is the individuals that made up the fleshly nation of Israel. There is absolutely no way this can be rationally “spiritualized” to mean “the church.” Yet this same people group remains the subject throughout these entire three chapters, for we read of them again in chapter eleven, that, “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” (Romans 11:28)

So this entire three chapter section (Romans 9-11) is about the fleshly nation of Israel, who were “enemies” “concerning the gospel.” That is, the people under discussion had not accepted the gospel, and were on their way to a lost eternity. But, even though tthey were “enemies,” yet they were still “beloved for the sake of the fathers.” And then comes a stunning declaration, which is the death forever for the claim that god has permanently rejected Israel. “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29)

We need to notice that the context of this declaration that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” is the fact that Paul’s “brethren,” his “countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites,” are “enemies” “concerning the gospel.” Yet they “are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”
 
  • Winner
Reactions: fwGod
Upvote 0

thomas15

Be Thou my vision
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2019
206
67
65
Lehighton
✟57,685.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Those that consider themselves champions of covenant theology for all practical purposes make the covenants an essential part of their personal faith.

At first glance this might seem like a good thing. However, take a look at how they take the actual covenants mentioned in the Bible and chop them up, redefine them so that the actual terms and conditions don't mean what the Bible intended. It is an unwarranted redefinition designed to achieve their goal of trying to make the Bible teach their theology and belief system instead of changing their system to agree with the Bible.

It is unwarranted because it is not necessary to believe you are in a covenant with Jehovah, as defined by those reformed thinkers, to claim salvation by belief in the risen Jesus based on His shed blood on the cross as sufficient payment for sin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
We are not only explicitly told of the temporary nature of Israel’s rejection, we are also told the reason for this. And again, the words are too plain to misunderstand, unless they are approached by a prejudiced mind. God did not reject Israel in condemnation, but to provoke them to jealousy. This is not a tactic of someone who has stopped loving someone and turned to another. It is a tactic of someone who is still in love, and who is working to win back the love of whoever had spurned their love. So we read:

“19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: ‘I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.’ ” (Romans 10:19)

And again we read:

“11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Romans 11:11-15)

So God has not only clearly told us that the reason for Israel’s rejection is only to woo them back to himself. He has just as clearly told us that when he has accomplished that purpose, the result of Israel’s restoration will not mean a loss of blessing to the gentiles, but rather, as it were, a very revival of “life from the dead.”

And we need to notice that this eventual restoration of Israel is not stated here as a new revelation, but rather referred to as a well established fact. The Holy Spirit does not say, “if they are revived, it will be life from the dead,” but “what will their acceptance be but life from the dead.” That is, the Christian’s prior knowledge of this acceptance is simply assumed in this scripture.

And why would this knowledge of Israel’s eventual acceptance be simply assumed here? Because it had already been stated, and explicitly stated, in too many places to count.

A great many of these explicit statements that God will indeed accomplish this purpose of winning back their hearts are in the Old Testament. So they are outside of the subject matter of this discussion. But concerning these very many Old Testament statements about this, we need to notice what Jesus said concerning the rich man and Lazarus:

“29Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ” (Luke 16:29-31)

So the scriptures warn us that we are responsible to heed the words of “Moses and the prophets.” And in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit clearly refers to these Old Testament prophecies, saying, “19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:19-21)

This future period is here called two things. It is first called “times of refreshing” and then called “the times of restoration of all things.” The Greek word here translated “of refreshing” is “anapsuxeos,” (word number 403 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary,) which properly means a “recovery of breath,” and thus figuratively means “revival.” And the Greek word translated “of restoration” is “apokatastaseos,” (word number 605 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary,) which means “reconstitution.” What we need to realize from this, is that neither of these words means, or even implies, a time of judgment. Both of these words mean a restoration, not a time of destruction. That is, the Holy Spirit, here quoting Peter through Luke, is specifically saying that there is a time coming when all things will be restored, and then explicitly says that this is the time of “which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.”

So here we have a NEW TESTAMENT statement, made after the new covenant was ALREADY in force, that the things “which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” are still in the future, and will still happen. That is, these MANY promises still apply. These are the promises which, as we previously saw in Romans 9:3-4, still “pertain” to Paul’s “brethren,” his “countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.”
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Site Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,935
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
And finally, there is one more New Testament scripture that mentions this future restoration of Israel.
“27Then Peter answered and said to Him, ‘See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?’ 28So Jesus said to them, ‘Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’ ” (Matthew 19:27-28)

The Greek word here translated “regeneration” is “paliggenesia.” (word number 3824 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary) In the Greek this is a compound word made by connecting the Greek word “palin,” (word number 3825 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary,) which means “once more,” and the Greek word “genesis,” (word number1078 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary,) which means “nativity,” or “birth.” So once again, this word clearly speaks of a time of restoration, not a time of destruction. But in this time the twelve Apostles “will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Thus we clearly read, in the New Testament, of a future rebirth, in which the twelve apostles will judge “the twelve tribes of Israel.” Not just Judah, but all twelve tribes, just as repeatedly promised in the Old Testament.

So in conclusion, there is simply no rational escape from the fact that, not just the Old Testament, but also the New Testament, clearly and repeatedly states that there is a time coming in the future, in which the ancient nation of Israel will be restored.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: thomas15
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Danoh

Newbie
Oct 11, 2011
3,064
310
✟40,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Many people imagine that the many scriptural promises of a future restoration of Israel, both to her ancient homeland and to her God, are contained only in the Old Testament and no longer apply. But it is not only the Old Testament that declares that Israel will eventually be restored. The New Testament also teaches this, both in the direct words of our Lord himself, and in the words of the Holy Spirit, given through the Apostles. We read, for instance, that Jesus said:

“37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Matthew 23:37-39)

And:

“34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Luke 13:34-35)

We need to notice what was addressed here. These words were not addressed to the individuals standing around. Nor were they addressed to the priests that had rejected Him. Nor to the Pharisees and Sadducees. They were addressed, and specifically addressed, to a city, Jerusalem. Jesus said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!” (And in both passages, the wording of this sentence is identical.) The fact that Jesus accused Jerusalem of killing “the prophets” and of stoning “those who are sent to her,” Jesus was unquestionably addressing the city of Jerusalem in a multi-generational sense.

Why is this important? Because Jesus did not say that Jerusalem would see Him no more “unless” they said “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” He said it would see Him no more “till” or “until” until it said this. The Greek word translated “till” in Matthew 23:39 is the same one translated “until” in Luke 13:35. This is the Greek word “heos” (word number 2193 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary.) In the KJV, this Greek word is translated “till” 39 times, “until” 25 times, “unto” 27 times, and “to” 16 times. This Greek word does not imply that the event referred to “might” happen. It implies that the event “will” eventually happen. This is not interpretation. It is the basic meaning of the Greek word used in these two scriptures. So Jesus was unquestionably saying that there was a time coming, in which this wicked and rebellious city would finally say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (And again, in this sentence as well, the wording of both of these passages is identical.)

So from these two passages alone, we know that there will be a day when Jerusalem will say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” This would be plain even if no other passage spoke of it. But that is not all we see in these passages. We also see, in the words of our Lord Jesus himself, that although Israel is now rejected, that rejection is only temporary, and will end when they finally say “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”

The Land Promise is found throughout the NT.

Always thought a thread on the Land Promise from a Dispensational perspective would make a great thread.

Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. 28:13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 28:15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. 28:16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. 28:17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Yep, the Land Promise is there in the NT.

Just a matter of Acts 17:11.
 
Upvote 0