No covenanters allowed: A Question for Dispensationalists

[Benefactor]

A number of post to follow will lend supprot to the dispensational view and the exposure of the error of Amillennial theology.


Definition of Dispensationalism

“To summarize: Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His household world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations. The understanding of God's differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.” Charles Ryrie

It is time to turn the table upon the head of the anti dispensationalist.

Their posting is not to defend their view but to tear down the Biblical View.

Have you ever heard them define their view?

When you believe in something so strongly you brag about it and talk about it and teach it.

Have any of you noticed that the A-millennial crowd can't even teach their own view. I doubt they know what they believe. A-millennial is more of being anti everything just for the sake of contention and argument.

The A-millennial crowd can’t defend their view so they look to destroy the correct view. They turn prophecy into exaggerated illustrations and fanciful interpretations of wishful thinking.

The A-millennial crowd can’t defend their view so they look to destroy the correct view which is dispensationalism.

Someone has said that these anti bible people cut out as much as 1/3 of the bible to avoid prophecy. Other ways of avoiding the truth is to turn prophecy into exaggerated illustrations and fanciful interpretations of wishful thinking.

Those that have no offence to fight for must rely on a defense by distraction, redefining of concepts, words, meanings, etc. The A-millennial view is the worst for not following the context and do not understand genre of literature. They are the foremost is language and form violators.

 

[Benefactor]

“The real problem I have with the amillennial position is that it changes the true meaning of hundreds of unfulfilled prophetic passages. Much of the plan of God for the immediate future is done away with and is not taught. Much of the amillennial Church appears to be sleeping instead of reaping the harvest with the catalyst of an imminent return of Christ.”

Don King, http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/amillennial.HTM, 3-1-09


[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]II. The Error of Amillennialism [/FONT]was born out of Roman Catholic theology that:[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]
1) Augustine taught that the Kingdom is the church which is reigning on earth now.
2) Augustine taught that the millennium is to be interpreted spiritually as fulfilled in the
church.
3) Augustine taught that the binding of Satan occurred during Christ’s earthly
ministry.(Luke 10:18)
4) Augustine taught that the first resurrection is the new birth of a believer. (John 5:25).
5) Augustine believed in a literal 1000 year millennium between Christ’s first and
second comings. Since Christ did not return around 1000AD, modern Amillennialists
think that 1000 years is a symbolic reference to the time between Christ’s first and
second comings.

[FONT=Arial,Bold]VIII. Doctrinal Errors of Amillennialism:[/FONT]
1) Amillennial spiritualising of scripture tacitly denies the verbal, plenary, inspiration of
scripture.
2) Amillennials ignore the exact meaning of words such as “a thousand years”.
If God inspired the words of scripture, then we must accept their common meaning.
3) Amillennials ignore the near and remote context of scriptures which demand a
premillennial interpretation. Every scripture must be interpreted in conformity with all
other parts of scripture.
4) Amillennialists have not yet produced an outlined system of Amillennialism that they all
agree on.
5) Amillennials accept a literal interpretation for most of the Bible, but in eschatology they
resort to spiritualization. They hence use 2 different and contradictory principles of
interpretation.
6) Amillennials allegorical or spiritualising methods of interpretation did not spring from
piety, but from Origen (185-254AD), who borrowed it from the heathen theories of
Plato.
7) It is sometimes correct to say that Israel typifies the church as premillennials rightly do,
but it is wrong for amillennials to teach that Israel is the church. Figurative language
does not negate literal interpretation.
8) Fulfilled prophecy forms the pattern in interpreting unfulfilled prophecy. Since fulfilled
prophecy has come true literally, so will unfulfilled prophecy come true literally.
9) Amillennials using allegorical interpretation of prophecy disagree with and discredit
each other.
10) Amillennial, allegorical interpretation favours modernism. It is almost impossible to find
a Premillennial Modernist, but most modernist protestantism is amillennial. Hence,
amillennial allegorism is a step towards modernism.
11) Amillennial allegorism leaves large portions of Scripture unexplained. It cannot explain
many scriptures, such as Zechariah 14, Ezekiel 37-39. All prophetic scriptures are
easily explained by the premillennial literal interpretation approach.
12) Amillenialism fails to understand Daniel’s 70 Week Prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27). If these
490 years were fulfilled literally, so will the future 1000 year millennium be fulfilled
literally.
[/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]
Red, Blue and Underline emphasis mine, Benefactor

