Response to Tracy Plessinger Article (part 1)

[TubaFour]

Dispy asked that I read an article and respond to it by pointing out what I thought was unbiblical.

I've quoted it in full and my responses are in blue below.

In II Timothy 2:15 the Apostle Paul gives us the admonitions to "study" and to "rightly divide" the word of truth. As we seek to carry out these admonitions, it is clear that we will need to identify certain starting points in scripture. These starting points (and their corresponding ending points) will allow us to make proper divisions in scripture.

Right from the get go, the author jumps to the conclusion that there must be starting points and ending points (in the plural). Says who but a dispensational thinker? There is a starting POINT: it’s Genesis 1:1 and there’s an ending POINT: Revelation 22:21. She needs to prove from the Scriptures that there are starting points and ending points and that those corrrespond to the ones she puts forth. You can’t just make an unsubstantiated assertion and then go to scripture to find proof for it.

Everyone that has ever opened a Bible knows of the division between the Old Testament and the New Testament. While this division has become the accepted norm for all believers, and it is certainly appropriate to use it by way of accommodation and for uniformity, all true students of the Word must look beyond this simple designation to find God's points of division and get things started right.

Again, same superimposed assumptions. No one in dispensational theology is able to articulate why there are radical divisions and on what basis they make these particular divisions. Dispensationalists just assume these divisions. We can see changes, sure! But on what basis do we then make them radical discontinuities in God’s plan of redemption? God doesn’t tell us to make any particular divisions, nor does He command us to make the dispensational divisions in particular.

I think the more obvious “divisions” (I would rather use the word “distinctions”) are between law and gospel; between the things man is required to do by God, and the good news that God has accomplished what He requires of man. Confusing these two types of scripture leads to some gospel denying doctrines by assuming that since God requires something of man that man is ABLE to accomplish it. Welcome to the world of Arminianism which is rampant in dispensational circles.

The Old Testament

Most of us would probably say that the Old Testament begins in Genesis 1:1. However, on closer examination we see that the Old Testament, or Covenant, is not just a group of books in the Bible. Rather, it is an agreement made between God and the nation Israel, which did not even exist in Genesis 1:1.

False and incomplete. The Old Covenant is understood to be the Mosaic Covenant generally. Nonetheless, the first covenant made in scripture is NOT with Abraham or the Nation of Israel for that matter.

The first covenant made was with Adam, the second was with Adam, and third was with Noah. The fourth through the New Covenant is made with Abraham and his progeny. But that’s another story. Nonetheless, the author doesn’t seem aware of the reason why the word testament is used. It should be called the Old Covenant and the New Covenant not Old and new Testament because the word Covenant in Greek also means testament. Again, these words are not in the text, obviously, they are words man supplied.

The writer of Hebrews tells us that the New Covenant will be made with the same people that the Old Covenant had been made with (more on the New Covenant in the next section). Otherwise, it would not really be a New Covenant, it would be another covenant with a totally different group of people.

Illogical thinking. A new covenant logically can be made with a totally different group of people. The fact that it is called a new covenant does not exclude that it could be made with a totally new different group of people. Again, bad logic. [So far, no scripture citations for any of the foundational propositions made -- none.]

As a side note, if you can’t biblically prove the premises made so far, you’re at least potentially on the wrong course from the very beginning, and once you’re on the wrong course, there’s no telling where you’ll end up.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Hebrews 8:8

Since the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, and it was made with the same people as the Old Covenant, it is clear that the Old Covenant was also made with Israel and Judah.

Well, let’s examine that. It is clear that the new covenant is with the house of Israel and the House of Judah... But, as we’ll see later, it’s no longer exclusively with the Jews. Or if you want to look at it another way, Gentiles participate in the new covenant by God grafting them into the tree which is the elect of all ages, including those of Israel.

The writer of Hebrews also gives us an indication of the content of the Old Covenant. The details of the Old Covenant are found in the commandments and ordinances of the law that God gave to Moses.

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary...Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9:1,10

As I said earlier, the Old Covenant is generally synonymous with the Law of Moses, especially in Hebrews.

As we understand who the Old Covenant was made with-Israel; and what the content of that covenant was-the law; the timing of the covenant becomes very clear. The Law of Moses, and the covenant that it was a part of, were made with the nation Israel in the book of Exodus after God had miraculously delivered them out of the land of Egypt.

Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto children of Israel. Exodus 19:4-6

As Israel kept the law they were keeping their part of a conditional covenant, or agreement, with God. Notice that God uses the word "covenant" in giving Israel the law.

Why is all this important? Why does it matter when the Old Testament began? It is important because understanding where the Old Covenant began helps us understand who it was made with. It was not made with Gentiles, it was not made with all mankind, it was made only with a small group of people, the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

False. The Old Testament is a collection of books. At any rate, Abraham was delcared righteous before God as a gentile. He was not given the sign of circumcision until after he was declared righteous.

Romans 4:

9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

We should not view the Old Testament as simply being all the books of the Bible before Matthew. The Old Testament is a specific agreement made between God and Israel in Exodus 19 that defined and governed their relationship to each other. It would be wrong, and an act of unbelief, for us to take a covenant that was made with the nation Israel and apply it to ourselves. We cannot have a relationship with God based on a covenant that He made with Israel.

The Old Covenant is NOT an agreement. God and Israel were not on equal footing. A Covenant is a bond in blood administered by God, not some sort of equal bargaining agreement. All the terms of the covenant are dictated by God, and not a single recipient of God’s promises/covenants had the right, let alone the ability to refuse.

The New Testament

As we mentioned before, the New Testament, or Covenant, will be made with the same people that the Old Covenant was made with. This is the only way that it can truly be a new covenant.

Again, she repeats a simple fallacy. A new covenant can be with the same people or actually more obviously with new people. If God had a covenant with X and then He has a covenant with Y, the second covenant is as legitimately a new covenant as if it was made with X. This is a matter of simple logic (which is God’s gift to man, so don’t poo poo it). Let’s look at the Scripture and see how that new covenant is applied and understood by the new testament writers. You’ll see that the faulty logic of the writer contradicts God’s word.

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: 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;...Jeremiah 31:31,32a

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13

As we consider this New Covenant it seems reasonable to ask why there even needed to be a new covenant. Was there some problem with the Old Covenant? What could the New Covenant do that the Old Covenant couldn't? To put it simply, the New Covenant was made necessary because of Israel's failure to keep the Old Covenant.

False again. The new covenant was what God promised in Genesis 3:15 in seed form. It’s not something that He had to put in place because Israel failed. The law was never ever meant to save anyone nor did it in fact save anyone.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Hebrews 8:7,8

It is important that we understand that the "them" that God found fault with were not the commandments and ordinances of the law, but the people of Israel. Because Israel could not keep their part of the Old Covenant, there was a need for a New Covenant. The New Covenant is a testimony to God's graciousness to Israel. Israel could not receive blessing based on the Old Covenant because they failed to keep the law. In response to that failure God provided a new Covenant. The New Covenant will do for Israel what the Old Covenant couldn't because it is based on better promises.

OK!!

(cont'd)

 

[TubaFour]

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Hebrews 8:6

Those better promises are better because they are based on better blood-the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ can do what the blood of bulls and goats could not-take away sins. The blood of Christ is essential to the institution of the New Covenant.

OK!

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Hebrews 10:4

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. Hebrews 9:14-16

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28

It is very clear that the New Testament, or Covenant, is based on the blood of Christ. Because this is the case, it is also very clear that the New Testament cannot begin in Matthew 1:1. It cannot begin until the blood of Christ is shed at the very end of the gospel accounts. As we look at Peter's message on the Day of Pentecost, just 50 days after the shedding of that blood, it is no surprise then to see that he was, in fact, introducing the New Covenant to Israel.

Clearly, Israel was Peter's audience on that day.

Ye men of Israel, hear these words;...Acts 2:22a

It is also clear that what Peter offered to Israel was the blessing of the New Covenant. Compare the passages below, one a prophecy of the New Covenant from Ezekiel, the other taken from Luke's account of the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. We have numbered each of four specific promises and printed each in a different font to illustrate the giving of the promise by Ezekiel and the beginning of the fulfillment of that promise in Acts 2.

(1) For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. (2) Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. (3) A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, (4) and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. Ezekiel 36:24-27

(1) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven...(2) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every on of you I the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, (3) and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost...(4) And all that believed were together, and had all things common: And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of heart. Acts 2:5,38,44-46

There can be no doubt that what Ezekiel was speaking of was beginning to come to pass on the Day of Pentecost. Clearly, that day marked the beginning of Israel's New Covenant. It was on that day, after the blood of Christ was shed to ratify it, that Israel's promise of a New Covenant began to be fulfilled.

Generally agree, don’t care to argue about the dates and times of when the new covenant was inaugurated as it isn’t germaine to this discussion.... But, generally I agree.

Again, we must ask the question, Why is all this important? Why does it matter that the Day of Pentecost was the beginning of Israel's New covenant blessings? It is important because understanding where the New Covenant began helps us understand that the Day of Pentecost and the events surrounding it were a part of those New Covenant events. We have already established that the New Covenant was not made with all mankind, it was made only with a small group of people, the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Therefore we can conclude that the events of the Day of Pentecost were also focused on that group of people, not on Gentiles or on the Body of Christ.

This is where she is going to have to prove something she can’t, and that is that there is a break in God’s plan.

The New Testament is not just all the books of the Bible after Malachi. It is a specific agreement made between God and Israel that would govern their relationship and blessings in the kingdom.

Prove it! In fact, she can’t. She can read Jeremiah 31 and conclude from that the New Covenant was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, but when she gets to Hebrews, she’ll strike out. She must acknowledge that Hebrews 9 applies the new covenant to Christ’s present ministry.

That agreement began to be implemented on the Day of Pentecost. It would be wrong, and an act of unbelief, for us to take a covenant that was made with the nation Israel and apply it to ourselves. We cannot have a relationship with God based on a covenant that He made with Israel.

