Question to Calvinists

[Covenant Heart]

The promise was ALWAYS for ALL who believe–as the Lord called (Act 2:39)! It was not through law that Abraham received the promise, but through the righteousness of faith! For those who trusted the law, faith had no value; the promise was worthless to them (Rom 4:13-14)! They were NOT true children. They did not receive election–even if they WERE children PHYSICALLY! It was ALWAYS the case that men were made right with God by FAITH in his promise–just as Abraham! This fact did not begin at Pentecost because from the time of Abel, it was ALWAYS the case that we were made right by FAITH. Pentecost did not change that. What Pentecost changed is the fact that this message of God’s ONE plan of salvation was made KNOWN, that it was SENT to and PROCLAIMED IN all nations!

Now, God has not cast off his people. But Abraham’s carnal offspring (the many who hardened), never were Abraham’s true sons–or God’s! But the elect–the spiritual offspring within Israel (Rom 11:6-8)–it was to THEM that the promise came BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED God!

Dortar, you write: “the church was a temporary side ADDITION of His grace to others that were NOT Israeli. Thus God is transferring, temporarily, the elective benefits to this group of Gentiles called the church who will gather the elect for the rapture so that God may deal accordingly with His chosen, and in the end, the bride will be wed to the groom. Thus putting a final close to the story of Israel.”

God is transferring elective benefits to no one–nor has the promise changed. For “God's gifts and his call can never be withdrawn” (Rom 11:29). In the history of redemption, the Jewish people are highly privileged. “Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs,” and from them Christ was born (Rom 9:4-5). But it was NEVER that they were saved because they were Jews!

Never!

Were people saved prior to Abraham? Absolutely! Abel was one and God was pleased with him (Gen 4:4)! Enoch was another. God took him before death. He was approved as one who pleased God (Heb 11:5)! Ditto for Noah (Heb 11:7). Were they the only ones? No. They are cited as representative cases of all who believe (Heb 11:6).

If the gospel was proclaimed in paradise, if men called upon the Lord, if they were reckoned as righteous in his sight for faith in the promise of him to come (though they did not know his name), then they are the Church! They ARE the elect of God! Jesus said, “Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad” (Joh 8:56)

The patriarchs looked ahead to Christ as we look back. God’s election DID come to them for they were and they are IN CHRIST!

OT salvation is profoundly problematic for dispensationalism! IF OT saints were saved by faith in Christ–THEN they are elect IN Christ and are members of his body, the church–as the reformed faith ever says! But IF they are in Christ (and therefore in the Church) then that church MUST have existed ALL ALONG! And IF the church always was, the
the dispensational “temporary parenthesis” idea is dead in the water!

But then, if OT saints were saved APART from faith in Christ–HOW can we maintain the uniqueness of salvation by faith IN CHRIST? IF there is salvation for some OUTSIDE the body of which Christ is the head, HOW can we say that ELECTION and FAITH are the ONLY way to God? How can we NOT accept works-righteousness for some?

OT saints were saved graciously by election and faith OR NOT.

IF it was by faith–then they are in the church.
If there was no church–then it was by works.

So what do we believe about salvation? Exactly what is the gospel?

The fact is–from the time of Abel, all who are saved are saved by faith in God! So in reformed faith, there is no “transfer” of benefits. Instead, it is because of Christ that we are now graciously INCLUDED in what God has done from the very beginning! The word is not “transferred” but “included.” And how does all this work? Watch!

I want you to read carefully what the Westminster Confession of Faith says of this. This is longer than the Heidelberger, but is well worth the read. It shows the value of knowing our confessional tradition. It shows that this interpretation is not an aberrant position but is what reformed scholars, teachers, theologians, preachers and people have always believed. And lastly, I could not improve on this explanation.

See also how the issues of grace, election and imputed righteousness flow into the doctrine of the church. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7 on “God’s Covenant with man.” I quote paragraphs 3-6:

3. “Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life [“total inability”]...the Lord was pleased to make [what is] commonly called the covenant of grace. In it, he freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ. He required of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promised [covenanted] to give unto all those that are ordained [“election”] unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing [“effectual calling”] and able to believe.”

4. “This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.”

5. “This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel. Under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come. For that time [they were] sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.”

6. “Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, in [these ordinances] is held forth more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles. This is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.”

Notice that one covenant of grace applies from the fall to this very day. There are not two covenants which differ in substance, but one and the same covenant–which is administered differently at different times. The fact that there is ONE covenant means that there is but ONE redemptive body in which salvation is found–the church.