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]53[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]. THE MILLENNIUM or RULE OF CHRIST ON EARTH: WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE; http://users.bigpond.net.au/answers/answers/53.pdf; 3,1,2009,[/FONT]

 

[Benefactor]

By Cohen G. Reckart, Pastor

"For amillenarians admittedly do not believe in any such millennium.[Cox p 2]" "AWhat do millenarians believe? ...they believe there will be no millennium. [Cox p.3]"

Amillenarians are the greatest magicians of spiritualizing Scripture found anywhere in any sect except among Jewish Cabalist. They admit that they use two methods of interpretation: 1.) Spiritualizing, known among the occults as mysticism. Those who believe this method think they have the keys to de-code hidden or secret interpretations and; 2.) They use literal interpretation, when it suits their purpose to avoid what would otherwise expose their methods as error. They will use either spiritualizing or literal interpretation to their own purpose, which ever seems to approve or give credence to their Augustine Egyptian theories and ideas. This is typical in Catholic handling of Scripture. Here is an example of using slippery rhetoric to lead astray those who are not founded in the true Apostolic teachings of the millennial:

Cohen G Reckart; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/752045/posts; 3/1/2009

 

[Benefactor]

http://www.esnips.com/doc/7c65259a-...-OR-A-FALSE-INTERPRETATION-OF-THE-ESCHATOLOGY
by John Walvoord
I personally indorse his views as solid and worth reading extensively

 

[Benefactor]

Anti, Anti
In their presentations of their views, amillennialism and postmillennialism both spend a lot of time explaining why they are opposed to premillennialism, especially dispensational premillennialism. Just as in the early church, so modern amillennialists and postmillennialists always start by setting their views against premillennialism. Yet many premillennial presentations can be found that do not even mention amillennialism and postmillennialism. Why? A positive presentation for premillennialism can be made from the Bible, while amillennialism and postmillennialism cannot.

Thomas Ice, http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/AmillennialismAndPostmillennialism.html ; 3/1/2009

I personally indorse all his writings, Benefactor

 

[Benefactor]

THE ROOTS OF PRETERISM

Preterism had its foundation early in the church age and periodically rears its head by way of postmillennial thought and more recently by way of Reconstructionists who have been pressing their theology through the Presbyterian and Reformed movements as well as vocally through the late John Roushdouny, Y2K' s Gary North and the late David Chilton.

Preterism's theology is so far off the wall that it finds little pulpit support even amongst mainline Protestantism. Thus, it relies on the Internet, study fellowships and the like for expansion. One notable exception is Preterism's subtle incursion into the Reformed and Presbyterian churches. That this occuring is largely due to postmillennial Christian Reconstructionism.

Early scholars such as Origen and Augustine did great damage to the early beliefs of the Church Fathers, the immediate successors of the apostles, by taking extensive liberties in applying Gnostic and Greek philosophy to the interpretation process.

The result was dramatic and had the effect of throwing the world into the Dark Ages and the bible text into confusion with private interpretation by way of spiritualizing or allegorizing certain texts which did not mesh with Origen and Augustine's predetermined beliefs.

Modern day preterism has bought into this misdirection lock, stock and barrel and has amplified it through extensive publishing and Internet activities, soundly denouncing any and all who would dare to question its confused hermeunetics and resultant eschatological views.

Gene Shaparenko; http://www.aquatechnology.net/preterism.html ; 3/1/2009

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

So, have at it. Prove your own assertion that Scripture teaches there were a series of tests for mankind. I am not trying to beat a dead horse here, but apart from importing a dispensational view, I doubt you can demonstrate even that from Scripture. It seems a bit odd to me that I am criticized simply for asking for careful exegesis on the issue at hand.

Does the term Trinity itself appear defined in Scripture, or are the concepts of the Trinity present in Scripture and not the term?

