ECT Twelve New Testament Scriptures Dispensationalists Try To Ignore

northwye

New member
Twelve New Testament Scriptures Dispensationalists Try To Ignore

John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26, and Hebrews 10: 9

Often dispensationalists-Christian Zionists will ignore these scriptures when brought up to defend all the counsel of God (Acts 20: 27), that is, the entire Gospel of Christ, and to show that this theology is false doctrine and another Gospel (Galatians 1: 6-9,II Corinthians 11: 4). Sometimes they may try to argue against one of these scriptures, thinking that if they can discredit one of the twelve or more, then they have shot down all twelve.

The more usual tactic of the dialectic here is to try to side-step these twelve or more New Testament scriptures and attack (verbally) the person who brought them up. In attacking the one who brings up these scriptures, the Christian Zionists are working to establish the idea that it is not New Testament scripture which opposes their theology, but it is an individual person who does so. In other words, their tactic is to largely ignore the scriptures and instead attack the individual.

And that individual being verbally attacked should not help the Christian Zionists here to establish that "narrative" or starting position, that it is the individual and not the scripture which is out of line and opposes them, the multitude. Don't get into a dialogue with them on an individual basis, and when they verbally attack don't attack them back.

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10: 16

"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." Romans 10: 12

"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: 28

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2: 28-29

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Romans 9: 6-8

"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18. Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:" Romans 11: 17-20

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8. How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9. For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." II Corinthians 3: 6-11

"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?.........Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.........For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28. 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.
29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Galatians 4: 24-26

"Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Hebrews 10: 9

Christian Zionism - defined by quotes from its founders - argues against these New Testament scriptures, some of which are a little subtle.

An argument against the absolute truth of scripture is an "opposition of knowledge falsely called" in I Timothy 6: 20-21.

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

The key word in I Timothy 6: 20 is αντιθεσεις, or antitheoeis, in the Hegelian dialectic anti-thesis.

Antithesis is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance number 477, which is said to mean "opposition, i.e., a conflict of theories. In the Hegelian dialectic there is an opposition of two positions (theories, if you wish).

There are other Greek words used in the New Testament which mean opposition, such as anthistémi, antidiatithémi, antipolítef̱si̱, or enantío̱si̱. Antithesis is a specific word used in Greek philosophy in relation to the dialectic.

antitheoeis is a Greek word used in early Greek philosophy of the dialectic. The dialectic was used in Greek philosophy before the time of Christ and called the dialectic - διαλεκτική.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

"Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method), from Ancient Greek διαλεκτική, is a method of argument.....The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues."

"In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses)."

"Aristotle said that it was the pre-Socratic philosopher Zeno of Elea who invented dialectic, of which the dialogues of Plato are the examples of the Socratic dialectical method."

Science in I Timothy 6: 20 is from Strong's number 1108, gnosis, meaning "knowing,, i.e, by implication knowledge, science." Knowledge is a better translation of gnosis.

Keeping away from profane empty babblings, and the dialectic - from αντιθεσεις, or anti-thesis - of so called knowledge would mean that Paul is referring to the use of the dialectic process of argument in Greek philosophy. What Paul is saying is to keep away from the anti-thesis of so called knowledge,which is harder to understand. But in addition to saying to keep away from profane and empty babblings, Paul is saying to keep away from the method of argument of some of the Greek philosophers who use the anti-thesis. This is called the dialectic and it is known that some of the Greek philosophers used it and called it that.

George Hegel used the "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" idea and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels took over the dialectic idea and made it a part of their theory, especially in the book, The Poverty of Philosophy.

"In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

The dialectic is a method of argument, which has been associated with a belief system which denies there is the God of the Bible and denies that truth and morality are fixed and absolute.

The word διαλεκτική, or dialectic, is not found in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and is not in the New Testament, only the word αντιθεσεις, or anti-thesis.
 

DAN P

Well-known member
Twelve New Testament Scriptures Dispensationalists Try To Ignore

John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26, and Hebrews 10: 9
/QUOTE]


Hi GRASSHOPPER , an say what Gal 3:28 means in the KJV and then I will say what it really !!

So I challenge you !!

If you refuse you are SCARED !!

dan p
 
Last edited:

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
There is no difference between Jew and Greek [Gentile] in the Body of Christ. The difference was between the Body of Christ and the dispensation that came before. Nationality has nothing to do with it.
 

DAN P

Well-known member
There is no difference between Jew and Greek [Gentile] in the Body of Christ. The difference was between the Body of Christ and the dispensation that came before. Nationality has nothing to do with it.