The differences in administration are spelled out in paragraphs 5 and 6.

ONCE, the covenant was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews which signified beforehand the Christ who was to come.

NOW the covenant is administered by the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper–which signify Christ who HAS come–and is coming again!

BUT AT ALL TIMES, the same covenant is at work–meaning the same election, the same promise, the same faith, and the same object of faith. The Lord sat down with his disciples for the Passover meal–and rose up from the table of the Lord! Just as Passover gave way to the Lord’s Table, so circumcision gave way to a new, bloodless mark of our identification as the people of God–baptism. Christ himself is the substance and fulfillment of all the types and ordinances that came through the prophets. He came and they passed away.

It is BECAUSE there is but ONE redemptive body (the church) in all ages that all (Jew and Gentile) receive the blessedness of election.

Again, my dear, dear Drotar–“if you are Christ’s, you ARE Abraham's seed–heir and inheritor to the promise” (Gal 3:29). THAT is how he becomes the father of nations– “father of all who believe” (Rom 4:16).

Abraham is Drotar’s spiritual father. Drotar is Abraham’s spiritual son. THAT is how God’s election, grace and call came to that dearly loved child of God’s eye–Drotar. Since reformed people at all times confess that there is but one body (church) from the beginning of the world, I tell you again. Drotar is spiritual Israel? Drotar is Abraham’s true son. Drotar is the apple of God’s eye. Oh sure–I know that Drotar is feeling a little dispensational identity crisis just now. But that will pass...

Paul said that believers in Christ are:

“The children of God” (Rom 8:16)
“The household of God” (Eph 2:19).
“The children of Abraham” (Gal 3:7).
“Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:29).
“The children of promise” (Rom 9:8; Gal 4:28).
“A people of his own” (*** 2;14).
“The elect of God” (Col 3:12).
“Heirs of God” (Rom 8:17).
“Heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).
“The temple of God” (1Co 3:16).
“The circumcision” (Phi 3:3).
“The Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).

Peter said that believers in Christ are:

“A chosen generation” (1Pe 2:9).
“A royal priesthood” (1Pe 2:9).
“An holy nation” (1Pe 2:9).
“A peculiar people” (1Pe 2:9).

James said that believers in Christ are:

“Heirs of the kingdom” (Jas 2:5).

John said that believers in Christ are:

“The sons of God” (Joh 1:12).
“Kings and priests to God” (Rev 1:6).
“The new Jerusalem” (Rev 3:12).
“The holy city” (Rev 21:2).

The letter to the Hebrews said that believers in Christ are:

“The people of God” (Heb 4:9).
“Mount Zion” (Heb 12:22).
“The city of the living God” (Heb 12:22).
“The heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22).

In the OT, these terms are reserved exclusively for the children of Abraham. Now God uses these terms for believers in Christ–again and again and again and again and again and again. Is it by accident or do you suppose that it just might happen to mean something?

I think that it is time to reconsider our commitment to this theological system of which not one word was said in the history of the church (which is also the history of the world) PRIOR TO 1830. This theological system goes by the name, “Dispensationalism.”

IF the terms that I just listed refer BOTH to Israel AND to the church–what sense can we EVER hope to make of God’s word???

If words are to mean anything, they must refer to ONE OR THE OTHER. THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY refer to BOTH Israel and the church! And the apostles use them to REFER TO US.

And SINCE those words DO refer to us (as the reformed faith always says), HOW can we possibly be so ungrateful as to surrender our rich, spiritual inheritance in Abraham for a lump of dispensational pottage?

Let’s save the temple sacrifices for another time.

Covenant Heart
And remember–Palestine must be freed!
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/factsheet.html

 

[Drotar]

Thank you again for your patience.

Wilikers! That was REALLY deep. I'm sorry, I'm used to deep theology so I shouldn't have been caught off guard, but that is some tough meat.

First, I think there is a misconception about the animal sacrifices. I've been thinking about this. No dispensationalist believes that animal sacrifices EVER had salvific value. Furthermore, we believe that the mode of salvation has always been election. But it's just that we believe that only at the rejection of the Kingdom was this election then instituted to gentiles, those who were NOT God's chosen. MAN I'm glad for that too! I would hate to have not been included.

