• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Dispensationalism and the New Covenant

Discussion in 'Dispensationalism' started by drstevej, Nov 25, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. drstevej

    drstevej Light Attracts Bugs Staff Member Chaplain Supporter

    +23,588
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Below is the introduction and a link to the entire paper which I wrote in 1979 while a doctoral student at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

    Although written 25 years ago, it does discuss some key issues and provide background to an issue relevant to this forum.

    I do not intend to debate the presentation of the paper on this thread, but welcome comments, critique and discussion.

    =====

    [size=+1]Dispensationalism and the New Covenant[/size]
    Stephen M. Johnson

    Old Testament Biblical Theology -- Dr. O. Palmer Robertson

    Westminster Theological Seminary, 1979 (unpublished)

    Jeremiah 31:31-34 speaks of a future new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," which gives glorious promises. This text is quoted in Romans 11 and both the 8th and 10th chapters of Hebrews. Furthermore, of the thirty three uses of the term diatheke in the New Testament, as many as fifteen are references to a new covenant.[1] Paul calls himself a minister of the new covenant. The wine, or cup of the Lord's Supper is called the blood of the new covenant. Although this is an important biblical theme, as the above suggests. Dispersationalists are not in agreement in their treatment of the idea. It is our purpose to trace the genesis and implications of the various dispensational understandings of the new covenant concept and the purpose of God for ethnic Israel and the Church (or Churches) of the New Testament.

    Before proceeding some things should be noted concerning the distinctives of dispensationalism and the groups we shall consider. Charles Ryrie lists three essentials, sine qua non, of dispensationslism:[2] 1) a distinction between Israel and the Church; 2) a consistent literal hermeneutic; and 3) an ultimately doxological rather than soteriological view of Scripture.[3] In addition, most dispensationalists affirm the "mystery" nature of the church age – the church and its corresponding age was not foreshadowed in the Old Testament, but was revealed in the New Testament especially (or exclusively) through the Apostle Paul. [4]

    In discussing the dispensational views of the new covenant we distinguish three groups. First, we will discuss the views of two "earlier dispensationalists" – John Nelson Darby and C. I. Scofield. Second, we will treat the "moderate dispensationalists" – Lewis Sperry Chafer, John F . Walvoord, and Charles C. Ryrie. Third, we will examine two "ultra dispensationalists" [5] E. W. Bullinger and Charles F. Baker. While these groupings do not reflect all who might display the dispensational banner they are representative of the spectrum of thought on the new covenant. A further refining of the picture is beyond the scope of this paper.



    The Early Dispensationalists

    J. N. Darby (1800-1882), the prolific Plymouth Brethren writer, does not treat our issue at great length, but his few comments do indicate his position. The new covenant of Jeremiah 31, according to Darby, stands in contrast to the old covenant of Moses although both were contracted with ethnic Israel. The full provisions of this new covenant are to be fulfilled in the millennium. [6] The author of Hebrews cites Jeremiah in the 8th chapter only to demonstrate to his Jewish readers that the fact of a second covenant promise shows the first covenant to be both faulty and temporary, thus enjoining them not to rest in the first covenant but rather to look to the Mediator of the new covenant. [7] The church, according to Darby, as a result of her relation to the Mediator of the new covenant, presently enjoys its spiritual, its heavenly blessings and privileges even though it is not formally under the covenant. He says,

    these blessings are now the portion of the children of God; and the whole of our portion now is not in the formal accomplishment of the new covenant with Israel and Judah, but entirely in the heavenlies with Christ, according to the pattern of the then tabernacle with this only added that the veil is rent from the top to bottom.

    It is, then, the annexed circumstances of the covenant with which we have to do, not the formal blessings which in terms have taken the place of the old, though some of them may, in a sense, be accomplished in us. Thus the heavenly and distinct character of the dispensation is most plainly brought out, and we find our place is to be identified with the Mediator, as gone within the veil, not in the blessings which result to Israel in consequence of His title and power to bless in grace therefrom resulting. [8]