Again, this is completely unbiblical. Just read Romans and you know she’s wrong... Not only that, but Paul, your mid acts dispensationalist apostle to the gentiles claims that he was a minister of the new covenant.

2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The Dispensation of Grace

We have seen that both the Old and New Testaments, or Covenants, deal with the nation Israel and God's relationship to it. Where does that leave us as Gentiles? If God's covenants were made with Israel, how can we, as Gentiles receive salvation and blessing from God? It is not until we come to the writings of the Apostle Paul, and learn of the Church which is the Body of Christ, that we Gentiles come into the picture as having a special relationship to God. In fact, it is the lack of distinction between Jew and Gentile that is the key element in the formation of the Body of Christ.

This is where there’s an utter disregard for scripture. God’s dealing with mankind from Adam to the last man standing has been through covenants. You can’t lift Israel out and single them out as the only people that related to God via a covenant. In fact, God’s covenant with Noah in Gen 6 is a covenant that predates Abraham and Moses and does NOT relate to the nation Israel but relates to ALL mankind.
Going back into history, the Adamic covenant is also made with all mankind. See Gen 1-3.

Moreover, Paul himself teaches that we are redeemed by the blood of Christ which was shed under the Old or Mosaic Covenant for our sakes.


Gal 3:

13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27,28

And that he might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile] unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Ephesians 2:16

The key to the beginning of the Church, the Body of Christ, is not the making of another covenant with Israel (or any other nation for that matter), but the creation of a brand new means of access to God. Access to God is no longer through any specific national group and their covenants, but through a Body of believers that is formed without regard to race, nationality, sex, or any other physical distinction.

Again, there’s not a single scripture that supposes a brand new relationship between God and the Church that isn’t founded upon the apostles and the prophets. In the upper room, Christ inaugurated the new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah.

The church began way before Pentecost.

This if from Louis Berkhof's systematic theology, page 555:

A. Scriptural Names for the Church:

I. In the Old Testament. The Old Testament employs two words to designate the Church, namely qahal (or kahal), derived from an obsolete root of qal or (kal), meaning “to call”; and ‘edhah, from ya’adh, “to appoint” or “to meet or come together at an appointed place.” These two words are sometimes used indiscriminately, but were not, at first, strictly synonymous. ‘Edhah is properly a gathering by appointment, and when applied to Israel, denotes the society itself formed by the children of Israel or their representative heads, whether assembled or not assembled. Qahal, on the other hand, properly denotes the actual meeting together of the people. Consequently we find occasionally the expression qehal ‘edhah, that is “the assembly of the congregation” Ex. 12:6; Num 14:5; Jer26:17. It seems that the actual meeting was sometimes a meeting of the representatives of the people, Deut. 4:10; 18:16, comp. 5:22, 23; I kings 8:1,2,3,5; II Chron. 5:26. ’Edhah is by far the more common word in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Joshua, but is wholly absent from Deuteronomy, and is found but rarely in the later books. Qahal, abounds in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Sunagoge is the usual, almost universal, rendring of the former in the Septuagint, and is also the usual rendering of the latter in the Pentatsuch. In the later books of the Bible, however, qahal is generally rendered by ekklesia. Schuerer claims that later Judaism already pointed to a distinction between sunagoge as a designation of the congregation of Israel as an empirical reality, and ekkelsia as the name of that same congregation ideally considered. He is followed in this by Dr. Bavinck. Cremer-Koegel, however, takes exception to this. Hort says that after the exile the word qahal seems to have combined the shades of meaning belonging to both it and ‘edhah; and that consequently “ekklesia, as the primary greek representative of qahal, would naturally, for Greek-speaking Jews, mean the congregation of Israel quite as much as an assembly of the congregation.”

2. In the New Testament. The New Testament also has two words derived from the Septuagint, namely ekklesia, from ek and kaleo, “to call out,” and sungoge, from sun and ago, meaning “to come or bring together.”


The point of all this is to show that the word ekklesia is not a word that is new or exclusive to the New Testament. Rather, it's a word used of the Old Testament Israelite Church.

That of course doesn't mean that the NT church is identical with the OT church. Many differences exist although mostly in form and not in substance.

Moreover, Ephesians 2 seems to clearly teach that the OT jewish believers were "in Christ." Paul contrasts the gentiles who were "separated from Christ" to the Jewish believers who were by obvious implication not separated from Christ.


“Paul is a minister of a new covenant (2Cor.3:6), the cup in the Lord's Supper represents the new covenant (1Cor.11:25), and the author of Hebrews applies Jeremiah's new covenant passage to Jesus' present ministry for the church (Heb.8). If this represents one new covenant (which I maintain it does), dispensationalism topples since there is no distinction between Israel and the Church.” [David L White.]

(con'td)

 

[TubaFour]

It is in the ministry of the Apostle Paul that we first see this change taking place. It is Paul who tells us that he is the Apostle of the Gentiles. It is Paul who tells us of Israel's blinding and setting aside. It is Paul who tells us that access to God is no longer gained through the nation Israel, but through Jesus Christ and the "one new man" that is His body.

Not true at all. Peter preached to the gentiles. He ate and drank with gentile believers. He ministered to Cornelius and his household. His primary ministry may have been to the israelites, but that doesn’t mean he was excluded from ministering to Gentiles. Moreover, the only change that occured is that the gospel was revealed to the gentiles. That’s it. That’s the mystery Paul talks about. That gentiles would be fellow heirs with Jews grafted into the (exisiting) olive tree, that they would be fellow citizens of the commonwealth of Israel with the (existing and preceding) saints, members of the (existing) household of God...

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:...For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Romans 11:13,25

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Ephesians 2:11-16

It is utterly amazing to me that this text is quoted by dispensationalists for the opposite proposition it stands for. It’s as though they don’t read verse 13 on!! Don’t you see what Paul is saying? Paul is affirming a unity!

Again, I’ll quote David L. White: Those who were formerly excluded from citizenship in Israel, etc. (2:11-12) are now "brought near" (2:13) by the blood of Christ who made of the two (Jew and Gentile) "one new man" (2:15). As a result of Christ's work we are "fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household" (2:19). Paul goes on to discuss his insight into the mystery of Christ, which is "that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus" (3:6). Contrast Paul's statements with this one by John Walvoord, "The Church composed of Jew and Gentile is considered a separate program of God which does not advance nor fulfill any of the promises given to Israel" (Walvoord, p.523).

Paul almost couldn't be any clearer, there is no distinction between [true] Israel and the church; they are the one people of God who share in the promise of God (3:6) which is administered through the covenants (2:12).”

It is with Paul and his ministry that the Church, the Body of Christ began and it is in his epistles (Romans-Philemon) that we find God's instructions to that Body.

Because God is offering salvation and blessing to all today, apart from any covenants, the Bible calls this time period in which we live, the Dispensation of the Grace of God (Ephesians 3:2). God is blessing totally on the basis of his mercy and grace, not because of any agreement he made with any specific group of people.

God is not offering anything apart from Covenants. Period. Listen, Christ died for US under the old covenant. See Gal 3:13-14.

How are my sins forgiven apart from Christ’s blood of the covenant which is shed for me?

Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Paul is a minister of the new covenant. That’s the covenant you and I are under and belong to. That which was prophesied in Jeremiah 31.

1Co11:
4and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Hebrews 7:

22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Hebrews 9:15
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Hebrews 10:29
How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 13:20
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

And still again, we must ask the question, Why is all this important? Why do we need to understand where the Church of this age began? It is important because it helps us to understand that we, as members of the Body of Christ in the Age of Grace, are not a part of Israel's covenants. In contrast to those covenants, we see that the Body of Christ is not limited to a small group of people, the House of Israel and the House of Judah, but it also includes us Gentiles, and all men, without regard to any physical distinction, who, by faith, become a part of the "'one new man". It is also important because understanding where the Church, the Body of Christ, began helps us understand where we should look in the Bible for the instructions that are targeted specifically to us. When we are seeking direction from the Word for our lives we should not be looking at the details of Israel's covenants. We should be looking at the books written specifically to and for the Body of Christ, the epistles of the Apostle Paul.

Start with the wrong premises you’ll arrive at the wrong conclusions.

Blessings,

aL

 

[Dispy]

Part 1

Before I begin my response, I want to give everyone the opportunity to read the ariticle in its entirety in order to get the proper context that Tracy Plessinger is writing. It will be easier to read this way in into seperate little segments.

It is appreciated, by me, that tubaFour took the time to do this.

This article was taken from: http://www.gracealive.us/startedright.html

Let's Get Things Started Right

In II Timothy 2:15 the Apostle Paul gives us the admonitions to "study" and to "rightly divide" the word of truth. As we seek to carry out these admonitions, it is clear that we will need to identify certain starting points in scripture. These starting points (and their corresponding ending points) will allow us to make proper divisions in scripture.

Everyone that has ever opened a Bible knows of the division between the Old Testament and the New Testament. While this division has become the accepted norm for all believers, and it is certainly appropriate to use it by way of accommodation and for uniformity, all true students of the Word must look beyond this simple designation to find God's points of division and get things started right.

The Old Testament

Most of us would probably say that the Old Testament begins in Genesis 1:1. However, on closer examination we see that the Old Testament, or Covenant, is not just a group of books in the Bible. Rather, it is an agreement made between God and the nation Israel, which did not even exist in Genesis 1:1.

The writer of Hebrews tells us that the New Covenant will be made with the same people that the Old Covenant had been made with (more on the New Covenant in the next section). Otherwise, it would not really be a New Covenant, it would be another covenant with a totally different group of people.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Hebrews 8:8

Since the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, and it was made with the same people as the Old Covenant, it is clear that the Old Covenant was also made with Israel and Judah.

The writer of Hebrews also gives us an indication of the content of the Old Covenant. The details of the Old Covenant are found in the commandments and ordinances of the law that God gave to Moses.

