The context offers no evidence whatsoever that Ezekiel 43:6 is to have fulfillment in our future. Ezekiel 43:19 suggests that the temple was to be built within Ezekiel’s lifetime, for he was to give the animals to the sons of Zadok to offer in the temple; Ezekiel was to prepare the daily sacrifice (Ezekiel 46:13).It is not interpretation that the last nine chapters of Ezekiel were to happen in the future. This is explicitly and stated in Ezekiel 43:6 and in several more places in these chapters.
Larkin's Charts are a good general summation of Dispensationalism, although it differs somewhat in detail from the concepts of both the classical dispsensationalists of the nineteenth century and of the dispensationalists that subscribe to the changes introduced in the early twentieth century by Dwight Pentecost.
But that is a detail.
My main response, with which I will end this, is that you are neglecting the change in dispensations. At every change in dispensations, God has always changed the way which He relates to mankind. The three most drastic and noticeable of these changes is when God ended His open fellowship with mankind after the sin in the garden, when He gave the law of Moses, and when He offered free grade to all after our Lord paid for our sins on the cross.
But there have been other such changes as well. These are just the three most drastic. Now if God has the sovereign right to change the way n which He relates to mankind whenever He chooses to, (and He does) then He has the right to do this again in the future.
It is not interpretation that the last nine chapters of Ezekiel were to happen in the future. This is explicitly and stated in Ezekiel 43:6 and in several more places in these chapters. And we know it has not happened. So it is simply unbelief to deny that this will happen in the future. Whether or not we understand how it can happen is trivial. God said it, and we are responsible to believe it.
We need to be very cautious that we do not give more credence to our interpretation means, than to what another scripture explicitly says.
It is not interpretation that the last nine chapters of Ezekiel were to happen in the future. This is explicitly and stated in Ezekiel 43:6 and in several more places in these chapters. And we know it has not happened. So it is simply unbelief to deny that this will happen in the future. Whether or not we understand how it can happen is trivial. God said it, and we are responsible to believe it
Biblewriter wrote:The context offers no evidence whatsoever that Ezekiel 43:6 is to have fulfillment in our future. Ezekiel 43:19 suggests that the temple was to be built within Ezekiel’s lifetime, for he was to give the animals to the sons of Zadok to offer in the temple; Ezekiel was to prepare the daily sacrifice (Ezekiel 46:13).
Larkin's Charts are a good general summation of Dispensationalism, although it differs somewhat in detail from the concepts of both the classical dispsensationalists of the nineteenth century and of the dispensationalists that subscribe to the changes introduced in the early twentieth century by Dwight Pentecost.
Rather than being a "classic" dispensationalist, Scofield himself was a relative latecomer to Dispensationalism. The main elements of Dispensationalism were being taught in the first two centuries of the church, and it was clearly set forth in the mid 1700s, even though it never became formalized as a doctrine until it was popularized by J. N. Darby and his associates in the early to mid 1800s.
But that is a detail.
I agree with with the quotation from Scofield that you posted, as would any well taught Dispensationalist of today. Salvation always was, and always will be, by grace through faith. But God is the sovereign Ruler of all creation, and particularly of His family, which is currently known as "the church." And as the sovereign Ruler, He has an absolute right to change the details of what He requires of His people, at any time He chooses.
We both agree that He has done this at several times in the past. The sticking point between us seems to be whether or not He has the right to change these requirements again in the future. I contend that He has the absolute right to do this, and that He has also plainly declared that He will do exactly this, not just once, but at least two times in the future. (Although we have not even been discussing what the scriptures say about the eternal state.)
And in Covenant Theology, the change in "dispensations" is marked by the different covenants.
But, in each and every instance, even in dispensationalism, the current covenant/dispensation, does not render the previous one "null and void".
GOD replaced the covenants. GOD says that the new is a new and better covenant built on better promises and the blood of God and not sheep.And yet Christians insist that the New Covenant renders the Old null and void.
GOD replaced the covenants. GOD says that the new is a new and better covenant built on better promises and the blood of God and not sheep.
Have you ever asked God why He decided to give have a New Covenant? Isn't it to write His Word on our hearts so that we wouldn't be like the Old Covenant people who did not obey
Again, no argument from me.
But, has God made conditional promises in the past?
God Bless
Till all are one.
And yet Christians insist that the New Covenant renders the Old null and void.
God made some promises to Israel that were conditional, and others that were unconditional.But one of the unconditional promises was that He would eventually bring all Israel to the repentance which was the condition of the conditional promises. So the end result is that all of God's promises to the nation of Israel are unconditional.
Yes, all Israel shall be saved. But that will only be after Ezekiel20:33-38, where we read, "' As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'surely with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, I will rule over you. I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you face to face. Just as I pleaded My case with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will plead My case with you,' says the Lord GOD. 'I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant; I will purge the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against Me; I will bring them out of the country where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.'" Ezekiel 20:33-38So I take it from your response, that you believe what is written in Romans:
"all Israel shall be saved" -Rom. 11:26
God Bless
Till all are one.
That is the biggest understatement I have ever heard. If you think the New Covenant Jesus doesn't expect everyone that believes to be under, then why did God fortell the New Covenant and the Old Covenant people were waiting for it?And in Covenant Theology, the change in "dispensations" is marked by the different covenants.
But, in each and every instance, even in dispensationalism, the current covenant/dispensation, does not render the previous one "null and void".
The only marked change in both covenants and dispensations, is the manner in which God deals with mankind.
Did Noah's dispensation differ from Adam's? No, just like Adam, Noah still earned his bread from the sweat of his brow. The only difference was that God promised He would not ever again "flood" the earth.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Yes, all Israel shall be saved. But that will only be after Ezekiel20:33-38, where we read, "' As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'surely with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, I will rule over you. I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you face to face. Just as I pleaded My case with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will plead My case with you,' says the Lord GOD. 'I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant; I will purge the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against Me; I will bring them out of the country where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.'" Ezekiel 20:33-38
That is the biggest understatement I have ever heard. If you think the New Covenant Jesus doesn't expect everyone that believes to be under, then why did God fortell the New Covenant and the Old Covenant people were waiting for it?
That is the biggest understatement I have ever heard. If you think the New Covenant Jesus doesn't expect everyone that believes to be under, then why did God fortell the New Covenant and the Old Covenant people were waiting for it?
You see, there is another inherent problem with just what you said.
If "all Israel" in Romans, literally means "all Israel" as in "corporate election", then tell me is there any need to preach, teach, or witness to Jews today?
Evidently not for John Hagee and several other evangelists have signed an agreement that they will not preach, teach, or witness to Israel, for just that very reason.
It's funny that you take that position because Paul also said in Romans that "not all Israel is Israel".
God Bless
Till all are one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?