    Thus Darby's treatment, while not specifically addressing all of the New Testament passages and problems, provides a rationale for a future, literal Jewish fulfillment of the one new covenant as well as a present, spiritual accrual of benefit for the Church via the Mediator, even though they are not subjects of the covenant. C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), chief editor of the Scofield Reference Bible, treats the new covenant in a fashion somewhat different than Darby. Scofield and those holding a similar position (C. F. Lincoln, and F. W. Grant for example ), [9] like Darby see only one new covenant in Scripture. Scofield's view differs, however, in that he affirms that this covenant has a two fold applications 1) to Israel in the future (i.e. it "secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of Israel."); [10] and 2) to the Church in the present (i.e. it "secures the eternal blessedness... of all who believe.") [11] The distinction between Darby and Scofield in this regard is a fine one, nevertheless, it is an important one for later developments, as we shall see. Suffice it to say at this point that Darby speaks of the Church's relation to the Mediator of the new covenant, Scofield and his followers who treat a wider range of New Testament passages are not hesitant to speak of the Church as having the new covenant itself ministered to them. [12]



    The Moderate Dispensationalists

    The earliest published treatment of the new covenant by Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) in Major Bible Themes, 1926 reflects the view of Scofield. Chafer states,

    The New Covenant guarantees what God proposes to do for men on the ground of the blood of His Son. This may be seen in two aspects (a) that He will save, preserve and present in Heaven conformed to His Son, all who have believed on Christ...(b) The future salvation of Israel is promised under the unconditional New Covenant (Isa. 27:9; Ezek. 37:23; Ro. 11:26, 27). [13]

    A decade later in Dispensationalism Chafer begins to reflect a dual covenant structure. He says,

    No human conditions can be forced into this great declaration of Jehovah's concern for what He will yet do for Israel, nor can it be demonstrated that such promises have ever been fulfilled for Israel, nor that they even remotely apply to the Church.

    When a parallel is drawn between the New Covenant now in force for the Church (Matt. 26:28) and the New Covenant yet to be made for Israel (Jer. 31:31-34), it is found that all that is promised Israel is now vouchsafed to the Church and that the range of blessing for the Chy ch far exceeds the restricted provisions for Israel. [14]

    With the publication of his eight volume Systematic Theology, 1948 the two new covenant structure is clearly set forth. For example, Chafer after speaking of the eighth covenant with Israel – that of Jeremiah 31 – states,

    There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is styled like the proceeding one for Israel a "new covenant." It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two new covenants – one for Israel and one for the Church – are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God's purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church. Israel's covenant is new only because it replaces the Mosaic, but the Church's covenant is new because it introduces that which is God's mysterious and unrelated purpose. [15]

    This two covenant view is followed and expanded by Walvoord and Ryrie. It is Interesting historically to note one key factor in the shift toward a two covenant view – the publication of O.T. Allis' Prophecy and the Church, 1945. Allis in two brief paragraphs argues that Scofield's two fold application, of the one covenant is inconsistent with the "mystery" nature of the Church; he finds Darby's view more consistant. He says,

    This (Darby's view) is consistent Dispensationalism. If the Church is a mystery unknown to the prophets, the new covenant foretold by Jeremiah cannot concern the Church. It must concern Israel. [16]

    The importance of this criticism by Allis for the development of a two covenant view is freely admitted by both Walvoord and Ryrie. Walvoord's article in Biblioteca Sacra (1946) states,

    Dr. Allis has, however, done premillennialism a service in demanding consistency on interpretation of this passage (Hebrews 8). Either the Church fulfills the new covenant with Israel or it does not. While the writer has great respect for the Biblical scholarship of Dr. C. I. Scofield he is inclined to agree with Dr. Allis that Scofield is not clear on this point in his Scofield Reference Bible.

    It is more consistent with the whole premillennial position to hold that the new covenant realized today by the church is different than the new covenant with the house of Israel than to hold that it fulfills it in part. The issue, after all, is whether the church inherits Israel's promises.[17]

    Walvoord and Ryrie accepting the two covenant structure of Chafer proceed to analyze the New Testament passages. They arrive at identical conclusions. [18] The gospel references along with Paul's reference to the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:25) speak of the Church's new covenant. It is this new covenant that Paul ministers (2 Cor. 316). Paul's reference in Romans 11:27, a citation of Jeremiah's prophecy, is to the Jewish new covenant, which is yet to be fulfilled.[19]

    The book of Hebrews, especially chapters 8 and 10 receive more detailed treatment. Walvoord and Ryrie see the epistle as addressed to Jewish people showing the "better" aspects of Christianity, which includes a "better covenant" – the new covenant with the Church. [20] Yet, both admit that Hebrews 8 and 10 make mention of Jeremiah 31 – the new covenant with Israel. This does not present any confusion or difficulty for them. Hebrews 8 cites the Jeremiah passage to show that the old covenant is not eternal. The emphasis of the citation is directed to the word "new" and not on its contents, that is, the contents of the new covenant with Israel.