Hi Lighthouse and I can PIN POINT more , at least 11 different areas that Gal 3:28 is speaking about , BUT he will not accept my CHALLENGE as he is sacred !!

So he will just refuse to answer !!

dan p
 

northwye

New member
Many of the people who have come to reject dispensationalism-Christian Zionism were once followers of that theology. In fact, it may be that some who once had a great zeal for the theology have come out of it and are now critical of it.

And those I have known personally who woke up and realized that it is a false set of doctrines, and have some love of the truth rather than a love of that theology, were once in protestant denominations that have been taken over by dispensationalism. One guy who began broadcasting on short wave back in the mid nineties came out of Cavalry Chapel under Chuck Snith and has had a show on the Internet since then in which he is often critical of dispensationalism.

You can find a large number of links to writings critical of dispensationalism on the Internet through a search engine, something it appears that the dispensationalists on these Christian forums do not seem to know about. They seem to act as though only a very few "misguided" individuals oppose the theology.

Which people now in dispenmsationalism are more likely to come out of it is not easy to identify - and this is another reason for those who offer scriptures which do not support that theology not to get into personal attacks, which stir up negative feelings, and take the focus away from scripture and put it on individuals.

And few in dispensationalism seem to acknowledge that there are many who realize the doctrines of dispensation do not agree with scripture, which may be a trait of cultists, not to admit that large numbers of Christians do not agree with the cult line, even though that number is a remnant - and growing.
 

DAN P

Well-known member
Many of the people who have come to reject dispensationalism-Christian Zionism were once followers of that theology. In fact, it may be that some who once had a great zeal for the theology have come out of it and are now critical of it.

And those I have known personally who woke up and realized that it is a false set of doctrines, and have some love of the truth rather than a love of that theology, were once in protestant denominations that have been taken over by dispensationalism. One guy who began broadcasting on short wave back in the mid nineties came out of Cavalry Chapel under Chuck Snith and has had a show on the Internet since then in which he is often critical of dispensationalism.

You can find a large number of links to writings critical of dispensationalism on the Internet through a search engine, something it appears that the dispensationalists on these Christian forums do not seem to know about. They seem to act as though only a very few "misguided" individuals oppose the theology.

Which people now in dispenmsationalism are more likely to come out of it is not easy to identify - and this is another reason for those who offer scriptures which do not support that theology not to get into personal attacks, which stir up negative feelings, and take the focus away from scripture and put it on individuals.

And few in dispensationalism seem to acknowledge that there are many who realize the doctrines of dispensation do not agree with scripture, which may be a trait of cultists, not to admit that large numbers of Christians do not agree with the cult line, even though that number is a remnant - and growing.


Hi and does this mean , you will not answer Gal 3:28 as I challenged you ??
Instead you RAMBLE why Dispensational people are wrong , when there are many passages about dispensationalism in the bible !!

My challenge is not to be taken ??

Coward , and Insult the Holy Spirit who gave all those words , for Paul to write , LIKE , Rom 16:25 and 26 , Col 1:25 and 26 and Eph 3:2 and Acts 20:24 , who are you KIDDING ??

dan p
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Many of the people who have come to reject dispensationalism-Christian Zionism were once followers of that theology. In fact, it may be that some who once had a great zeal for the theology have come out of it and are now critical of it.

And those I have known personally who woke up and realized that it is a false set of doctrines, and have some love of the truth rather than a love of that theology, were once in protestant denominations that have been taken over by dispensationalism. One guy who began broadcasting on short wave back in the mid nineties came out of Cavalry Chapel under Chuck Snith and has had a show on the Internet since then in which he is often critical of dispensationalism.

You can find a large number of links to writings critical of dispensationalism on the Internet through a search engine, something it appears that the dispensationalists on these Christian forums do not seem to know about. They seem to act as though only a very few "misguided" individuals oppose the theology.

Which people now in dispenmsationalism are more likely to come out of it is not easy to identify - and this is another reason for those who offer scriptures which do not support that theology not to get into personal attacks, which stir up negative feelings, and take the focus away from scripture and put it on individuals.

And few in dispensationalism seem to acknowledge that there are many who realize the doctrines of dispensation do not agree with scripture, which may be a trait of cultists, not to admit that large numbers of Christians do not agree with the cult line, even though that number is a remnant - and growing.

I've never heard a critic of MAD who actually knew what it was.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
I've never heard a critic of MAD who actually knew what it was.