In Covenant Theology - do the covenants of grace and works appear as terms in Scripture, and are these covenants exegetically defined there?

Is there "something more" to these than an explicit exegetical definition? If there is, then Biblewriter's post deserves more than a quick dismissal. Biblewriter's emphasis is also correct - which dispensation in the past has ended well? Will the present dispensation end well? The failure of this is not due to God, but to mankind.

As a historical background:
Back in the 19th century, the predominant view was an optimistic postmillennialism. Dispensationalists such as Brookes used the idea of testing in dispensationalism. In contrast to the optimistic postmil belief that mankind will setup and enter into a golden age before Christ returns, dispensationalists emphasized how mankind has failed God's standards in the past dispensations, and will fail in the present one as well. When the optimistic postmillennial view waned, then the idea of testing likewise was de-emphasized (Ryrie's and Showers' views), and even considered as not important (John Feinberg and Earl Radmacher).


LDG

 

[skullkrusher]

Does the term Trinity itself appear defined in Scripture, or are the concepts of the Trinity present in Scripture and not the term?

In Covenant Theology - do the covenants of grace and works appear as terms in Scripture, and are these covenants exegetically defined there?

Is there "something more" to these than an explicit exegetical definition? If there is, then Biblewriter's post deserves more than a quick dismissal. Biblewriter's emphasis is also correct - which dispensation in the past has ended well? Will the present dispensation end well? The failure of this is not due to God, but to mankind.

As a historical background:
Back in the 19th century, the predominant view was an optimistic postmillennialism. Dispensationalists such as Brookes used the idea of testing in dispensationalism. In contrast to the optimistic postmil belief that mankind will setup and enter into a golden age before Christ returns, dispensationalists emphasized how mankind has failed God's standards in the past dispensations, and will fail in the present one as well. When the optimistic postmillennial view waned, then the idea of testing likewise was de-emphasized (Ryrie's and Showers' views), and even considered as not important (John Feinberg and Earl Radmacher).


LDG

Thanks, LDG. I'm at work, so will have to get to these posts as I can. Seems I've lit a fire here, which could be good, but may not be. I'll try to address a few points during my lunch break, but you (and others) haved raise some valid points of discussion. I would suggest to others users that, if you want to discuss specific eschatological veiws, perhaps we should start a new thread. I am all for it, but would like to focus on the current question (which has morphed from the OP, but seems a good discussion to have).

Back in a bit.

SK

 

[skullkrusher]

Thomas Ice, http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/AmillennialismAndPostmillennialism.html ; 3/1/2009

I personally indorse all his writings, Benefactor

I have never, on this forum or in person, in any way argued in opposition to premillenialism as such -- only dispensational premillenialism. Though I do not hold that view, I have no inherent objection to the classical premil view.

 

[skullkrusher]

Does the term Trinity itself appear defined in Scripture, or are the concepts of the Trinity present in Scripture and not the term?

In Covenant Theology - do the covenants of grace and works appear as terms in Scripture, and are these covenants exegetically defined there?

No, the term Trinity does not appear, nor is it defined, as I have requested we do for dispensation in this thread. Which point I thank you for bringing up, since this is essentially where I was going with this whole issue. Theological discipline, I believe, requires us to stay within the bounds of Scripture. The Westminster standards address this in part by stating that what must be know from scripture is either expressly stated or, by good and necessary consequence, can be inferreed from Scripture. Now, although the WCF is covenantal in its basic makeup, this statement has nothing to do with Covenant Theology -- just good, careful, disciplined work in the theological disciplines. It is my basic view, as I have stated before, that dispensationalism, while certainly having valid aspects, is a system derived from possible inferences, not necessary ones. The definition of the Trinity is not of this same nature, and to use it as you have is a false analogy. I am not, in anyway, trying to deride theological definitions in general, nor dismiss the discipline as so many do.

Lunch is over. I'll pick up your other points later on.

Grace

SK

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Matt 28:17 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name [is singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [yet three persons]

 

[skullkrusher]

Biblewriter's emphasis is also correct - which dispensation in the past has ended well? Will the present dispensation end well? The failure of this is not due to God, but to mankind.