    Ryrie summarizes,

    Indeed it would follow that the better covenant of Hebrews is that which the Lord Jesus established with the Church, that is, the new covenant with the Church. This means that the writer of the Epistle has referred to both new covenants, and by his reference to the new covenant with Israel. in the quotation from Jeremiah 31 he shows that It has not been annulled. It is important to notice that nowhere does the writer say the new covenant with Israel is fulfilled. Indeed that is the reason for the lack of appeal to the content of the covenant.[21]

    The Hebrews 10 passage is treated similarly. Ryrie states,

    The argument here is that the sacrifice of Christ supersedes the sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant, and the appeal to the new covenant with Israel is to show that the Old Testament Scriptures promised that sins would be remembered no more. The passage does not state that the new covenant with Israel is identical with the new covenant with the church or that it is fulfilled by the Church. [22]

    In summary, the moderate dispensational view initiated by Chafer and reinforced by Walvoord and Ryrie presents two distinct new covenants, both based on the blood of the same Mediator. While this position is that of the first two presidents of Dallas Theological Seminary (Chafer 1924-1952 and Walvoord 1952-present) as well as the current chairman of Dallas' systematic theology department (Ryrie) it is not an official position of the school, whose confession of faith makes no mention of the new covenant.

    <SNIP>
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. johnd

    johnd Well-Known Member

    +376
    Messianic
    Married
    The New Covenant is with Judah and Israel

    Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

    John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
     
  3. I would like some views on this about the House of Judah being "abolished" under Christ.

    The NC appears to be with Israel only , not with the House of Judah, which included the muderous/corrupt priestly tribe of Levi, which was condemned in Malachi 2[and still are].
    Jesus appears to have become the new "Judah/High priest" I believe. It will be hard for priests to serve in a temple with a curse/dung on them today, and with no heritage, that means the jews[of judah] are "landless" untill they come under the NC of the Blood of the CROSS I believe.
    I also believe most if not all the bible was fulfilled in the first century[including revelation]. God bless.

    Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

    The sin of Judah might refer to the future crucifixion of God's Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and King, don' really know for sure:eek:

    Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of Judah [is] written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, 2 While their children remember Their altars and their wooden images By the green trees on the high hills. 3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, [And] your high places of sin within all your borders.3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, [And] your high places of sin within all your borders. 4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger [which] shall burn forever."

    Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take [it] to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. 3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread dung on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

    luke 21:22 "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.
     
  4. Terral

    Terral Senior Member

    +34
    Christian
    Steve:

    We have been living through the same ‘evil age’ (Gal. 1:4) since Genesis 1:2, which shall continue to the judgment of Revelation 20:11-15. There is no mention at all of any ‘church age’ in Scripture, but this is a concocted doctrine of men. At the very best we are currently living within a ‘time’ that was not seen by any of the OT prophets in which the members of the ‘body of Christ’ are being brought to maturity. Eph. 4:11-15. We shall then take the places of judgment (1Cor. 6:2+3) being vacated by the evil rulers of this current age who are ‘passing away’ (1Cor. 2:6).

    Paul is seen ‘preaching the kingdom’ (Acts 20:25) and the ‘gospel of the grace of God’ (Acts 20:24) for the building of the ‘bride’ (John 3:29) and the ‘body’ (Eph. 5:30). The Corinthian Church contained members of both administrations and therefore has some ‘new covenant’ language. We should be mindful of the fact of Paul’s words concerning the Lord’s Supper.


    We can agree right here that the “New Covenant” has everything to do with the Kingdom church under Peter’s ‘apostleship to the circumcised’ (Gal. 2:7) based in Jerusalem. That represents the ‘bride’ (John 3:29) of Prophecy (Hosea 2:19+20) to whom the New Covenant is being given. They were being and shall again be gathered through the offering of the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 4:23, 24:14, etc.), according to the ‘early and late rains’ of James 5:7. The early rain gathering occurred during the time of the Four Gospels and Acts, while the late rains shall occur when Elijah comes to restore all things (Matt. 17:10+11). Our current ‘mystery’ time for the building of the 'body of Christ' is being accomplished during in our days today.

    Why not simply present the truth of what the Bible says about the “new covenant,” and make the applications to ‘the kingdom church’ accordingly? The biggest problem dispensationalists have today is unlearning the man-made doctrines of these dead guys they have been following. The fact that the world has so many different kinds of dispensationalists should tell you that only one can possibly be correct about any one topic, and perhaps they are all wrong. The right interpretation is the one that says what God is saying without creating any contradictions in the Text.