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary...Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9:1,10

As we understand who the Old Covenant was made with-Israel; and what the content of that covenant was-the law; the timing of the covenant becomes very clear. The Law of Moses, and the covenant that it was a part of, were made with the nation Israel in the book of Exodus after God had miraculously delivered them out of the land of Egypt.

Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto children of Israel. Exodus 19:4-6

As Israel kept the law they were keeping their part of a conditional covenant, or agreement, with God. Notice that God uses the word "covenant" in giving Israel the law.

Why is all this important? Why does it matter when the Old Testament began? It is important because understanding where the Old Covenant began helps us understand who it was made with. It was not made with Gentiles, it was not made with all mankind, it was made only with a small group of people, the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

We should not view the Old Testament as simply being all the books of the Bible before Matthew. The Old Testament is a specific agreement made between God and Israel in Exodus 19 that defined and governed their relationship to each other. It would be wrong, and an act of unbelief, for us to take a covenant that was made with the nation Israel and apply it to ourselves. We cannot have a relationship with God based on a covenant that He made with Israel.

The New Testament

As we mentioned before, the New Testament, or Covenant, will be made with the same people that the Old Covenant was made with. This is the only way that it can truly be a new covenant.

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: 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;...Jeremiah 31:31,32a

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13

As we consider this New Covenant it seems reasonable to ask why there even needed to be a new covenant. Was there some problem with the Old Covenant? What could the New Covenant do that the Old Covenant couldn't? To put it simply, the New Covenant was made necessary because of Israel's failure to keep the Old Covenant.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Hebrews 8:7,8

It is important that we understand that the "them" that God found fault with were not the commandments and ordinances of the law, but the people of Israel. Because Israel could not keep their part of the Old Covenant, there was a need for a New Covenant. The New Covenant is a testimony to God's graciousness to Israel. Israel could not receive blessing based on the Old Covenant because they failed to keep the law. In response to that failure God provided a new Covenant. The New Covenant will do for Israel what the Old Covenant couldn't because it is based on better promises.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Hebrews 8:6

Those better promises are better because they are based on better blood-the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ can do what the blood of bulls and goats could not-take away sins. The blood of Christ is essential to the institution of the New Covenant.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Hebrews 10:4

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. Hebrews 9:14-16

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28

It is very clear that the New Testament, or Covenant, is based on the blood of Christ. Because this is the case, it is also very clear that the New Testament cannot begin in Matthew 1:1. It cannot begin until the blood of Christ is shed at the very end of the gospel accounts. As we look at Peter's message on the Day of Pentecost, just 50 days after the shedding of that blood, it is no surprise then to see that he was, in fact, introducing the New Covenant to Israel.

Clearly, Israel was Peter's audience on that day.

Ye men of Israel, hear these words;...Acts 2:22a

It is also clear that what Peter offered to Israel was the blessing of the New Covenant. Compare the passages below, one a prophecy of the New Covenant from Ezekiel, the other taken from Luke's account of the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. We have numbered each of four specific promises and printed each in a different font to illustrate the giving of the promise by Ezekiel and the beginning of the fulfillment of that promise in Acts 2.

(1) For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. (2) Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. (3) A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, (4) and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. Ezekiel 36:24-27

(1) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven...(2) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every on of you I the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, (3) and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost...(4) And all that believed were together, and had all things common: And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of heart. Acts 2:5,38,44-46

There can be no doubt that what Ezekiel was speaking of was beginning to come to pass on the Day of Pentecost. Clearly, that day marked the beginning of Israel's New Covenant. It was on that day, after the blood of Christ was shed to ratify it, that Israel's promise of a New Covenant began to be fulfilled.

Again, we must ask the question, Why is all this important? Why does it matter that the Day of Pentecost was the beginning of Israel's New covenant blessings? It is important because understanding where the New Covenant began helps us understand that the Day of Pentecost and the events surrounding it were a part of those New Covenant events. We have already established that the New Covenant was not made with all mankind, it was made only with a small group of people, the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Therefore we can conclude that the events of the Day of Pentecost were also focused on that group of people, not on Gentiles or on the Body of Christ.

The New Testament is not just all the books of the Bible after Malachi. It is a specific agreement made between God and Israel that would govern their relationship and blessings in the kingdom. That agreement began to be implemented on the Day of Pentecost. It would be wrong, and an act of unbelief, for us to take a covenant that was made with the nation Israel and apply it to ourselves. We cannot have a relationship with God based on a covenant that He made with Israel.

End of part 1

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Dispy]

Part 2

The Dispensation of Grace

We have seen that both the Old and New Testaments, or Covenants, deal with the nation Israel and God's relationship to it. Where does that leave us as Gentiles? If God's covenants were made with Israel, how can we, as Gentiles receive salvation and blessing from God? It is not until we come to the writings of the Apostle Paul, and learn of the Church which is the Body of Christ, that we Gentiles come into the picture as having a special relationship to God. In fact, it is the lack of distinction between Jew and Gentile that is the key element in the formation of the Body of Christ.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27,28

And that he might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile] unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Ephesians 2:16

The key to the beginning of the Church, the Body of Christ, is not the making of another covenant with Israel (or any other nation for that matter), but the creation of a brand new means of access to God. Access to God is no longer through any specific national group and their covenants, but through a Body of believers that is formed without regard to race, nationality, sex, or any other physical distinction.

It is in the ministry of the Apostle Paul that we first see this change taking place. It is Paul who tells us that he is the Apostle of the Gentiles. It is Paul who tells us of Israel's blinding and setting aside. It is Paul who tells us that access to God is no longer gained through the nation Israel, but through Jesus Christ and the "one new man" that is His body.

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:...For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Romans 11:13,25

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Ephesians 2:11-16

It is with Paul and his ministry that the Church, the Body of Christ began and it is in his epistles (Romans-Philemon) that we find God's instructions to that Body.

Because God is offering salvation and blessing to all today, apart from any covenants, the Bible calls this time period in which we live, the Dispensation of the Grace of God (Ephesians 3:2). God is blessing totally on the basis of his mercy and grace, not because of any agreement he made with any specific group of people.

And still again, we must ask the question, Why is all this important? Why do we need to understand where the Church of this age began? It is important because it helps us to understand that we, as members of the Body of Christ in the Age of Grace, are not a part of Israel's covenants. In contrast to those covenants, we see that the Body of Christ is not limited to a small group of people, the House of Israel and the House of Judah, but it also includes us Gentiles, and all men, without regard to any physical distinction, who, by faith, become a part of the "'one new man". It is also important because understanding where the Church, the Body of Christ, began helps us understand where we should look in the Bible for the instructions that are targeted specifically to us. When we are seeking direction from the Word for our lives we should not be looking at the details of Israel's covenants. We should be looking at the books written specifically to and for the Body of Christ, the epistles of the Apostle Paul.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Dispy]

Part 1

Dispy asked that I read an article and respond to it by pointing out what I thought was unbiblical.

I've quoted it in full and my responses are in blue below.

Let me start by giving a short summary of what dispensationalism is. The word "dispensation" had to do with "stewardwardship" and "house management" (house laws).

Back in Biblical times, and even today, the wealthy land owners, with many servants, appointed a chief steward to mannage his affairs, and he was the house manager over the others. He managed the house the way the owner directed. Those were the "house laws" that were carried out. From time to time when situations required, the owner changed those house laws. He dispensed new orders, for the chief steward to make know to the others, and insure that they were carried out.

I am not a Greek scholar, but I recall reading somewhere, that from the root word of "dispensation" we also get our word "dispensary."

In II Timothy 2:15 the Apostle Paul gives us the admonitions to "study" and to "rightly divide" the word of truth. As we seek to carry out these admonitions, it is clear that we will need to identify certain starting points in scripture. These starting points (and their corresponding ending points) will allow us to make proper divisions in scripture.

Right from the get go, the author jumps to the conclusion that there must be starting points and ending points (in the plural). Says who but a dispensational thinker? There is a starting POINT: it’s Genesis 1:1 and there’s an ending POINT: Revelation 22:21. She needs to prove from the Scriptures that there are starting points and ending points and that those corrrespond to the ones she puts forth. You can’t just make an unsubstantiated assertion and then go to scripture to find proof for it.

My initial response will be quite long in order to establish the fact that dispensationalism is not unbiblical. This first response might be quite lengthly and seem off subject; just to prove that point.

TubaFour, there is no doubt in my mind that you will agree with me that there are numerous and various starting and stopping points in the Bible between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21. Even starting points that have yet to be completed.

TubaFour, Genesis 1:1 was the starting point of Creation. Although we can forsee an ending in Revelation 22:21, has it happened yet. There is a gap isn't there.

TubaFour, do you agree with me that when God created man that there was no sin in the earth? Sure you will. Man started out sinless. However, it didn't take long for that sinless age to stop. Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree. Is this an artifical starting and stoping point?

Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulders..." Well, that was another starting point when our Lord Jesus Christ was born, but the government is still not upon his shoulders. That too is yet unfulfilled, and a gap.

In Isaiah 61:2 we read " to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God: to confort all that mourn:" Jesus in Luke 4:19 Jesus read from Isaiah: "to preach the accetable year of the Lord." But it was after that phrase He closed the book. Had He continued to read, He would not have been able to say, as He did in verse 21 "This day is this scripture fulfilled." So not we have another gap.

When we read from the creation of man to the end of Genesis 11, we find that God started dealing will all mankind the same. There were only Gentiles in the earth. However, that ended when God raised up Abram in Genesis 11 and God made a special people for Himself. From God's creation of the nation of Israel, as his chosen people, to their setting aside, man's only means of salvation/justification was through their becoming a Jew (proselyte). For salvation was of the Jews (John 4:22). That ended when God did set Israel aside and started anew with the creation of the Chruch, the Body of Christ.

At one time there was no Law in the earth. The Law started with Israel when God gave it to Moses. That Law was interrupted with the instatution of this disensation of grace. It will resume after the rapture of the Church, the Body of Chrsit.