So here's the thing. Animal sacrifices were simply a foreshadowing pointing looking forward to the death of Christ. It was symbolism pointing forward. Why then cannot animal sacrifices be reinstituted FOR THAT SAME PURPOSE of symbolism, this time pointing backwards in remembrance? If all they are is a symbol of Christ's death, why cannot that symbol take place as a memorial in the future? It is in the Bible right?

Second, I'm glad to see the proto-evangelion in there. Most people don't understand that Gen. 3:15 was the very first gospel presentation, they think it was somewhere else. Anywho, this is my question. Why can't it have worked like this:

God bases His election on His chosen, the nation of Israel. Not all of Israel is saved, only some. Only His chosen of His chosen, if you catch my drift.

Now, at the rejection of the Messiah they had been anticipating for so long, God pretty much tells His chosen to back off and watch the Gentiles now partake of the blessing, until the Jews are ready again. Thus, God gathers His elect of the Gentiles.

Then, when the church is raptured up, God will be ready to bring back the Jews to Messianic Christianity, and the world as we know it will end and the kingdom will start. The church will have been adopted, grafted in if you will, to the original blueprint plan of salvation meant exclusively for His chosen of Israel.

Why can't it have occured like that? That Israel received elective benefits, were saved by faith in the Messiah to come, fell away thus allowing the church to be an addition of grace which also receives blessings of election?

Third, if the church was started at the Garden and onward, was Israel the church? For a time being until Pentecost? Or am I seeing this wrong?

Yep, you nailed me with that one. I was just thinking that thought. I guess that's the problem with our view of Israel and the church. Not all of Israel is saved, and those who are saved must be part of the nation AND the elect church. This however means the church existed ever since sin itself entered the world.

Question: Is it possible to believe, consistently, that the Israel IS the church, but only recently gentiles have been included? Not that the church replaced Israel, but that the church has always been around but only recently its included gentiles thus creating a temporary distinction called "the church"? And that this church isn't a replacement, but merely a temporary addition to God's chosen covenant people? I know this isnt dispensationalism, what I'm saying. But the doctrine is new. Maybe I'll try to get my own thing going called "Reformed dispensationalism" LOL! I don't know what I'm saying anymore... Whew! Heavy stuff.

So does replacement theology believe that this "replacement" witht the Gentiles is permanent or temporary? That the promises given to Israel are going to be fulfilled by the literal Israel or not? I need some more info. Thanks!

 

[CCWoody]

If you're Calvinist, you must by necessity be double predestinarian and traducian, in my opinion anyways. To believe in total depravity and especially original sin requires a traducian viewpoint.

Partial-preterist and amill... now that's interesting!

Aw, why stop there? What about dichotomy/ trichotomy? Dispensationalism or no? What about the hypostatic union? And the Lord's Supper? What about church government? TTYL Jesus loves you!

Naw, there are many Calvinists who don't believe in the doctrine of Reprobation. They call themselves single Predestinarian.

And, there is always the Federal Headship view of Original sin.

I'm Dichotomous in veiw. The same Genesis passage which teaches this view, also reveals he Traducian viewpoint. You see, the word translated life is plural.

Definitely not Dispensationalism, though, even in my Covenant view, I concede that there are dispensations.

And, I'll leave you with this: we partial-Preterist Amills have more fun.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Covenant Heart]

Is it possible to believe consistently that Israel IS the church, and that only recently have Gentiles been included? Not that the church replaced Israel, that the church has always been around but only recently included Gentiles thus creating a temporary distinction called “the church.” And that this church isn’t a replacement but merely a temporary addition to God’s chosen covenant people. I know this isn’t dispensationalism…But the doctrine is new.

“Is it possible to believe consistently that Israel IS the church...?

Exactly! Israel is the church in her OT form; this is the same as saying that the church is Israel in her NT form. How cool is that!

Drotar: If you formulated the “Israel IS the church” line that you just articulated, you may have the mind and talent for theological work. I respectfully suggest that you consider doing theological studies.

“...not that the church replaced Israel, that the church has always been around but only recently included Gentiles...”

Yeppers! Eph 2:11-22! And “included,” not “transferred” “replaced” is the word. Some reformed people imply replacement...but in so doing, they (as do dispensatinalists) show that they don’t know the position.

“Replacement” implies the very thing that we DON’T want! If church REPLACES Israel, then Israel is not the church. If one “replaces” the other, they are dichotomous, and there has not been one church.