    Above you mentioned “the Church (or Churches) of the New Testament,” but your words here seem to recognize only one. That could prove to be the fatal flaw in your work as a whole. The ‘church’ of Matthew 16:16-19 (18:17) is the one being gathered according to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 9:35, etc.). The ‘church’ of Eph. 5:30-32 is under the ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2) given to the Apostle Paul for us Gentiles. Prophecy could see those among Israel being called out to become a ‘kingdom of priests’ (Ex. 19:6). None of the prophets saw our ‘mystery church’ (Eph. 5:32) of the Pauline Epistles. The meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 15) represents coming together of the prophetic bride (under Peter and James) with the mystery body (under Paul and Barnabas). The New Covenant has everything to do with the ‘church’ (Matt. 16) under Peter, but nothing to do with the ‘church’ (Eph. 5) under Paul. The reasoning will become more obvious as we proceed.

    First off, Chafer has missed the mark in connecting our ‘church’ of Eph. 5:32 with anything happening in Matthew 26. The mystery ‘His Body’ (Col. 1:24) church of today did not begin, until after Acts 9 with the conversion of the Apostle Paul. While the ‘New Covenant’ has everything to do with the ‘bride’ (John 3:29) church of Matthew 26, it is NOTHING to do with our church in the world today. The New Covenant has not yet been made with Israel, because God has yet to begin restoring the Kingdom of God here on earth. He shall do so with the members of ‘that’ restored kingdom. Any attempt to pass on the promises of the New Covenant to our church today is an exercise in futility. The New Covenant has everything to do with Israel and Judah (Heb. 8:8), and nothing to do with a Gentile dominant ‘body of Christ.’ The ‘two new covenant’ interpretation is man’s invention and based upon nothing in Scripture.

    Amen. However, this is just half of the reason that the New Covenant has no application to the mystery church in the world today.

    Again, this ‘two new covenant’ interpretation is not according to anything written in Scripture. Both the Old and New Covenants have everything to do with Israel and Judah (Heb. 8:8) and nothing at all to do with our mystery church in the world today. The Lord God has promised to betroth Israel to Himself (Hosea 2:19+20), and Christ’s “Last Supper” was performed with Israel in mind, as it was performed with Jews only and according to Mosaic Law. Lev. 23:5, Luke 22:8. We should keep in mind that Christ was sent only to Israel during the Four Gospels (Matt. 15:24). Those obedient shall participate in the marriage supper of the Lamb of Revelation 19:5-10, as they shall be joined to the Lamb through the promises God has placed upon Himself through the offering of this New Covenant. Again, those are the people who are obedient to the very end (Matt. 24:13), according to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) of the coming restored Kingdom of God on earth.

    The members of the ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) have participated with Christ through His death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3+4) to be ‘baptized into Christ’ and ‘clothed with Christ.’ Gal. 3:27. The New Covenant has nothing to do with us, because we are members of the body of the “Lamb,” and our lives are hidden with Christ in God even now. Col. 3:1-4. Those who believe we need some kind of promise from God for a future joining to Christ have not begun to understand what it means to be a member of “Christ’s body” (1Cor. 12:27), and to be seated in the heavenly places “in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6) already as a finished product. We are ‘sons of God’ right now this instant (Rom. 8:14+19), and have been ‘sealed’ (Eph. 1:13) like a letter for the ‘day of redemption.’ Eph. 4:30. There is no covenant that God is going to make with Israel and Judah that will add to or take away from the relationship we now have with God as His sons.

    In Christ,

    Terral
     
  5. Laserman

    Laserman Member

    166
    +9
    Christian
    Guys,

    "And if are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and Heirs to the COVENANT". Classical and Hyper Dispensationalist are just so wrong. Paul is right, Isreal is the church, the church today is the true Israel God is interested in. The Kingdom offer is the salvation of your soul, not a useless piece of earth . That kingdom was only a type, a picture of the new Heaven's abd the new earth.

    Barry
     
  6. Terral

    Terral Senior Member

    +34
    Christian
    Hi Barry:

    Where did you get that from Barry? Scripture says:

    The New Covenant has everything to do with the house of Israel and Judah. Heb. 8:8. We are members of the ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) even now.

    You come here and make one bad quote of Scripture, and are ready to begin drawing conclusions? Please . . . I am not an Dispensationalist, BTW, as any of the members here will affirm. If you see anything errant in my post above, or any on this website, please ‘quote me’ and point out my errors to all. Your position appears to mirror that of a Replacement Theology interpretation, which is also ‘just so wrong.’