This will take the question into the realm of ecclesiology, which is also where I wanted to go with this. I would submit that the current 'age of the church' is in fact governed by Christ himself in abentia (I only have a few minutes, right now, but will in the near future post a Biblical argument for this position.) To assert that the current dispensation is ultimately doomed to fail, yet that it is 'not God's fault' requires what I would suggest is less than Biblical ecclesiology, Christology, soteriology, and pneumatology.

As a historical background:
Back in the 19th century, the predominant view was an optimistic postmillennialism. Dispensationalists such as Brookes used the idea of testing in dispensationalism. In contrast to the optimistic postmil belief that mankind will setup and enter into a golden age before Christ returns, dispensationalists emphasized how mankind has failed God's standards in the past dispensations, and will fail in the present one as well.

I basically hold to an optimistic postmil view. I have seen it frequently described as you do, but I would suggest this is a mischaracterization, at least to a point. Certainly much of the later optimistic postmils fell into the trap of liberalism in the social gospel movement, but that is to ignore much that went before (several centuries of worth) that did not treat the matter anything like "mankind set[tig] up" the millenial reign -- rather, the Church, under the governance of Christ through the gospel by the Spirit, is the means of advancing the kingdom of Christ. More when I can.

When the optimistic postmillennial view waned, then the idea of testing likewise was de-emphasized (Ryrie's and Showers' views), and even considered as not important (John Feinberg and Earl Radmacher).

I would appreciate a bit more detailed treatment of this aspect of the issue.
LDG[/quote]

 

[skullkrusher]

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world (Kosmos): but now once in the end of the world (Aeon) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

There might be an argument about the beginning of the age but there can be not doubt from these words that the cross of Christ was the end of it. Since it was to Israel only that Jesus Christ appeared and spake, it can be logically deduced that the age of law is what is brought to an end.

Agreed that Law is brought to and end -- I would ask, what else can be inferred from this text? If in fact 'the end of the ages' has come, I would suggest there may be radical implications to this as it relates to the doctrine of the Church. I will be working this up as well. Stay tuned.

Understanding Israel as being always a distinct entity from the nations in the mind of God and that all God’s prophecies must be fulfilled through her will help us understand the dispensations of God as he deals with his creation and brings it about to full salvation.

I mentioned ecclesiology in my previous post as a central aspect of this discussion; I would suggest (will include a Scriptural defense with the coming post mentioned above) that a plain, straightforward and ordinary reading of Paul in Galatians (among others), as well as of Hebrews, would not lead one to assume the absolute distinction dispensationalism requires. The ultimate importance of this issue is that it directly impacts our understanding of the Church, its mission, adn our own spiritual lives.

 

[Benefactor]

Replacement Theology ​

What Are Some of Its Results?​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](1) It teaches an erroneous method of biblical interpretation. It teaches wide use of selective allegory and spiritualization. It teaches that the Bible doesn’t always mean what it appears to say. For example, when it speaks of Israel, sometimes it means literal Israel and sometimes it means the Church. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](2) Because of (1), it teaches people to allegorize virtually any passage, thereby placing the teaching authority with the reader rather than with the Scripture. This is probably worse than having the wrong view of Israel and the Church. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](3) Because of (1), it produces division among believers because there are so many different ways to allegorize or spiritualize a given literal passage. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](4) It gives the Church and present-day believers erroneous expectations about what God has promised in Scripture and what He is doing in the Church today. For example, the idea that obedience will bring material prosperity (blessings) belongs to Israel under certain conditions in their land, not to the Church today (Deuteronomy 11:8-17). [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](5) It produces false expectations in the Church regarding God’s covenants, which belong entirely to literal Israel not to the Church (Romans 9:3-5). [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](6) It produces false expectations in the Church regarding government and politics because the nation of Israel was both religious and political. It confuses the role of the Church today with the role of Israel in the past and in the future, politically. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](7) It produces an anti-Semitic outlook. It teaches that there is nothing special about the Jews, now or in the future. It encourages boasting against the natural branches (Israel) because they have been broken off (Romans 11:17-24). [/FONT]

​

Clark Blanchard; http://www.relationalconcepts.org/Short Topics--printable/Is There a.pdf ; 3/1/2009
[/FONT]