We know that the attributes of God never change, He is the same today, as He was yesterday, and He will still be the same tomarrow. However, we can see that the way that God has dealt with man has changed. There were starting and stopping points between those changes. We can call them changes, dispensation, ages or by some other name if we wish. One should be able to see that the "house laws" changed periodickly. We no longer offer animals to cover our sins, circumcision is no longer required, and keeping Saturday as the sabbath is no longer applicable to us. I could name others but I won' take up the time.

Although one can find numerous dispensation in the Bible, the vast majority believe that there are 7 major dispensations. They may not all gree on every point in each dispensation. In each dispensation we can see how God's dealing with man have changed.

In each dispensation we find its Name:
A. Establishment
B. Responsibility
C. Failure
D. Judgment

The followingl is taken from a chart published by the Berean Bible Society.

1. DISPENSATION OF INNOCENCE:

A. God created man in His image and therefore God dealt with man in his innocence (Gen. 1:26,27).
B. Man was responsible to keep it (Gene. 2:15) and to abstain from partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17)
C. Man's failure came when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden furit (Gen. 3:6).
D. Judgment came upon them as they were expelled from the garden and the perfect environment in which they had lived was cursed. Thus sin, sorrow, and death entered the word (Gen.3:16-19; 23,24; Rom. 5:12-14).

2. DISPENSATION OF CONSCIENCE;

A. God dispensed conscience to Adam and Eve who, when they disobeyed Him, realized that they were naked, thus manifesting that they had come to know good and evil (Gen.3:7-10).

B. Now that conscience was to govern man, he was responsible "...to know good and evil..." Gen. 3:22).
Gpd cp,,amded Caom amd Abe; tp bromg a b;ppd sacrofoce tp be accepted by Him (Gen. 4:1-4) to be offered by faith (Heb. 11.4).

C. Cain disobeyed God in failing to bring an acceptable sacrifice, and in a jealous rage killed his brother Abel (Gen. 4:5-15)
Man became polygamous (Gen. 4:19).
As men refused to heed their conscience through them the earth became corrupt and was filled with violence (Gen. 6:11-13).

D. God's judgment upon the corrupt and violent world came with the universal flood in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:17).

3. DISPENSATION OF HUMAN GOVERNMENT.

A. God revealed that man was not to govern, thus strongly implying the rise of nations and the need for the establishment of human government (Gen:5,6).
The fear of man was placed on the beast of the field and man was permitted to eat meat (Gen. 9:2,3).

B. Man was responsible to establish laws that were in accrodance with God's righteous standards. He was responsible to "be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein" (Gen. 9:7)
In the establishment of human government, it became man's responsibility to institute capital punishment in order to obey God when He said "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made He man." (Gen. 9:6).

C. Man failed when they disobeyed God's command to bring forth abundantly and, in uniting together, failed to multiply in the earth (Gen. 11:4).
In defiance of the Holy one of heaven, they erected the so-called Tower of Babel to pay homage to the astrological signs of heaven. (Gen 11:3,4; cf. Rom. 1:22,23).
In their desire to make a name for themselves (Gen. 11:4), men failed to form a human government in accordance with God's righteous standard, thus producing the spirit of lawlessness described in Romans Chapter 1.

D. Judgment came swiftly as the Lord confunded their language and scattered them abroad uon the face of the earth (Gen. 11:7-9).

4. DISPENSATION OF PROMISE.

A. God dispensed a promise to Abraham: "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shall be a blessing:...and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:2,3).
"...multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore..." (Gen.22:17), and unto them would be given a land called Canaan (Gen. 15:18).

B. Although the covenant tht God established with Abramham was unconditional, Abraham and his descendants were responsible to trust God to fulfill His promise (Gen. 26:1-4; 28:10-15).
Circumcision was mandatory as a seal of the covenant which God established with Abraham (Gen. 17:9-14).

C. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob failed to trust God completely. Instead of going directly to the land of Canaan from Ur of the Chaldees, Abraham came to Haran and dwelt there until his father died (Acts 7:4).
When a famine came upon the land, Isaac reluctantly obeyed God by not going into Egypt; however, he moved to Gerar, as close to Egypt as possible (Gen. 26:1-6).
Jacob stole the birthright from his brother Esau (Gen. 25:24-34) and later he forsook the land of his forefathers and, under the persissive will of God, moved to Egypt (Gen. 41:54-57; cf. Gen. 46:26).

D. God's judgment came upon Israel when sh remained in Egypt for 400 years in severe bondage to Egyptians.

End of Part 1 - and will be continued.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Dispy]

Part 2

5. DISPENSATION OF LAW;

A. God dispensed the Law to Moses. The purpose of the Law was to give Israel the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20). The Law had the following characteristics:

1). MORAL: The Ten Commandments were given to govern the moral life of Israel (Ex. 20).
2). CIVIL: The judgments wee given to govern the individual Israelite in his dealing with others (Ex. 21).
3). CEREMONIAL; Provisions wee formulated by which an atonement for sins could be made (Lev. 16).

B. Since the Covenants of the Law or the Mosaic Covenant, was conditional, those who were placed under it were responsible to keep all the 613 Commandments; thus Israel could only realize the blessings of God when she obeyed His voice (Es. 19:3-7).

C. Although Israel agreed to do "...All that the lord hath spoken..." (Ex.19:8) the promise to obey soon proved to be a yoke about her neck (Acts 15:10), and Israel's failure under the Dispensation of Law are too numerous to list: however, some of the more notable were:

1). Idol Worship (Es. 32:1-6).
2). Unbelief (Num. 13:26-33).
3). Murmuring (Num. 16:1-8).
4). Fornication (Num. 25:1-3).
5). Rejection of Messian (John 19:15,16).

D. God's judgment came upon Israel many times during the approximately 1500 years that the nation was under the Dispensation of Law. Among the more devastating calamities that befell here were:

1). The Assyrian Captivity (2 Kings 17:4-6; 15-18).
2). The Babylonian Captivity (2 Chron. 36:11-21).
3). The setting aside of Israel in unbelief at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7).

6. DISPENSATION OF GRACE;

A. God dispenses grace to the lost and dying world (Eph. 2:5; 3:2).

In the dispensation of grace, a new creation has been frought into existence (2 Cor. 5:17) which is called "...the Church, which is His Body..." (Eph. 1:22, 23). This Church is made up of the Jew and Gentiles withoug distinction (Eph. 2:14-17).

Christ is the Head of the Body (Col. 1:18) and holds an exalted position as H carries out His heavenly ministry (Phil. 2:9; Eph. 1:20-23).

Believer are baptized spiritually by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Chrit (1Cor. 12:13) in contrast with those at Pentecost who were baptized by Christ with the Holy Ghost (Matt. 3:11; Acts 1:5).

B. Men and women are responsible to receive the written Word of God by faith and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ bo be saved (Acts 16:31). Salvation is obtained by grace through faith, not of works )Eph. 2:5-9).

Member of the Body of Christ are responsible to preach Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the Mystery (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 9:16-18) and "to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery (Eph. 3:9) by doing the work of an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5).

C. To a very great degree men and women have failed to trust God; to believe His Wdord, and to receive His Son, Jesus Chrsit, as their saviou.

The Church today has failed miserably in even acknowledgeing the Mystery, let alone making it known. Sadly, it is repeating the same mistake made by early members of the Body when they forsook the message of the Apostle Paul (2 Tim. 1:15).

D. The Dispensation of Grace will close when "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25). All the members of the Chruch which is his Body, living and dead will then "...be caught up together ...in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air..." (1 Thess. 4:17), and will appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ. At that time thorough review of their lives will indicate whether or not they have been faithful to the message of God's grace with which they been entrusted and called upon to proclaim (1Cor. 3:9-17; 2 Cor. 5:10,11; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:27).

Those unsaved living after the close of this Dispensation will go into the seven year tribulation. The unsaved who die during this Dispensation will join the other unsaved dead of all ages at the Great White Throne to be cast into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:11-15).

7. DISPENSATION OF DIVINE GOVERNMENT: (The age of the Jewish nation continues.)

A. God will dispense both wrath and justice upon the world which has rejected His son (Psa. 2:1-12).

God's prophetic Program, which was temorarily interrupted when the Dispensation of Grace began, will resume at "the time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7). Thus Israel will again be in view as the world endures seven years of Tribulation (Rev. 7:1-8.

The great tribulation is a prelude to the coming Millennial Kingdom and has as it purpose the overthrowing of the kingdoms of the world and the establishment of "the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ" (Rev. 11:15), and will close with the Second Coming of Christ (Jer. 30:7; Isa. 24:1; Ezek. 38:14-23, Matt. 24:29,30.

The Second Coming of Christ will initiate His reigh as king for a period of 1000 years (Rev. 20:4,5,7). During His reigh the throne of David will be established (2 Sam. 7:16; Matt. 19:28; Acts 2:30). Justice will fill the earth (Jere. 23:5,6); peace will prevail (Isa. 9:6,7), and the Abrahamic, Davidic, and Palestinian Covenants will be fulfilled.

B. It will be Israel's responsibility to declare that Christ is indeed the Messiah of Israel. Repentance and baptism will again be preached (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; cf. Rev. 9:21) and certain aspects of the Law, such as the Sabbath, must again be observed (Matt. 24:20).

C. In the face of almost unbelievable judgment men will blaspheme God during the tribulation (Reve. 16:11,21) and in the Millennial Kingdom will continue to sin against God (Isa. 65:20). Although the Lord Jesus Christ rules in righteousness for 1000 years, there will be those who rebel at the end of the millennium and challenge His authority (Reve. 20:7-9).

D. With the Chruch, the body of Christ, seated with Him in the heavenlies, the Kingdom Age will be consummated of all the previous ages and there wil be a number of judgments. The establishment of the "kingdoms our our Lord, and His Christ" will be accomplished by the judging and chastening of Israel (Matthew 25:14-30), and the punishing of the nations (Matt. 25:31-46).

At the end of the Millennial Kingdom, all of the unsved of all the ages will stand before the Great White Throne of God and be condemned to spend eternity in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:11-15).