It is sometimes helpful to think of several “tracks.” Dispensationalists have an “Israel” track and a “church” track. In Dispensationalism, the Israel track gets land and a literal kingdom in an earthly Jerusalem under the rule of Christ on David’s throne. The church gets a heavenly kingdom, a heavenly king and a heavenly inheritance. The two tracks run parallel and really have very little to do with each other. Even in eternity, these two tracks will never meet.

Others say that the church took Israel’s place in the New Testament. When the church track was laid, the Israel track was obliterated. All Israel’s privileges belong to the church. This is why some say that “replacement” theology robs Israel of her blessings while leaving her curses on her own head. But this is the Roman Catholic tradition. That it is NOT the reformed position should be clear from the fact that IF one replaces the other, then the two are still dichotomous!

Reformed tradition focuses on Christ as the One who fulfills the role of Israel (the ONLY TRUE SON of Abraham, the ONLY ONE who always trusted and obeyed our heavenly Father perfectly). In HIM, Israel is restored, and Gentiles are INCORPORATED. Jews reach completion when they know their Messiah, and Gentiles become part of Israel when they believe in Jesus Christ. The track laid by God in choosing Abraham has now become the ONE WAY by which alone ALL NATIONS must be saved (Acts 4:12)!

Again, notice that “the promises spoken to Abraham do not say ‘seeds,’ meaning many, but ‘ to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Gal 3:16). In other words, Jesus Christ IS Israel. This ONE covenant of grace is progressively unfolded through two dispensations (old and new), and Jesus Christ is ALWAYS the mediator!

“...thus creating a temporary distinction called ‘the church.’”

You say, “a temporary addition to God’s chosen covenant people.” I can agree with the “addition,” (even if I prefer “incorporation”), but now–consistency really is an issue! If one church always existed–how can it be a “temporary” arrangement? And if Israel is the church and the church is Israel, how do you remove that church?

I think that what you’re trying to do is to incorporate the church into the Israel while maintaining a separate eschatological programs. That would mean that even though the church is “IN” Israel, it still ISN’T Israel. I couldn’t imagine how this would be. Either they are truly one or they are not and Heb. 11 affirms a COMMON destiny. That seems to preclude the possibility of separate eschatological plans. One church in all ages, or parenthesis–I think you have to choose.

There is a reason that parenthesis theory and OT salvation are likely the most debated issues between reformed and dispensational thinkers!

I find Eph 2 is striking affirmation of what you have said. Read the passage for the contrasts between then and now, between being far removed and being brought near. The contrast is between being strangers, without God and without hope in the world, and being fellow citizens with God’s people, and members of God’s household.

Notice that in Eph 2:20, this household is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets! The ministry of both is exonerated at once! And in him (Christ), the WHOLE building is joined to become ONE holy temple in the Lord, whom God indwells by his Spirit (vs. 21-22)!

Read Eph 2:11-22 repeatedly and ask yourself this question. Is this a picture of the two tracks that dispensationalism teaches? No. Is it the replacement track of Augustinian theology? No. I think that the picture of Christ as the cornerstone that aligns the ministry of the prophets and apostles as the foundation on which the whole temple (Jew and Gentile) is built IS the reformed teaching that I have been presenting.

This is certain–it is hard to imagine a picture more apt to teach this; so if that was not God’s intent, I am at a loss to know why he used it.

In this Eph 2 passage, Paul tells how Christ’s work on the cross broke down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile to make in his body (the church) one new man of both. One very great objection to dispensational theology is that it seems to build up that dividing wall between them and makes it higher and stronger than ever (in the millennial kingdom). Aside from the fact that this seems to be a REGRESSION to an earlier age, we are left wondering how it could be that the work of Christ (that made of the two ONE new man) could be undone. If that is so...perhaps ALL the benefits of salvation in the so-called “church age” might be lost as well...it isn’t comforting.

(I will be out of state for a few days...catch you later...).

Covenant Heart
And remember–Palestine must be freed!
http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html

 

[Drotar]

Darn it! I'm just speaking what's coming on my mind based on logical and Biblical consistensy. Yet what I'm spewing out is unintentionally covenant theology.