    No sir. The mystery ‘church’ (Eph. 5:32) of the Pauline Epistles is referred to as “Christ’s body” 1Cor. 12:27) or “His body

    Paul refers to “Israel” many times in the third person.


    God shall still fulfill all of His promises to Israel in the coming Kingdom of God on earth. Elijah is still coming to restore all things. Matt. 17:10+11. The ‘tabernacle of David’ shall be restored and rebuilt (Acts 15:16-18), just like the Scriptures say. Today we are living in the time that the mystery ‘body of Christ’ is being formed and made mature (Eph. 4:11-14). The coming Kingdom of God on earth is when the prophetic ‘bride’ (John 3:29) will be formed under Elijah the ‘prophet’ of Acts 3:19-26. Our church today has not replaced Israel, but God has simply put the Prophetic program on the back burner. There is still a ton of Prophecy to be fulfilled, before we head into the new heavens and new earth of Rev. 21:1+.

    In Christ,

    Terral
     
  7. A Brethren IN CHRIST

    A Brethren IN CHRIST Well-Known Member

    +24
    Christian
    when Israel was God's focus Gentiles were nothing eph 2:11-12

    and Now that revealed a mystery in eph 3:3-4 which is eph 3:6

    In Galations 3:28 there is no Gentile or Jew in the Church

    Yet a future promise that God gave King David that He would reign during the 1000 yr Kingdom where they are majority Jews....

    By claiming Jewish promises sounds like the church of Smyrna

    Rev 2:9b the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.....

    better rethink that
     
  8. themuzicman

    themuzicman Senior Member

    +13
    Non-Denom
    US-Republican
    Paul actually tells us where the prophets refer to the church in the OT. He quotes Hosea 2:23 in Romans 9.

    What is interesting is that this is a prophecy of restoration for Israel, but it includes a promise of no more war (v18), and of a time when Israel will not worship Idols.

    The former hasn't happened, yet, but the latter has.

    And, if you read the rest of the exilic prophets, there are two distinct covenants spoken of. You can tell the difference by whether they mention land, or not. Jeremiah talks about writing His law on their hearts, which was not the old Covenant.

    (Now, I assume that dispies don't practice communion, since the wine is the "New Covenant in my blood" as Christ said, and Paul repeats, right?)

    So, we come to Romans 9:

    [verse] 23 And [He did so] in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 [even] us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.[/verse]
    Notice that Paul has been talking about covenants, and that participants in the New Covenant are both Jews and Gentiles.

    [verse] 25 As He says also in Hosea, "I will call those who were not My people, 'My people,' And her who was not beloved, 'beloved.'" 26 "And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, 'you are not My people,' There they shall be called sons of the living God."[/verse]
    The cite of Hosea, here, showing that its meaning referred those in the New Covenant who were not in the Old

    [verse] 27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly. " 29 And just as Isaiah foretold, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, We would have become as Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah. the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at [that] law. 32 Why? Because [they did] not [pursue it] by faith, but as though [it were] by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."[/verse]
    Notice that Israel in pursuing the law were not pursuing righteousness by faith!

    [verse]10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for [their] salvation. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.[/verse]
    (Keep in mind that chapters aren't inspired.)

    Notice verse 4: Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Both Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ no longer need to follow the law (Just as Paul discussed in Chapter 6!)

    If Christ is the end of the law, how, then, are Jews at some point to believe in Christ, and still have to follow the law?

    The fact is that we all are a part of the same New Covenant, and we are the ones called "God's people" who were not His people.

    Michael
     
  9. A Brethren IN CHRIST

    A Brethren IN CHRIST Well-Known Member

    +24
    Christian
    colossians 3:5........ covetousness which is idolatry:

    so this has passed interesting

    who was the law written too? ex.34:27 the jews

    what are we ?.... gentiles eph 2:11-12

    romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void and the promise made none effect.

    Jews .... looking for their king
    church ....looking for husband

    different relationship going on!
     
  10. themuzicman

    themuzicman Senior Member

    +13
    Non-Denom
    US-Republican
    However, the Jews were to come OUT of the law, and into the NEW COVENANT (Romans 9), where both jews and Gentiles would come in.



    Again, Romans 9.

    This applies to jews AND Gentiles.

    God calls Israel his bride, as well. The Husband/Wife analogy is actually quite similar between OT and NT, and the relationship very much the same.