The great day of the Lord will close when the heavens and earth are consumed with fire, as God prepares to execute His eternal purpose (2 Peter 3:10; Eph. 1:10).

8. DISPENSATION OF THE FULNES OF TIME; ( Many do not consider this a dispensation.)

A. All saints will live through eternity in perfect harmony with one another, and since all things have been gathered together in Christ, it seems likely that the heaven and the earth will be open to all the redeemed of all ages. God will be all in all (1Cor 5:9).

B. All will serve Him with gladness (2Cor5:9).

C. There will be no more failures.

D. There will be no more judgment.

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying; neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." (Rev 21:4).

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!.

 

[TubaFour]

Dispy,

I can come up with 100 different starting points and ending points. That's obviously not the point (no pun). Rather, perhaps we should start out by defining what a dispensation is. I think this is crucial in any discussion about dispensationalism.

I could as legitimately say there are only two "dispensations" that of works before the fall and that of grace after the fall. Simple and true. Are there different administrations of this grace after the fall? Sure, but I disagree with you and all dispies that there are different bases for salvation in the different dispensations, as you make clear in your response.

If you define a dispensation the way Scofield defined it,

[FONT=times new roman, arial, helvetica][FONT=times new roman, arial, helvetica]A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.[/FONT][/FONT]

then we have lots of problems.

If that definition doesn't apply to your dispensationalism, then a dispensation is meaningless as a basis of salvation, and then we no longer have dispensationalism as we know it.

I think a starting point (no pun) in this discussion is to define what a dispensation is.

BTW, I don't subscribe to many of these dispensations. I don't agree there will be a restoration of an earthly kingdom or that the law was a basis of salvation, or that there are "gaps". But these need not derail us from the main point which is "what is a dispensation".

aL

 

[Dispy]

[

Everyone that has ever opened a Bible knows of the division between the Old Testament and the New Testament. While this division has become the accepted norm for all believers, and it is certainly appropriate to use it by way of accommodation and for uniformity, all true students of the Word must look beyond this simple designation to find God's points of division and get things started right.

Again, same superimposed assumptions. No one in dispensational theology is able to articulate why there are radical divisions and on what basis they make these particular divisions. Dispensationalists just assume these divisions. We can see changes, sure! But on what basis do we then make them radical discontinuities in God’s plan of redemption? God doesn’t tell us to make any particular divisions, nor does He command us to make the dispensational divisions in particular.

I think the more obvious “divisions” (I would rather use the word “distinctions&#8221 are between law and gospel; between the things man is required to do by God, and the good news that God has accomplished what He requires of man. Confusing these two types of scripture leads to some gospel denying doctrines by assuming that since God requires something of man that man is ABLE to accomplish it. Welcome to the world of Arminianism which is rampant in dispensational circles.

The way the Bible is "put together," is the way man did it, and is man's distinction. Therefore, I will stand by what the author of the article said.

It appears that you are trying to tell me that God dealt with Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, Noah, Abram, Abraham, Moses and the children of Israel, all in the same manner. IMHO, I would have to disagree with that. However, the attributes of God never changed. He is still the same today as He was Yesterday, and will be again tommarrow.

You say that there are "distinctions" (your word) between law and gospel. FYI the law was gospel (good news) to the children of Israel (Ex. 19:3-8). It it wasn't good news to them Why would verse 8 say: "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.!

You say that there are "distinctions" (your word) between "the things man is required to do by God, and the good news that God has accomplished what He requires of man." Just exactly what are you trying to say in a statement like that?

The Old Testament

Most of us would probably say that the Old Testament begins in Genesis 1:1. However, on closer examination we see that the Old Testament, or Covenant, is not just a group of books in the Bible. Rather, it is an agreement made between God and the nation Israel, which did not even exist in Genesis 1:1.

False and incomplete. The Old Covenant is understood to be the Mosaic Covenant generally. Nonetheless, the first covenant made in scripture is NOT with Abraham or the Nation of Israel for that matter.

The first covenant made was with Adam, the second was with Adam, and third was with Noah. The fourth through the New Covenant is made with Abraham and his progeny. But that’s another story. Nonetheless, the author doesn’t seem aware of the reason why the word testament is used. It should be called the Old Covenant and the New Covenant not Old and new Testament because the word Covenant in Greek also means testament. Again, these words are not in the text, obviously, they are words man supplied.

It should be obvious to anyone that read the entire article that the author was making a distinction between and Old and New Covenants to the nation of Israel. It appears to me that you are trying to create a "straw-dummy" in which to attack. He used the word "Testament" because man designated the Bible in two parts, i.e. the Old Testament and New Testament. He also inserted the word "Covenant."

The writer of Hebrews tells us that the New Covenant will be made with the same people that the Old Covenant had been made with (more on the New Covenant in the next section). Otherwise, it would not really be a New Covenant, it would be another covenant with a totally different group of people.

Illogical thinking. A new covenant logically can be made with a totally different group of people. The fact that it is called a new covenant does not exclude that it could be made with a totally new different group of people. Again, bad logic. [So far, no scripture citations for any of the foundational propositions made -- none.]

As a side note, if you can’t biblically prove the premises made so far, you’re at least potentially on the wrong course from the very beginning, and once you’re on the wrong course, there’s no telling where you’ll end up.

But the author does state to whom the New Covenant will be made with. It is the same ones that the Old Covenant was made with and mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31.

BTW, Where is all your Scriptural foundations to this point?

Please take note of your side note. It really seems to apply to what you have said to this point.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Hebrews 8:8.

Since the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, and it was made with the same people as the Old Covenant, it is clear that the Old Covenant was also made with Israel and Judah.

Well, let’s examine that. It is clear that the new covenant is with the house of Israel and the House of Judah... But, as we’ll see later, it’s no longer exclusively with the Jews. Or if you want to look at it another way, Gentiles participate in the new covenant by God grafting them into the tree which is the elect of all ages, including those of Israel.

Book, chapter and verse please. And then explain how that all fits in.

The writer of Hebrews also gives us an indication of the content of the Old Covenant. The details of the Old Covenant are found in the commandments and ordinances of the law that God gave to Moses.

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary...Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9:1,10

As I said earlier, the Old Covenant is generally synonymous with the Law of Moses, especially in Hebrews.

But, the New Covenant is not with the Body of Christ. Can't seem to find that anywhere. Also, the Body of Christ is not under the Law. Doesn't Paul tells in Colosians 2:14 that it was nailed to His Cross?

As we understand who the Old Covenant was made with-Israel; and what the content of that covenant was-the law; the timing of the covenant becomes very clear. The Law of Moses, and the covenant that it was a part of, were made with the nation Israel in the book of Exodus after God had miraculously delivered them out of the land of Egypt.

Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto children of Israel. Exodus 19:4-6

As Israel kept the law they were keeping their part of a conditional covenant, or agreement, with God. Notice that God uses the word "covenant" in giving Israel the law.

Why is all this important? Why does it matter when the Old Testament began? It is important because understanding where the Old Covenant began helps us understand who it was made with. It was not made with Gentiles, it was not made with all mankind, it was made only with a small group of people, the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

False. The Old Testament is a collection of books. At any rate, Abraham was delcared righteous before God as a gentile. He was not given the sign of circumcision until after he was declared righteous.

Romans 4:

9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

There was no Covenant with Israel at the time of Abram. He was a Gentile like you say. He only became a "Jew in the flesh" when he was circumcised. The Old Covenant that was made with Israel and the contents of that Covenant is in the Law, as the author said.

The Church, the Body of Christ is not under the Law, and never will be under the Law. In the New Covenant with the nation of Israel the Law will be written on their hearts.

I will say that the roots of ALL members of the Body of Christ go all the way back to Abram. Abram was saved by FAITH ALONE just as members of the Body of Christ are saved today. Abram just believe God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6).

We should not view the Old Testament as simply being all the books of the Bible before Matthew. The Old Testament is a specific agreement made between God and Israel in Exodus 19 that defined and governed their relationship to each other. It would be wrong, and an act of unbelief, for us to take a covenant that was made with the nation Israel and apply it to ourselves. We cannot have a relationship with God based on a covenant that He made with Israel.

The Old Covenant is NOT an agreement. God and Israel were not on equal footing. A Covenant is a bond in blood administered by God, not some sort of equal bargaining agreement. All the terms of the covenant are dictated by God, and not a single recipient of God’s promises/covenants had the right, let alone the ability to refuse.[/QUOTE]

You are totally in erron on what you just said. The covenant that God made with Abram in Genesis 12 was unconditional. However, later on He added conditions to that covenate; like circumcision. The original covenant never changed.

The New Testament

As we mentioned before, the New Testament, or Covenant, will be made with the same people that the Old Covenant was made with. This is the only way that it can truly be a new covenant.

Again, she repeats a simple fallacy. A new covenant can be with the same people or actually more obviously with new people. If God had a covenant with X and then He has a covenant with Y, the second covenant is as legitimately a new covenant as if it was made with X. This is a matter of simple logic (which is God’s gift to man, so don’t poo poo it). Let’s look at the Scripture and see how that new covenant is applied and understood by the new testament writers. You’ll see that the faulty logic of the writer contradicts God’s word.[/b]

Hebrews 8:8 tells me to whom the New Covenant is made with. It is the same ones mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31. How can you deny that?

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: 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;...Jeremiah 31:31,32a

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13

As we consider this New Covenant it seems reasonable to ask why there even needed to be a new covenant. Was there some problem with the Old Covenant? What could the New Covenant do that the Old Covenant couldn't? To put it simply, the New Covenant was made necessary because of Israel's failure to keep the Old Covenant.

False again. The new covenant was what God promised in Genesis 3:15 in seed form. It’s not something that He had to put in place because Israel failed. The law was never ever meant to save anyone nor did it in fact save anyone.

Genesis 3:15 is a covenant, but not the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. It is not the covenant that the author is writing about.

 

[TubaFour]

Dispy,

I think we may be "talking over each other". We may also be speaking two different languages.... Anyway, I believe the most efficient way of dealing with this topic is to define or describe what a dispensation is.