Thank you. I DO want to go into theological studies. Actually, it's my lot in life, my purpose I feel to eventually teach at a Seminary, ultimately though to publish theology that's extremely deep, Biblical, apologetic, and above all UNDERSTANDABLE to the layperson. I feel that this whole discussion shouldn't be limited to only seminary students. I think that all people, even high school students my age, have a right and RESPONSIBILITY to know this stuff. I hate having peers my age not even knowing what salvation is, or just basic elementary knowledge. I feel that there are people physically dying in Africa, but you know what, we got bigger problems because there are people SPIRITUALLY dying in America. Christians within the church who are starving themselves. I want to dedicate my life to helping people understand the DEEPER peace and joy that comes from understanding God's sovereign purposes as they come from the Scriptures. I sort of have this juvenile dream of one day having the influence that R. C. Sproul has. Even if I'm just a 3rd grade teacher teaching Christian kids, I'll still be happy serving. Oh well, that's just a little about me... do you engage in theological studies?

OK, I've given this some thought. Here's what I'm thinking.

First, I do NOT want to become a complete covenant theologian at all costs. Then again, I do not think, as I have not for a while, that classic dispensationalism as taught by Chafer is Biblical. Chafer had MANY theological problems. I'm actually willing to humbly admit that dispensationalism as is right now, will not stand. Reforms must be made.

Second, I will hold true to fundamentalist hermeneutics and pre-tribulationism. THAT is what I REALLY feel the Bible teaches. I really feel that eschatology is no different in that that too should be interpreted with a literal-ness. Please forgive my habit of making up words lol.

Third, here's what I've observed. Dispensationalism has its prime emphasis on eschatology. We see the distinction between Israel and the church as important. We see pre-tribulationism as essential. We believe the prophecies made to the literal Israel will be fulfilled by the literal Israel. The pre-tribulation rapture is important because that clears the playing field and makes Israel, once again, the focus of God's attention in Revelation. It's ALL about eschatology. So much so, sadly, that our view of soteriology has suffered. How many TRUE Calvinists are there among us? VERY few. When it comes down to the wire, the guise that many of us are hiding behind is stripped away. Far too many of us hold to a confused view of salvation, HOWEVER we hold to a strong view of eschatology. Really, when we say dispensationalism, we MEAN eschatology.

NOW, the EXACT opposite is true for covenant theologians. The prime emphasis of covenant theology is soteriology, from what I've observed and read thus far. Strong references are made to OT salvation. Sin and salvation stemming from the Garden is an argument used to defend the existence of the church in your view. Postmillennialism is centered on evangelism and regeneration. Covenant theology is ALL ABOUT soteriology. The objections that covenant theologians hold against us are soteriological in nature, for the most part. The weakness, quite contrarily, is eschatology. Postmillennialism... it's just not practical or pragmatic. You'd have to blind yourself intentionally to NOT be observing what's happening in terms of the number of believers in the world. Partial-preterist amillennialism (I would not like to discuss this here though) requires extremely radical hermeneutic principles that I am not willing to take. I believe that if we take Biblical history literally, and the biography of Christ in the NT (present time of the apostles) literally, why should we see eschatology in a spiritualized figurative sense? Why should soteriology be literal, and theology be literal, but eschatology be an exception SOME of the times? The number of different interpretations that people can come up with once we START to try to spiritualize one field of the Bible will stop only at the limits of man's imagination! I believe God is a God of order, and that He does not make symbolic promises. If He says something is going to happen, it WILL happen. Again, please let my comments go because I wish to keep this discussion centralized on the main point.

So here's my question: Dispensationalism's emphasis is eschatological; covenant theology's emphasis is soteriological. Surely a wiser man as learned as yourself will know this. Why then, can the two systems not be HARMONIZED? Like I said, I don't hold to Chaferian dispensationalism, BUT I don't hold to covenant theology EXACTLY.

You see, weaknesses and strengths of each system compliment each other. We could take the orthodox soteriology of covenant theology which I hold to, and the orthodox eschatology of dispensationalism which I also hold to, and bring them together.

One of my goals in the book that I am currently writing is to reform dispensationalism. It's got problems man. I'm not so shallow that I completely miss that. I can see inconsitencies.

5 point Calvinism and pretribulationism mixed with a formed of reformed dispensationalism. That could count for an entire system of its own. Look, I don't want to be some radical theologian, but I really think that I need to do this. Unite the strengths of both systems into one. AND, since their focuses are different, it can be done with no fatal damage being done to either system. A literal interpretation can be maintained, pre-tribulationism can thus hold true, but at the same time, a new understanding of the church in relation to Israel (though closer to dispensationalism than covenant theology), and a hard emphasis on Calvinism.