    Michael
     
  11. JM

    JM pre·des·ti·nar·i·an Supporter

    +2,205
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    If the N.C. is with the Jew, why does Paul say we are the 'spiritual jew?' Why are we referred to as a Jew at all if we are not ingrafted into Israel?

    Peace

    SP
    PS: I've come to hold both Dispensationalism and Covenant theology in contempt, both have problems and with this forum maybe I can get them back in proper light. Thanks.
     
  12. LamorakDesGalis

    LamorakDesGalis Well-Known Member

    +212
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    drstevej,
    I enjoyed reading your post, and appreciate the link to your entire paper with footnotes. Although written some time ago, the basic positions you outlined on the new covenant are still those held by dispensationalists today. John Master (like Darby) argued for one new covenant applied only to Israel. John McGahey (like Scofield did earlier) argued for one new covenant with an "already-but not yet" type of fulfillment. Charles Ryrie argued for two new covenants today, although a note in the Ryrie Study Bible indicates one, not two. Walvoord appears to have changed his views in a 1990s article and argued for one new covenant instead of two as he did in the 1950s.
    All progressive dispensationalists take the one covenant view with an "already-but not yet" fulfillment. Unlike traditional dispensationalists who view the present dispensation as a parenthesis or "intercalation", progressives view the present dispensation as a crucial link (i.e., progression) between past and future dispensations. The new covenant is essentially that link: it has been inaugurated, aspects are being fulfilled and yet the final and complete fulfillment (i.e., land promises) are yet future.


    Lamorak Des Galis
     
  13. A Brethren IN CHRIST

    A Brethren IN CHRIST Well-Known Member

    +24
    Christian
    verse please
    romans somewhere. i think
     
  14. I agree with you and JND
     

  15. The spiritual Jew is a part of believing Israel.
     
  16. JM

    JM pre·des·ti·nar·i·an Supporter

    +2,205
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    I've been roaming with our brothers and sisters in the Reformed Church, I've confussed myself on issues that were once clear...so I've put down Berkhof's works for the time being.

    Thx
     
  17. A Brethren IN CHRIST

    A Brethren IN CHRIST Well-Known Member

    +24
    Christian
    verse please

    rev 2:9 warning
     
  18. drstevej

    drstevej Light Attracts Bugs Staff Member Chaplain Supporter

    +23,588
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Interesting post, thanks.
     
  19. drstevej

    drstevej Light Attracts Bugs Staff Member Chaplain Supporter

    +23,588
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    bump
     
  20. JM

    JM pre·des·ti·nar·i·an Supporter

    +2,205
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    Sorry for not responding I honestly didn't see it until this thread was bumped.

    :pray:

    Romans 2:9.

    More background...

    Abraham’s justification was used by Paul in Romans 4 to illustrate God’s pattern for saving all believers in all ages, from Gen. 12 to Rev. we find the story of Abraham’s seed in the world...Christ came into this world "to show mercy to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, the oath He swore to our father Abraham." (Luke 1:72,73 ) and the Gospel is the fulfillment of the Covenant made with Abraham.

    Galatians 3:7 = all who have faith are Abraham’s children, we are blessed with Abraham v.9 because of this faith and Christ died so this blessing might come onto the gentiles v. 14.

    Abraham experienced the justification of faith in the promise of the Gospel (Gal. 3:6-9, 18 ), we experience the same justification because we are Abraham’s true seed (Gal. 3:29 ). The idea of historic redemption is related to “Abraham and his seed,” only Christ is found in both the Old and New Testaments linking salvation to the seed. Both Reformed Covenantalism and Dispensationalism make the physical children the heirs of the covenant. In Gal. 3:16 Paul argues for ‘seed’ and not ‘seeds’ and that one seed is Christ. “If our theological view holds that the "promise to Abraham and his seed" (singular) involves either the Jews and their physical children or Christian parents and their children, then we are contradicting Paul's statement in Gal 3:16

    Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

    If we apply Gal. 3:16 to Christian parents [as paedobaptists do] or Jews [as dispey's do], it voids Paul’s argument, and contradicts the promise to the seed of Abraham because it has nothing to do with physical birth…but faith. True faith and not birthright determined and still determines salvation. The work of the Holy Ghost [AV reading [​IMG] ] in election [by Grace] is the only way one can access the promise made by Abraham (Romans 9:11, 23-24; Hebrews 6:13-15).

    Believers are now heirs to the promise!

    jm
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...