 

[skullkrusher]

Replacement Theology ​

What Are Some of Its Results?​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](1) It teaches an erroneous method of biblical interpretation. It teaches wide use of selective allegory and spiritualization. It teaches that the Bible doesn’t always mean what it appears to say. For example, when it speaks of Israel, sometimes it means literal Israel and sometimes it means the Church. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](2) Because of (1), it teaches people to allegorize virtually any passage, thereby placing the teaching authority with the reader rather than with the Scripture. This is probably worse than having the wrong view of Israel and the Church. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](3) Because of (1), it produces division among believers because there are so many different ways to allegorize or spiritualize a given literal passage. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](4) It gives the Church and present-day believers erroneous expectations about what God has promised in Scripture and what He is doing in the Church today. For example, the idea that obedience will bring material prosperity (blessings) belongs to Israel under certain conditions in their land, not to the Church today (Deuteronomy 11:8-17). [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](5) It produces false expectations in the Church regarding God’s covenants, which belong entirely to literal Israel not to the Church (Romans 9:3-5). [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](6) It produces false expectations in the Church regarding government and politics because the nation of Israel was both religious and political. It confuses the role of the Church today with the role of Israel in the past and in the future, politically. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](7) It produces an anti-Semitic outlook. It teaches that there is nothing special about the Jews, now or in the future. It encourages boasting against the natural branches (Israel) because they have been broken off (Romans 11:17-24). [/FONT]


Clark Blanchard; http://www.relationalconcepts.org/Short%20Topics--printable/Is%20There%20a.pdf ; 3/1/2009
[/FONT]

I will address each of these points in the near future -- for now, I will say that, while Blanchard makes some points that must be carefully taken into consideration by those who hold to a replacement view, his criticisms are largely straw-man arguments. What he describes does not take into consideration more moderate views on replecement, such as that presented by Robertson. As such, this critique largely misses the mark.

Also, in one of your previous posts you referenced Ice on the Theonomy/Christian Reconstruction issue. While you were quite free with associating Reconstructionist views with Presbyterian and Reformed churches, you did not bother to point out the fact that the most substantial critiques of the Theonomic movement came from within the Reformed community itself -- Theonomy: A Refomed Critique was published in 1990 (House and Ice published Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? in 1988; Lindsey produced The Road to Holocaust in 1989). What is most important to point out is the fact that this volume was not one or two theologians gunning for a view they thought off-base; it was essentially the entire factulties of both Westminster (Philadelphia) and Westminster - California. Fifteen scholars working in unison to oppose what they believed (as I do as well) to be a serious error.

For those who may be waiting with baited breath to pounce once I make my post, consider the Romans 11 passage -- v. 26 states "And so all Israel will be saved". What does the word 'so' mean?

 

[Benefactor]

For those who may be waiting with baited breath to pounce once I make my post, consider the Romans 11 passage -- v. 26 states "And so all Israel will be saved". What does the word 'so' mean?

The Verse Once More:

25. For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

The only reasonable and logical way to understand this statement is let it speak for itself in context. Lost Israel is in the plan of God as God's elect nation within all the other activities of his overall plan. The nation Israel is a central player in the unfolding of God's dispensational redemptive plan.

26. and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27. "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

Do not miss the “With THEM” because if “With Them” is not Israel, which it is, then reader must spiritualize or allegorize it to change it to fit their theology.

Following “With Them” is “I take away their sins” which further seals the clarity of these verses.

The words “so all Israel will be saved are directly connected to verse 26 and 27 and these two verses taken in the normal sense as it should be are so very clear.

"SO"

adjective
24.true as stated or reported; conforming with reality or the fact: Say it isn't so

.

Dictionary.com; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/so: 3/2/09



The particular Greek word is "houtoos" and can be used as an adverb or adjective. In this case the definition herein given best explains the manner in which it should be understood. It is being use as an adjective with the adjective “All”. “So” is a helping word married to ALL “So All” which is supported by verses 28 and 29.

"SO" is a point of reality: All Israel will be saved. This statement's antecedent is that lost Israel's heart is partially hardened until all the gentiles that God's has elected into the body of Christ, In Christ, see Eph 1, are complete.