Or you don't THINK they knew. That's how I'm treated--as though I don't know. That's why I finally asked some of them for the key points, and when I saw them it was so clearly 2P2P, I dropped it.

I hear a Calvary pastor once a week and he's using the Bible project. They did a fair coverage of Gen 1-11 and the conttinuity between that and the Abraham narratives. But then he (not the video) went on a sidebar about only 10% of Israel's land promise was fulfilled. I say: once you leave the mission objective of Gen 1-11, everything becomes a distraction, and it took Christ and the launching of the church to clear this up. You end up with a world-reaching mission that has nothing to say about Israel and its land.

I don't know why Israel would be in its land without practicing Judaism and I don't know what the point of that would be X000 years after the Gospel and the letter to Hebrews, but you are welcome to try.

The other non-sense of MAD is the kingdom offer and all that 2P2P stuff related to that. They don't understand because they don't cross the bridge to the kingdom without human hands of Dan 2 that was expected.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Or you don't THINK they knew. That's how I'm treated--as though I don't know. That's why I finally asked some of them for the key points, and when I saw them it was so clearly 2P2P, I dropped it.

I hear a Calvary pastor once a week and he's using the Bible project. They did a fair coverage of Gen 1-11 and the conttinuity between that and the Abraham narratives. But then he (not the video) went on a sidebar about only 10% of Israel's land promise was fulfilled. I say: once you leave the mission objective of Gen 1-11, everything becomes a distraction, and it took Christ and the launching of the church to clear this up. You end up with a world-reaching mission that has nothing to say about Israel and its land.

I don't know why Israel would be in its land without practicing Judaism and I don't know what the point of that would be X000 years after the Gospel and the letter to Hebrews, but you are welcome to try.

The other non-sense of MAD is the kingdom offer and all that 2P2P stuff related to that. They don't understand because they don't cross the bridge to the kingdom without human hands of Dan 2 that was expected.
I'm convinced you don't know.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
I'm convinced you don't know.


But I do know that Ryries' 2P2P doctrine was there; I do know they were ignorant of Dan 2. I do know they did not know Hebrews went FURTHER from their position, not closer. AND ITS THE LETTER TO HEBREWS FOR GOD'S SAKES! If he's going to remind them about the restoration, or patch up things about it, IT WOULD BE THERE. NOT!!!
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
But I do know that Ryries' 2P2P doctrine was there; I do know they were ignorant of Dan 2. I do know they did not know Hebrews went FURTHER from their position, not closer. AND ITS THE LETTER TO HEBREWS FOR GOD'S SAKES! If he's going to remind them about the restoration, or patch up things about it, IT WOULD BE THERE. NOT!!!
The Hebrews are the circumcision; the letter to them was not for the Body of Christ.

And, how, exactly, does Daniel 2 contradict MAD?
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
But I do know that Ryries' 2P2P doctrine was there; I do know they were ignorant of Dan 2. I do know they did not know Hebrews went FURTHER from their position, not closer. AND ITS THE LETTER TO HEBREWS FOR GOD'S SAKES! If he's going to remind them about the restoration, or patch up things about it, IT WOULD BE THERE. NOT!!!

The restoration is covered very adequately in the Prophets....which you don't believe.
 

northwye

New member
MAD looks like a Red Herring, which would confuse the meaning of dispensationalism-Christian Zionism as defined by its founders and would also confuse exactly what the opposition between it and scripture is.

Christian Zionism should be defined by use of quotes from the founders - of dispensationalism. John Darby, C.I. Scofield, Lewis S. Chafer and others said the fundamental starting assumptions of dispensationalism is consistent literalism in interpretation and that God now has two distinct peoples, Israel and the Church. In dispensationalism Israel is always only Old Covenant Israel. Not defining this theology by use of quotes from its founders invites confusion. Which means in the argument exactly what is being argued about is not clear. But there is a lot of negative emotion and attacking of individuals going on in "the argument."

"Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfilment of
prophecy... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion
is always Zion... Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always
literal." C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago,
Moody Bible Institute, 1907), pp. 45-46.

"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..

Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has "...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.." Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447

Chafer, a founder of Christian Zionism, following John Darby and C.I. Scofield, claimed the Bible is a mass or more or less conflicting writings and that dispensationalism or Christian Zionism makes the Bible more easily classified and assimilated, or more easily understood.