Also, if as you say, the New Covenant does not apply to gentiles, then why does Paul in Ephesians 2 state that we gentiles who were strangers to the Covenants of Promise are no longer strangers in Christ? Why does Paul (the apostle to the gentiles) instruct the corinthian church about the Lord's Supper, why does he call himself a minister of the new covenant, why does Hebrews 9 say:

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Those who are called are from all nations, not just Israel and Judah.

Why does the Lord himself say:

Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Aren't gentiles' sins also forgiven? Or is that a jewish privilege only?

Hebrews 8:6
But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

Hebrews 13:
20May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, 21equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

What sheep are these?

Let's start out with first things first. Let's define the term dispensation. I think much of dispensational theology hangs on that definition.

aL

 

[Dispy]

PART 1

Sorry to have taken so long to respond., but Since

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Hebrews 8:6

Those better promises are better because they are based on better blood-the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ can do what the blood of bulls and goats could not-take away sins. The blood of Christ is essential to the institution of the New Covenant.

OK!

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Hebrews 10:4

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. Hebrews 9:14-16

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28

It is very clear that the New Testament, or Covenant, is based on the blood of Christ. Because this is the case, it is also very clear that the New Testament cannot begin in Matthew 1:1. It cannot begin until the blood of Christ is shed at the very end of the gospel accounts. As we look at Peter's message on the Day of Pentecost, just 50 days after the shedding of that blood, it is no surprise then to see that he was, in fact, introducing the New Covenant to Israel.

Clearly, Israel was Peter's audience on that day.

Ye men of Israel, hear these words;...Acts 2:22a

It is also clear that what Peter offered to Israel was the blessing of the New Covenant. Compare the passages below, one a prophecy of the New Covenant from Ezekiel, the other taken from Luke's account of the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. We have numbered each of four specific promises and printed each in a different font to illustrate the giving of the promise by Ezekiel and the beginning of the fulfillment of that promise in Acts 2.

(1) For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. (2) Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. (3) A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, (4) and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. Ezekiel 36:24-27

(1) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven...(2) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every on of you I the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, (3) and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost...(4) And all that believed were together, and had all things common: And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of heart. Acts 2:5,38,44-46

There can be no doubt that what Ezekiel was speaking of was beginning to come to pass on the Day of Pentecost. Clearly, that day marked the beginning of Israel's New Covenant. It was on that day, after the blood of Christ was shed to ratify it, that Israel's promise of a New Covenant began to be fulfilled.

Generally agree, don’t care to argue about the dates and times of when the new covenant was inaugurated as it isn’t germaine to this discussion.... But, generally I agree.

OK

Again, we must ask the question, Why is all this important? Why does it matter that the Day of Pentecost was the beginning of Israel's New covenant blessings? It is important because understanding where the New Covenant began helps us understand that the Day of Pentecost and the events surrounding it were a part of those New Covenant events. We have already established that the New Covenant was not made with all mankind, it was made only with a small group of people, the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Therefore we can conclude that the events of the Day of Pentecost were also focused on that group of people, not on Gentiles or on the Body of Christ.

This is where she is going to have to prove something she can’t, and that is that there is a break in God’s plan.

Tracy does not say that there is a break in God's Plan. It is in fulfillment of God's Plan to Israel. The Church, the Body of Christ still didn't exist and is still future revelation, therefore, it cannot be included here.

The New Testament is not just all the books of the Bible after Malachi. It is a specific agreement made between God and Israel that would govern their relationship and blessings in the kingdom.

Prove it! In fact, she can’t. She can read Jeremiah 31 and conclude from that the New Covenant was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, but when she gets to Hebrews, she’ll strike out. She must acknowledge that Hebrews 9 applies the new covenant to Christ’s present ministry.

Since the setting aside of Gentiles at the Tower of Babel, in Genesis 11, God made to Himself a people of HIs own - Israel. From lthe formation of Israel, for one that was a Gentile and wanted to serve the true and living God, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte).

That agreement began to be implemented on the Day of Pentecost. It would be wrong, and an act of unbelief, for us to take a covenant that was made with the nation Israel and apply it to ourselves. We cannot have a relationship with God based on a covenant that He made with Israel.

Again, this is completely unbiblical. Just read Romans and you know she’s wrong... Not only that, but Paul, your mid acts dispensationalist apostle to the gentiles claims that he was a minister of the new covenant.

2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

One cannot read Romans and Corinthians into Pentecost. THAT IS STILL FUTURE REVELATION TO ONE THAT WASN'T EVEN SAVED AT THE TIME OF PENTECOST. You don't read "The Laws of Moses into the Garden of Eden, or the battles of WW2 into the battles of WW!, so don't read future revelation to Paul into Pentecost.

The Greek New Testament renders 2 Corinthians 3:6 "who also made us sufficient ministers of A new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit: for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. A New Covenant differs from THE New Covenant. The New Covenant that Paul is speaking of is "the Spirit" of the Law", wereas the New Covenant with Israel has to do with the "Leter" of the Law. In the New Covenant, the letter of the Law will be written upon their hearts. Since Moses, there was, and never will be, a time, when God deals with the nation of Israel as His favorite people, that she will not be under the Letter of the Law. Moses wrote down 613 Law for Israel to follow. In the kingdom age, there will be 12 disciples sitting upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

The Dispensation of Grace

We have seen that both the Old and New Testaments, or Covenants, deal with the nation Israel and God's relationship to it. Where does that leave us as Gentiles? If God's covenants were made with Israel, how can we, as Gentiles receive salvation and blessing from God? It is not until we come to the writings of the Apostle Paul, and learn of the Church which is the Body of Christ, that we Gentiles come into the picture as having a special relationship to God. In fact, it is the lack of distinction between Jew and Gentile that is the key element in the formation of the Body of Christ.

To be continued.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Dispy]

This is where there’s an utter disregard for scripture. God’s dealing with mankind from Adam to the last man standing has been through covenants. You can’t lift Israel out and single them out as the only people that related to God via a covenant. In fact, God’s covenant with Noah in Gen 6 is a covenant that predates Abraham and Moses and does NOT relate to the nation Israel but relates to ALL mankind.
Going back into history, the Adamic covenant is also made with all mankind. See Gen 1-3.

Moreover, Paul himself teaches that we are redeemed by the blood of Christ which was shed under the Old or Mosaic Covenant for our sakes.

Gal 3:

13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Yes, God made many covenants with mankind throughout the ages. We have the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamick Mosaic and Davidic covenants. However, God is not saving man today according to those covenants. The are all part of prophey. We are not being saved today according to prophesy, but according to the mystery that was reavealed to the Apostle Paul, and kept secret since the world began. We are saved toay according to the "Eternal Covenant" that God made with Himself "before the world began." God made a promise (covenant) to Himself "According to the eternal prupose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Ephesians 3:11). "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" (Titus 1:2).

God's Plan for salvation for manking "since before the world began," was that all manking would be saved through the Cross work of Christ."

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27,28

And that he might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile] unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Ephesians 2:16

The key to the beginning of the Church, the Body of Christ, is not the making of another covenant with Israel (or any other nation for that matter), but the creation of a brand new means of access to God. Access to God is no longer through any specific national group and their covenants, but through a Body of believers that is formed without regard to race, nationality, sex, or any other physical distinction.

Again, there’s not a single scripture that supposes a brand new relationship between God and the Church that isn’t founded upon the apostles and the prophets. In the upper room, Christ inaugurated the new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah.

The church began way before Pentecost.

This if from Louis Berkhof's systematic theology, page 555:

A. Scriptural Names for the Church:

I. In the Old Testament. The Old Testament employs two words to designate the Church, namely qahal (or kahal), derived from an obsolete root of qal or (kal), meaning “to call”; and ‘edhah, from ya’adh, “to appoint” or “to meet or come together at an appointed place.” These two words are sometimes used indiscriminately, but were not, at first, strictly synonymous. ‘Edhah is properly a gathering by appointment, and when applied to Israel, denotes the society itself formed by the children of Israel or their representative heads, whether assembled or not assembled. Qahal, on the other hand, properly denotes the actual meeting together of the people. Consequently we find occasionally the expression qehal ‘edhah, that is “the assembly of the congregation” Ex. 12:6; Num 14:5; Jer26:17. It seems that the actual meeting was sometimes a meeting of the representatives of the people, Deut. 4:10; 18:16, comp. 5:22, 23; I kings 8:1,2,3,5; II Chron. 5:26. ’Edhah is by far the more common word in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Joshua, but is wholly absent from Deuteronomy, and is found but rarely in the later books. Qahal, abounds in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Sunagoge is the usual, almost universal, rendring of the former in the Septuagint, and is also the usual rendering of the latter in the Pentatsuch. In the later books of the Bible, however, qahal is generally rendered by ekklesia. Schuerer claims that later Judaism already pointed to a distinction between sunagoge as a designation of the congregation of Israel as an empirical reality, and ekkelsia as the name of that same congregation ideally considered. He is followed in this by Dr. Bavinck. Cremer-Koegel, however, takes exception to this. Hort says that after the exile the word qahal seems to have combined the shades of meaning belonging to both it and ‘edhah; and that consequently “ekklesia, as the primary greek representative of qahal, would naturally, for Greek-speaking Jews, mean the congregation of Israel quite as much as an assembly of the congregation.”

2. In the New Testament. The New Testament also has two words derived from the Septuagint, namely ekklesia, from ek and kaleo, “to call out,” and sungoge, from sun and ago, meaning “to come or bring together.”


The point of all this is to show that the word ekklesia is not a word that is new or exclusive to the New Testament. Rather, it's a word used of the Old Testament Israelite Church.

That of course doesn't mean that the NT church is identical with the OT church. Many differences exist although mostly in form and not in substance.

Moreover, Ephesians 2 seems to clearly teach that the OT jewish believers were "in Christ." Paul contrasts the gentiles who were "separated from Christ" to the Jewish believers who were by obvious implication not separated from Christ.