Believers in Christ which constitute the bride of Christ does not exclude salvation on the basis of Christ work as a member of God's elected eternal family, but it does exclude them as the unique bride of Christ.

All believers of all ages are saved because of the Grace of God which is the Work of Christ, death burial and resurrection.

Back to "SO". We know that Israel for now is partially hardened, some are saved as some Gentiles are saved and become a part of the Body of Christ, but the lost Jews that make up Israel are a chosen nation that is fulfilling God's purpose which will be realized in the 1K Kingdom.

28. From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of {God's} choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29. for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

The language is so very clear it needs no explanation. It drives many bonkers because it take mounds of theological jargon and endless circular reasoning to divert attention away from a straight forward easy to understand teaching.

To God Be The Glory.

 

[skullkrusher]

I think your understanding of the Greek is a bit off. No 'mounds of theological jargon' need be used to demonstrate the proper grammatical understanding of this word. I'm working on it. Please be patient -- but, people are ready to pounce, so it's all good .

 

[JDS]

The Verse Once More:



The only reasonable and logical way to understand this statement is let it speak for itself in context. Lost Israel is in the plan of God as God's elect nation within all the other activities of his overall plan. The nation Israel is a central player in the unfolding of God's dispensational redemptive plan.



Do not miss the “With THEM” because if “With Them” is not Israel, which it is, then reader must spiritualize or allegorize it to change it to fit their theology.

Following “With Them” is “I take away their sins” which further seals the clarity of these verses.

The words “so all Israel will be saved are directly connected to verse 26 and 27 and these two verses taken in the normal sense as it should be are so very clear.

"SO"
.

Dictionary.com; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/so: 3/2/09



The particular Greek word is "houtoos" and can be used as an adverb or adjective. In this case the definition herein given best explains the manner in which it should be understood. It is being use as an adjective with the adjective “All”. “So” is a helping word married to ALL “So All” which is supported by verses 28 and 29.

"SO" is a point of reality: All Israel will be saved. This statement's antecedent is that lost Israel's heart is partially hardened until all the gentiles that God's has elected into the body of Christ, In Christ, see Eph 1, are complete.

Believers in Christ which constitute the bride of Christ does not exclude salvation on the basis of Christ work as a member of God's elected eternal family, but it does exclude them as the unique bride of Christ.

All believers of all ages are saved because of the Grace of God which is the Work of Christ, death burial and resurrection.

Back to "SO". We know that Israel for now is partially hardened, some are saved as some Gentiles are saved and become a part of the Body of Christ, but the lost Jews that make up Israel are a chosen nation that is fulfilling God's purpose which will be realized in the 1K Kingdom.



The language is so very clear it needs no explanation. It drives many bonkers because it take mounds of theological jargon and endless circular reasoning to divert attention away from a straight forward easy to understand teaching.

To God Be The Glory.

Amen! The all that ends this
partial blindness of Israel is to contrast what the chapter began with, the remnant. This future event will mark the end of the remnant doctrine of Israel and from here on through eternity, all Israel will be saved. We must look to other scriptures to find out how God will manage to save all israel and when we do, we find out it is by killing those who refuse his rule. He will do this through the tribulation judgment, referred to over and over in the prophets and by the NT as the day of the Lord judgment and by his personal judgment in the time interim between his coming in glory and the inauguation of his kingdom ,see Mt 25, at the marriage supper of the Lamb. John the Baptist referred to this purging as the baptism of fire and the prophets call it a refining fire. It was typified by the 3 hebrew children in the furnace under the Babylonians.

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

He baptized them with the Holy Ghost in Acts 2. He will baptize them with fire very soon.

 

[skullkrusher]

Any dissenters within the camp? I don't want to overlook any particular interpretation, so do all the variant forms of dispensationalism essentialy treat this passage the same way?

 

[JDS]

Any dissenters within the camp? I don't want to overlook any particular interpretation, so do all the variant forms of dispensationalism essentialy treat this passage the same way?

I would like to know how you treat it? So far you have had all the questions and we have provided all the answers. Do you allegorize the words of God?