In his book, Dispensationalism (1966), Charles Ryrie says "The
essence of Dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel
and the church." (page 3, "Dispensationalism")

J. Dwight Pentecost is another dispensationalist theologian who in his
book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church
and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.
The church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament. (page 193,
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965).

Jeremiah 18: 1-6 says that God remade Old Covenant Israel. The New Testament in II Corinthians 3: 11 and Hebrews 10: 9 says that the Old Covenant was done away with. The NT does not say that Israel was done away with. But this is all subtle. It was John Darby, C.I Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer who said that Israel must always be Old Covenant Israel and cannot be any other.
 

Danoh

New member
Here ya go northwye...knock yourself out...

Google the words "pdf dispensational theology charles f. baker"

Not that I and or every MAD on TOL and or outside of TOL might agree with its every assertion, but there you have 630 pages from what is basically A Mid-Acts Dispensational Theology.

Every subject dealt with from a Mid-Acts Dispensational Theology - christology, soteriology, eschatology, hamartiology, pneumatology, bibliology; you name it.

You insist the MADist does not follow Acts 2 Theology.

You are right. MOST will be found not to.

Because the MADist's is...A Mid-Acts Dispensational Theology.

The above book is a REQUIRED reading during the Mid-Acts Based Pastor-Teacher's training required by all three of the Major schools within Mid-Acts Dispensationalism - Grace Bible College (C.F. Baker; J.C. O'Hair); Grace School of the Bible (R.C. Jordan); the Berean Bible Society (C.R. Stam).

And perhaps among some of the smaller camps, as well.

Since you are so insistent the MADs adhere to some scholar in your obvious unawareness of the above...

Read IT and comment on IT.

All you EVER do is post on and from Acts TWO Dispy books.

Put up...or shut up.

Don't be like Interplanner, who repeatedly posted his "couldn't be bothered with reading Stam's 'Things That Differ'" and yet here he is asserting otherwise.

Here he is hiding behind his having attempted to tackle these issues via sound bytes though he spit on looking at what is largely their foundational basis (much of it laid out in Stam's 'Things That Differ').

And quit being like him and Tet; both of whom resort to ad homein attacks against Darby in their delusion they are saying anything of substance.

I find it funny; the one thing I admire in Interplanner - that he at least goes somewhat beyond his books based errors to his own thinking on said errors - is the very quality I end up not admiring him for.

For his failure by it, to recognize that MAD is a thinking outside the Acts 2 Dispy box, given the many, Acts 2 Dispy mis-fires (due to their never having broken completely free of what are many, remaining, Reformed ideas).

Interplanner is either that dishonest; that incompetent; or both.

Put up, or shut up...northwye...
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
MAD looks like a Red Herring, which would confuse the meaning of dispensationalism-Christian Zionism as defined by its founders and would also confuse exactly what the opposition between it and scripture is.

Christian Zionism should be defined by use of quotes from the founders - of dispensationalism. John Darby, C.I. Scofield, Lewis S. Chafer and others said the fundamental starting assumptions of dispensationalism is consistent literalism in interpretation and that God now has two distinct peoples, Israel and the Church. In dispensationalism Israel is always only Old Covenant Israel. Not defining this theology by use of quotes from its founders invites confusion. Which means in the argument exactly what is being argued about is not clear. But there is a lot of negative emotion and attacking of individuals going on in "the argument."

"Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfilment of
prophecy... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion
is always Zion... Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always
literal." C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago,
Moody Bible Institute, 1907), pp. 45-46.

"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..

Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has "...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.." Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447

Chafer, a founder of Christian Zionism, following John Darby and C.I. Scofield, claimed the Bible is a mass or more or less conflicting writings and that dispensationalism or Christian Zionism makes the Bible more easily classified and assimilated, or more easily understood.

In his book, Dispensationalism (1966), Charles Ryrie says "The
essence of Dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel
and the church." (page 3, "Dispensationalism")

J. Dwight Pentecost is another dispensationalist theologian who in his
book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church
and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.
The church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament. (page 193,
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965).

Jeremiah 18: 1-6 says that God remade Old Covenant Israel. The New Testament in II Corinthians 3: 11 and Hebrews 10: 9 says that the Old Covenant was done away with. The NT does not say that Israel was done away with. But this is all subtle. It was John Darby, C.I Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer who said that Israel must always be Old Covenant Israel and cannot be any other.
Israel is only Old Covenant during the Old Covenant. Jesus ushered in the New Covenant through His blood. He said as much as recorded in the gospels. And not a single one of these quotes you presented states any thought otherwise; none of them argue that Israel is and can only be Old Covenant.
 

northwye

New member
In "the argument" - between dispensationalism-Christian Zionism - what is being argued has to be made clear. Arguing for the sake of argument - to win an argument - should not be done. And is "the argument" about what dispensationalism teaches or about how what it teaches is different from scripture? There is a lot of room for confusion here.