“Paul is a minister of a new covenant (2Cor.3:6), the cup in the Lord's Supper represents the new covenant (1Cor.11:25), and the author of Hebrews applies Jeremiah's new covenant passage to Jesus' present ministry for the church (Heb.8). If this represents one new covenant (which I maintain it does), dispensationalism topples since there is no distinction between Israel and the Church.” [David L White.]
(con'td)

The word "church" is any called out assembly. It doesn't necessarily have to be a religous organization.

The "church in the wilderness" was a called out group. However, it was a Jewish assembly and not the church, The Body of Christ. The Jewish Church and the Chruch, the Body of Christ are two seperate organisms. The believer of the Jewish Church have a heavenly home to look forward to, while the Chruch, the Body of Christ, has a heavenly home to look forward to. The Jewish Church was under the Law. The Chruch, the Body of Christ is not under the Law.

After the Chruch, the Body of Christ is raptured, God will again deal with the nation of Israel as His favorite people. They will again be under the Law, and go through the Tribulation. The Chruch, the Body of Christ will be raptured prior to the resumption of the Tribulation.

It was impossible for the Chruch, the Body of Christ, to start at Pentecost. The Church, the Body of Christ, consists of Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction, and not under the Law. There was no such church at Pentecost. Pentecost was strickly a Jewish feastday and there were only Jews and Gentiles present.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[TubaFour]

Dispy,

Thanks for the replies. I thought you forgot about me . Anyway, I think your reply presupposes (and does not prove) the points you make. I am saying that the church in the wilderness and the church in the OT economy in general is what Christ spoke of in Matt 18, and is what gentiles were grafted into in Rom. 11.

But, again we can disagree or agree to all your premises and still not be dispensationalists. What makes one a dispensationalist is the way he/she understands a dispensation (and the literal hermeutic). If a dispensation is just an economy of God in dealing with man, and the means of salvation is the same in all dispensations (faith in the finished work of Christ), then there's nothing distinctive about dispensationalism since progressive revelation has been an accepted tenet of scripture from time immemorial. OTOH, I've read some mid acts dispies on this board (namely Eph3nine) unequivocally assert that salvation in the OT was by faith and works whereas in the NT salvation is by faith only. Mind you neither is clear not accurate, since even catholics believe salvation is by faith!!! For us protestant we're saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

So, I ask (I think for the third time ): what is the definition of a dispensation?

TIA

aL

 

[eph3Nine]

Amen to Dispy....such confusion reigns when we dont rightly divide OR see the BIG PICTURE of Gods plan and purpose to RE establish His rule and reign in both realms He created...HEAVEN and EARTH. When we neglect the BIG PICTURE, we are left with religious claptrap.

 

[Dispy]

Reply to your 3rd segment.

It is in the ministry of the Apostle Paul that we first see this change taking place. It is Paul who tells us that he is the Apostle of the Gentiles. It is Paul who tells us of Israel's blinding and setting aside. It is Paul who tells us that access to God is no longer gained through the nation Israel, but through Jesus Christ and the "one new man" that is His body.

Not true at all. Peter preached to the gentiles. He ate and drank with gentile believers. He ministered to Cornelius and his household. His primary ministry may have been to the israelites, but that doesn’t mean he was excluded from ministering to Gentiles. Moreover, the only change that occured is that the gospel was revealed to the gentiles. That’s it. That’s the mystery Paul talks about. That gentiles would be fellow heirs with Jews grafted into the (exisiting) olive tree, that they would be fellow citizens of the commonwealth of Israel with the (existing and preceding) saints, members of the (existing) household of God...

The primary ministry, under the "so called' great commission, was to go to all the world. In Acts 10, God instructed to go to Cornelius, and in Acts 11,19 we find the disciples going to Gentiles only. Yes, Peter did go to a few Gentiles. At the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15 and Galatians 2) we find James, Cephas (Peter) and John agreeing with Paul and Barnabas that they would stay with the Jews. Isn't this contrary to their commission?

It is apparent that you do not have a clue as to what the mystery to Paul was. It is through the revelation of the mystery that we learn the purpose of the Cross. the formation of the Church, the Body of Christ, Salvation by FAITH ALONE in the Cross work of Christ, NOT FAITH in the deed/works of the Law, the rapture of the Chruch, the Body of Christ, and the heavenly home that members of the Body of Christ will inherit, and not a kingdom here upon the earth. Gentiles no longer had to become Jews (proselytes) to serve the True and living God. These are just a few.

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:...For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Romans 11:13,25

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Ephesians 2:11-16

It is utterly amazing to me that this text is quoted by dispensationalists for the opposite proposition it stands for. It’s as though they don’t read verse 13 on!! Don’t you see what Paul is saying? Paul is affirming a unity!

Again, I’ll quote David L. White: Those who were formerly excluded from citizenship in Israel, etc. (2:11-12) are now "brought near" (2:13) by the blood of Christ who made of the two (Jew and Gentile) "one new man" (2:15). As a result of Christ's work we are "fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household" (2:19). Paul goes on to discuss his insight into the mystery of Christ, which is "that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus" (3:6). Contrast Paul's statements with this one by John Walvoord, "The Church composed of Jew and Gentile is considered a separate program of God which does not advance nor fulfill any of the promises given to Israel" (Walvoord, p.523).

Paul almost couldn't be any clearer, there is no distinction between [true] Israel and the church; they are the one people of God who share in the promise of God (3:6) which is administered through the covenants (2:12).”

The Gentiles have ALWAYS had a means in which they they could become children of Israel. They could become proselytes, and place themselves under the Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws of Moses. A proselyte had access to all the promises of a Jew by birth.

Prior to Abram, God dealt with Gentiles, there was not such thing as a Jew or Israel. When the Genitles became exceedingly wicked, God set them aside at the Tower of Babel, in Genesis 11. Then God, through Abram, created a people unto Himself (Israel). Salvation/justification for all manking was through Israel (John 4:22). Their salvation/justification was then by doing the deeds/works of the Law by FAITH. The Cross, and salvation by FAITH ALONE was still future revelation to Paul.

From Moses to the setting aside of Israel, God gave His insturction in righteous for the children of Israel through the Civil, Moral, and Ceremonial Laws of Moses. The Instructions in righteousness for members of the Body of Christ were given by God to Paul. Salvation/justification for the children of Israel was based on, and by FAITY in doing the deed/works of the Law. Salvation/justifiction for members of the Body of Christ is based on, and by FAITH ALONE[/b] in the Cross work (death, burial and resurrection), of Christ.

It is with Paul and his ministry that the Church, the Body of Christ began and it is in his epistles (Romans-Philemon) that we find God's instructions to that Body.

Because God is offering salvation and blessing to all today, apart from any covenants, the Bible calls this time period in which we live, the Dispensation of the Grace of God (Ephesians 3:2). God is blessing totally on the basis of his mercy and grace, not because of any agreement he made with any specific group of people.

God is not offering anything apart from Covenants. Period. Listen, Christ died for US under the old covenant. See Gal 3:13-14.

How are my sins forgiven apart from Christ’s blood of the covenant which is shed for me?

Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Paul is a minister of the new covenant. That’s the covenant you and I are under and belong to. That which was prophesied in Jeremiah 31.

1Co11:
4and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Hebrews 7:

22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Hebrews 9:15
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Hebrews 10:29
How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 13:20
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

Start with the wrong premises you’ll arrive at the wrong conclusions.

The Covenant mentioned in Matthew 26:28 is the same one mentioned in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. At the time of Matthew 26:28 there was no such thing as "the Body of Christ", Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law.

The book of Hebrews is writen to Jews, and members of the Body of Christ.

You are right , when one starts out with the wrong premise, that one will arrive at the wrong conclusion. That is exactly what I believe you did.

Nothing in what you have written in your 3 segments has show me that dispensationalism is un-Biblical.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Dispy]

Dispy,

Thanks for the replies. I thought you forgot about me . Anyway, I think your reply presupposes (and does not prove) the points you make. I am saying that the church in the wilderness and the church in the OT economy in general is what Christ spoke of in Matt 18, and is what gentiles were grafted into in Rom. 11.

But, again we can disagree or agree to all your premises and still not be dispensationalists. What makes one a dispensationalist is the way he/she understands a dispensation (and the literal hermeutic). If a dispensation is just an economy of God in dealing with man, and the means of salvation is the same in all dispensations (faith in the finished work of Christ), then there's nothing distinctive about dispensationalism since progressive revelation has been an accepted tenet of scripture from time immemorial. OTOH, I've read some mid acts dispies on this board (namely Eph3nine) unequivocally assert that salvation in the OT was by faith and works whereas in the NT salvation is by faith only. Mind you neither is clear not accurate, since even catholics believe salvation is by faith!!! For us protestant we're saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

So, I ask (I think for the third time ): what is the definition of a dispensation?

Sorry I haven't gotten back sooner, but since Saturday, I have been extremely busy.

Saturday morning my wife had the computer for making Sunday's bulletin. Saturday afternoon we spent many hours at the Sioux Fall Home Show. (They always cost me a small fortune.)

Monday we were out shopping and priceing my wife's wish list from the home show. Looks like we will be putting new carpet in the living room, new floor tiles in the dinning room, new flooring in the kitchaen, hallway, and foyer. Also redoing the steps from the foyer to the main level.

The house was new when we bought it but it is now 33 years older. Updating seem necessary. Those are the things that she wants to do, so I will go along with it. She's worth it.

You want to know what a dispensation is. When I look it up in my Webster College Dicitionary, I find 6 different definitions. So for me to explain exactly what a dispensation is, it might take the length of a book to explain it. I don't know of one brief statement that will explain it.

As I said earlier, it has to do with stewardship and houselaws. House laws could change or be modified, and a good steward would follow the new requirements.

When I printed out the 7 major dispensations earlier, it didn't mean that when one dispensation ended, a new one started.