Have you observed this? That dispensationalists have messed up views of soteriology and strong views of eschatology, while conversely and ironically enough, the EXACT opposite is true for covenant theologians? Have you observed that there are different centers of focus in the systems?

There's no doubt in my MIND that Scripture will support this:

At the point when Adam fell in the Garden and the proto-evangelion was given, and at the point of election, the church was started. HOWEVER, the church, as anyone who knows their Bibles, came BEFORE Israel because the covenant with Abraham didn't happen until further in Genesis.

The nation of Israel was to be the people to whom the church contained. The church came first, and then the nation of Israel came later, God specifically ordaining the people of Israel exclusively to contain the church. This is important because it teaches the distinction of the two, yet the understanding that the church was contained only in Israel.

Later, the nation of Israel would reject their promised King. The person who would be the King of Israel and the head of the church. Meaning if Israel rejected their King, and if the church was contained EXCLUSIVELY within Israel, that there would have been a total apostasy. To prevent such measures, the church which had been contained only in Israel prior, was expaned to Gentiles. It's not that the church was created, but that there was an expansion to include the world. Over time, the church will have been made to include almost ONLY Gentiles. At this time, God will rapture up whomever remains in the church. Since the people whom God promised blessing to are hardly in the church at ALL now, they will be removed so that God may focus on the apostate remant, bringing them to faith and into the church, remembering the promise made to Abraham.

Here's how it works. The church has been around since time began. After the splitting of the tribes, God chose one specifically, NOT TO BECOME THE CHURCH (as CT teaches), but to have contained within them the church. To set aside one holy peoples. Later, at the rejection, this would include all the peoples of the world. Meaning the church hasn't replaced Israel, but only expanded to include Gentiles. It gets to the point that the church is almost universally Gentile and God remembering His covenant (His covenant people are STILL and always will be Israel), He raptures up the church and starts the tribulation. Israel converts to Messianic Judaism, thus becoming part also of the church.

Does it work? It seems as if the totality of Scripture supports election, the distinction between Israel and the church, the maintaining of that covenant with Israel, and also the eternality of the church.

Would you be offended if, after I start and finish all my college and seminary, I would introduce this system? Perhaps it should be called "Reformed dispensationalism". It's got several layers of meaning. Would you be logically or Biblicallly offended? Where am I going wrong in your opinion? TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Drotar]

I mean, you can't say that Israel WAS the church, because they're different essentially.

Israel is a physical nation.

The Church is a spiritual group of believers.

So the distinction should remain, however, you have made a good point that classic dispensationalism is incorrect in teaching that the church began to exist after Pentecost. Following all consistency, it had to have existed even before Israel did. And then when the nations were split at the Tower, God chose one nation under Abraham to be set apart and to contain the church (and His elective purposes). This chosen nation was Israel. Since the nation of Israel EXCLUSIVELY held the church, the church would have ceased to exist at the rejection of Christ. To perpeutate the church, He expanded it to Gentiles as obvious through various verses in the NT speaking of Christ dying for the "world", and brought judgment upon the nation of Israel, but not forgetting His promise and covenant with them. Over time, the church began to consist of almost ALL gentiles. But God has not forgotten His promise to His chosen nation. Therefore, for the seventy weeks in Daniel to be fulfilled to His chosen nation as mentioned before, God will rapture up the Gentile church as revealed in the epistles to Thessalonica, focusing once again, and finally on reuniting the bride with the bridegroom, Christ with the nation of Israel, as it is written in Revelation. After that is done, the world will end and the Millennial Kingdom will begin. Israel has been regathered as the prophets have prophesied. They are facing much hardship; and our message of the grace of God is reaching all nations. Actually, in China and mainland Asia it is estimated that 28,000 are converting in per day. God's working His hand in my homeland, and He is gathering His elect with UNBELIEVABLE quickness, FROM THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. Thus far, Asia has been almost completely absent as a corner of the earth containing Christianity, but God is changing that, and is getting ready to gather the elect from all four corners. The rapture is coming soon. I'm ready. And I don't believe in a secret, quiet rapture. I'm waiting for Him to gather us of the Church but not of His nation up into the clouds into glory. I think He'll appear to the world when it happens. I'm just so anxious for it all to happen. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Drotar]

I'm hoping that you'll respond.

Even though this will bore most people out of their skulls, I'm really quite interested in this. And plus, it's really important that I make sure I'm not missing anything. It's been about 2 weeks now... TTYL Jesus loves you!