The distinction between Israel, as always meaning Old Covenant Israel,and the church, is very important in dispensationalism-Christian Zionism.

Charles Ryrie’s Basis of the Premillennial Faith of 1953 shows this to be true.

An online copy of this book is at: http://bartimaeus.us/pub_dom/premille.html

Ryrie says "That natural Israel and the Gentiles are contrasted in the New
Testament is seen from the fact that Israel is addressed as a nation after
the Church has been established. Peter recognized this distinction, for he,
"filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them Ye rulers of the people, and
elders of Israel" (Acts 4:8; cf. Acts 3:12a; 21:28; Rom. 10:1). It should
be perfectly evident from these verses that natural Israel and Gentiles are
contrasted in the New Testament.'

The distinction between physical Israel - "by the bloodline - from the church is so important to dispensationalism-Christian Zionism that Ryrie says there is a Physical Israel New Covenant which is different from the New Covenant with the church.

"The most common view among premillennialists concerning the new
covenant is that which is set forth in the notes of the Scofield Reference
Bible. This interpretation holds that the one new covenant has two aspects,
one which applies to Israel, and one which applies to the church. These
have been called the realistic and spiritual aspects of the covenant, but
both aspects comprise essentially one covenant based on the sacrifice of
the Lord Jesus Christ."

" The third form which premillennial interpretation takes is that which
distinguishes the new covenant with Israel from the new covenant with the
Church. This view finds two new covenants in which the promises to Israel
and the promises to the Church are more sharply distinguished even though
both new covenants are based on the one sacrifice of Christ. This view does
not differ essentially from the view that holds that there are two aspects
to the one covenant, but it at least shows that the Scripture will support
a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church which further strengthens
the premillennial position. "

Thirdly, that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for
Israel is also seen by the fact that in its establishment the perpetuity of
the nation Israel and her restoration to the land is vitally linked with it
(Jer. 31:35-40). The Church is never called a nation, and the national
aspect of this covenant concerns an earthly people. "

"However, since the New Testament will support two new
covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that
Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?"

"First of all, Israel is regathered from all the ends of the earth
whither they have been scattered. They are judged by the Lord in the
wilderness according to the prophecy of Ezekiel, and restored in blessing
to their own land, there to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth.
Second, many Gentiles are saved out of the Great Tribulation."

"The Church will be taken out of the earth at the rapture at which time
God's program for the Jew will be resumed and continue from where it was at
the time of Christ's death.... [The millennium] will simply be a
continuation of the old order, this time with Christ accepted as and
reigning as King. The Jews will continue their animal sacrifices in worship
as they did before Christ died. It is true that these sacrifices will be
types and symbols of their faith in Christ's death, but that does not make
them nonetheless real. '"

Ryrie does talk about a few of the scriptures that do not support dispensationalism, like Romans 9: 6-8, and gives an interpretation that supports dispensationalism, but not what is said by Paul.

Romans 9:6, "For they are
not all Israel, which are of Israel," is often taken as proof that only
spiritual Israel, that is, the Church, are those who inherit the promises,
the rest of Israel being excluded. However, properly interpreted, this text
supports the fact that Gentile Christians are never included in the
designation Israel. In brief, it means that being an Israelite by natural
birth does not assure one of the life and favor promised the true Israelite
who approaches God by faith. The contrast, then, is not between those who
inherit Abraham's promises and those who do not, but rather it is between
the promises which belong to Israel according to the flesh, and those which
belong to the Israelite who enters into them by faith,."

I don't know if Ryrie deliberately quoted only this one verse - Romans 9: 6 and left out
verses 7 and 8 which contradict his view. "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Paul is contrasting the children of the flesh to those who enter in by faith but Paul is saying the children of the flesh are not the children of God. Paul deals with the physical bloodline from Abraham in Galatians 3 and clearly states in verses 3:13, 3:16-17 and 3: 26-29 that the promises involving the physical seed from Abraham apply to Christ and all in Christ are the seed from Abraham meaning those not of the physical bloodline who are Christ's are the seed of Abraham through Christ Jesus. And here is a crucial difference between dispensationalism and scripture.
 
Last edited:
Top