When God gave Adam and ever a conscience, I said it was the dispensation of consience. Adam and Eve were given a conscience to determine right from wrong. Human government was instituted with Noah, after the flood. Man still had a conscience to determine right from wrong, and we still have human government today. We still had both under the dispensation of the Law, and in this dispensation of grace we still have all conscience, humand government and Laws.

Adam and Eve were not saved/justified by believing/doing what God required at that point in time of human history. They didn't have a clue as to what the Laws of Moses were,

Cain and Abel had a conscience just as Adam and Eve did, but required them to make a specific sacrifice. Abel was justified by showed his faith by believeing God and offering the proper sacrifice.

Noah was saved/justified by believing God and doing what God required, preaching and building an ark. His justification/salvation didn't come by offering a required sacrifice.

So, in short I will just say a dispensation is doing/believing whati God required at that point in time of human history.

Today I have a conscience, live under human government, live under lasw, but following them does not bring me salvation/justification. My salvation/justification is based my FAITH ALONE in the Cross work (death, burial and resurrection) of Chrsit.

Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah, Abram, Abraham, Moses, didn't have a clue as to who Jesus was or what He would do.

Let me say one more time, as I have said on numerous postings, and in various forums.

Salvation/justification has ALWAYS been based upon FAITH. FAITH in believing/doing what God required at that point in time of human history.

The attributes of God have never changed. He is the same today, as he was yesterday, and will be the same tomarrow.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[TubaFour]

Dispy,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. It sounds you've been ultra busy lately.... The house remodel thing is also a time consuming affair. Hopefully, you enjoy the new surroundings when it's all done!!

Here's my reply to the definition(s) of dispensation: This is taken from Gerstner's book "Wrongly dividing the word of God, a critique of dispensationalism." You can find portions of that book here:http://www.icdc.com/~dnice/disp.html#kingdom

Dispensationalists have long been accused of teaching multiple methods of salvation. Dispensational leaders
(excepting the Bullingerite or Consistent sects) have long denied these charges. Denial without refutation is,
however, meaningless. Let us examine some of the evidence.

The Scofield Problem
C.I. Scofield (1843-1921) pastor of the First Congregational Church in Dallas, Texas, and then of Moody Church, Northfield, Massachusetts, discussed with Arno C. Gaebelein his plan to write an annotated version of the Bible in 1901 :

"One night, about the middle of that week, Dr. Scofield suggested, after the evening service, that
we take a stroll along the shore. It was a beautiful night. Our walk along the shore of the sound
lasted until midnight. For the first time he mentioned the plan of producing a reference Bible, and
outlined the method he had in mind. He said he had thought of it for many years and had spoken
to others about it, but had not received much encouragement. The scheme came to him in the early
days of his ministry in Dallas, and later, during the balmy days of the Niagara Conferences he
had submitted his desire to a number of brethren, who all approved of it, but nothing came of it.
He expressed the hope that the new beginning and this new testimony in Sea Cliff might open the
way to bring about the publication of such a Bible with references and copious footnotes."
-Moody Monthly 43 ( 1943 ) : 278.

The end result of this discussion was the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909, combining an attractive format, notes, and cross references which became perhaps the most influential tome of dispensational theology to date. "The teachings of dispensational premillennialism on prophecy have spread widely in Canada and the United States, due especially to the influence of the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible and it subsequent editions."3
The theology presented by Scofield in his Reference Bible is normative dispensational doctrine, thus the significance of the quote here:

"As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ....The point of testing
is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ,
with good works as a fruit of salvation"4

Scofield here states that salvific grace is a New Testament phenomenon, unavailable in previous dispensations.

Notice that Scofield explains that legal obedience was the condition of salvation in the previous dispensation, but that now faith in Christ is the condition that must be met. This is consistent with Scofield's definition of a
dispensation.

A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.5 If, indeed, man is tested in respect to obedience to the will of God in each of these "dispensations", what is the reward - or punishment? If the reward is salvation, as obviously Scofield taught concerning the dispensation of Law,
that salvation is not of grace but of works! The dispensationalist, misunderstanding the concept of Law and Gospel, offers salvation to those who meet the condition of the "dispensation" in which they are tested, thus even in the dispensation of Grace, faith becomes a work which entitles us to Christ. If one can only muster from the depths of one's heart enough "faith", one can meet the condition of this dispensation and be rewarded with salvation.6

Orthodox Christian doctrine, on the other hand, adamantly teaches that man is dead in trespasses and sin, cannot improve his condition in the slightest, and that it is Christ alone who justifies the ungodly. Faith is the gift of God, through the new birth, a work of the Holy Spirit by Word and Sacrament.

It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are
conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are
unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin
is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the
Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.7

In answer to the "Scofield problem" dispensationalism began to redefine the term "dispensation". The New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967 repeats Scofield's terminology, but the modern commentators elaborate on 1909 version indicating that the definition implies three concepts: a new divine revelation, the nature of man's stewardship with respect to it, and a certain time period for it. These implied concepts are then qualified to such an extent as to make the delineations meaningless.

Significantly, this new definition of dispensations brings into question whether the term means anything at all.
The purpose of each dispensation, then, is to place man under a specific rule of conduct, but such stewardship is
not a condition of salvation. In every past dispensation unregenerate man has failed, and he has failed in this present dispensation and will in the future. But salvation has been and will continue to be available to him by God's grace through faith.8

Revisionist dispensationalism now states that the purpose of the dispensations are not salvific. What, then, is the purpose of the testing in regards to the "specific rule of conduct"? What is the significance of man's failure in the various dispensations? It seems that while Scofield might have been too frank in his elucidation, his successors have so qualified the term "dispensation" as to remove from it any semblance of meaning. Note also, that "available to him by God's grace through faith" still leaves it unclear as to whether "faith" is an innate ability of fallen man, or is a product of the new birth. The central question here is whether dispensational theology recognizes, as does orthodox Christianity, that regeneration is the source of faith. Dispensational theology sees the sequence of dispensations as opportunities for fallen man to attain to God. Though in past dispensations none passed the test, the opportunity was there - "Do this and live".

During the current dispensation of Grace, the bar has been lowered - all that is required is "faith". If a
man will avail himself of his "chance", and exercise his own moral ability to believe, he will be entitled to the grace of God in Christ.

(cont'd)

 

[TubaFour]

Again, this is taken from Gerstner's book "Wrongly dividing the word of God, a critique of dispensationalism." You can find portions of that book here:http://www.icdc.com/~dnice/disp.html#kingdom

The Chafer Problem
Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), a student of Scofield, established Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924, and led
dispensationalism's flagship school for it's first thirty years. Chafer also produced the first definitive systematic theology of dispensationalism. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols., (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948) is a standard articulation of Scofieldian dispensational thought. Chafer, always faithful to his mentor, stated - "It goes on record that the Dallas Theological Seminary uses, recommends, and defends the Scofield Bible."9

That the founder of the school known as the "Jerusalem of Dispensationalism", and the author of her Systematic
Theology might make statements such as the following comes as no surprise to those who understand the grievous error of the dispensational system.

"With the call of Abraham and the giving of the Law... there are two widely different standardized, divine provisions whereby man, who is utterly fallen, might come into the favor of God."10

Chafer's Systematic Theology makes the point that in the Old Testament men were justified by the Law, while in the New Testament faith was without works.11 Again, in his Dispensationalism, p. 430, Chafer makes plain his
misunderstanding of grace -

As before stated, whatever God does for sinful men on any terms whatsoever [being made possible through the death of Christ] is to that extent, an act of divine grace; for whatever God does on the ground of Christ's death is gracious in character, and all will agree that a divine covenant which is void of all human elements is more gracious in character than one which is otherwise.

These distinctions apply only to the divine side of the covenant. On the human side... there is no
exercise of grace in any case; but the human requirements which the divine covenant imposes may
be either absolutely lacking, or some so drastically imposed as to determine the destiny of the
individual.


Chafer, in keeping with the standard definition of a dispensation, sees the Atonement as making grace possible throughout the various ages, which allows salvation to be viewed as gracious regardless of the added requirements of that specific dispensation. So, under Grace (...the human requirements which the divine covenant imposes may be either absolutely lacking...) if one can generate the necessary faith one might receive grace. Under the dispensation of Law (...or some so drastically imposed as to determine the destiny of the individual.), one might be required to keep the Law.
In either case, the salvation obtained is gracious (according to Chafer), while in fact it is salvation by grace in neither. Modern dispensationalists may argue that what Scofield and Chafer had meant has not been properly discerned from what they have said. To that we say, look to the Consistent (or Bullingerite) Dispensationalist who has done nothing other than carry dispensationalism consistently to it's logical conclusions.

HTH

aL

 

[ddub85]

This is the type of topic the body of Christ should be engaged in. Thanks to Dispy for bringing it, and thanks to TubaFour for such a thoughtful response.

However, (you knew it was coming), you guys can never come to a satisfactory conclusion. I believe the reason is that you're beginning with a false premise.

First, both of you claim that the New Covenant has begun. The Bible doesn't say so. You believe it began at Pentecost or before, but even after Pentecost the Bible states the Old Covenant is still in place (Hbr 8:13, "fading" away, not gone). So you'll have to better explain how it is you come to the conclusion we're under the New Covenant.

Second, it's a fact that Gentiles were excluded from the New Covenant (never mentioned in the Bible as being under the New Covenant), and INCLUDED in the Old Covenant (Gen. 12:3). So the Bible has Gentiles included in the Old Covenant, but both of you EXCLUDE Gentiles from that Covenant. And the Bible excludes Gentiles in the New Covenant, but both of you INCLUDE Gentiles in the New Covenant.

I'd like to know how you both see these things, and how you explain them within the context of what you're saying. I know you maybe haven't even considered it from this perspective, but I'd appreciate both of your viewpoints, as well as others.

God Bless!

 

[TubaFour]

ddub,

As much as I think you bring up an interesting topic (not because I think your position has any merit but because it is so unusual), personally, I would prefer not to derail this thread.

Would you be willing to start a new topic about this issue?

aL