ECT The Relation of Old Testament To the New Testament, and Dispensationalism

[northwye]

There are texts in Romans Chapter Nine which should be kept in mind - rather than the doctrines of a man made church theology, dispensationalism - when interpreting Romans Chapter 11, especially Romans 11: 1-5 and Romans 11: 26.

"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

The distinction between the children of the promise and the children of the flesh is to show that the promises of God did not apply to all ισραηλ κατα σαρκα or Israel after the flesh (I Corinthians 10: 18). The Israel which is called the children of the promise could be called the remnant.

Then remember that Paul says in Romans 9: 27 that "Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:"

He brings up the remnant of Old Covenant Israel in Romans 11: 1-5 at the beginning of Romans Chapter Eleven.

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." Romans 11: 1-5

Remember also that in Romans 11: 17-20 he says "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:"

This is metaphoric, but he in saying that Gentiles, being branches from a wild olive tree, are grafted in to the good olive tree, which is the Israel of God of Galatians 6: 15-16, along with that remnant from Old Covenant Israel he talks about in Romans 11: 1-5. This is a contradiction of dispensationalism, but here it is.

What he says in Ephesians 2: 11-13 about Gentiles being brought close to the Commonwealth of Israel by the blood of Christ supports Romans 11: 17-20.

Paul in Romans Chapter 9 and in Chapter 11 before Romans 11: 25-25 is gradually moving toward the doctrine that saved Gentiles and Jews together make up the Good Olive Tree, or the Israel of God. This applies to the interpretation of Romans 11: 26 on who is saved in "All Israel shall be saved."

 

[glorydaz]

There are texts in Romans Chapter Nine which should be kept in mind - rather than the doctrines of a man made church theology, dispensationalism - when interpreting Romans Chapter 11, especially Romans 11: 1-5 and Romans 11: 26.

Spoiler

"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

The distinction between the children of the promise and the children of the flesh is to show that the promises of God did not apply to all ισραηλ κατα σαρκα or Israel after the flesh (I Corinthians 10: 18). The Israel which is called the children of the promise could be called the remnant.

Then remember that Paul says in Romans 9: 27 that "Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:"

He brings up the remnant of Old Covenant Israel in Romans 11: 1-5 at the beginning of Romans Chapter Eleven.

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." Romans 11: 1-5

Remember also that in Romans 11: 17-20 he says "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:"

This is metaphoric, but he in saying that Gentiles, being branches from a wild olive tree, are grafted in to the good olive tree, which is the Israel of God of Galatians 6: 15-16, along with that remnant from Old Covenant Israel he talks about in Romans 11: 1-5. This is a contradiction of dispensationalism, but here it is.

What he says in Ephesians 2: 11-13 about Gentiles being brought close to the Commonwealth of Israel by the blood of Christ supports Romans 11: 17-20.

Paul in Romans Chapter 9 and in Chapter 11 before Romans 11: 25-25 is gradually moving toward the doctrine that saved Gentiles and Jews together make up the Good Olive Tree, or the Israel of God. This applies to the interpretation of Romans 11: 26 on who is saved in "All Israel shall be saved."

I'm seeing doctrines of men in there. You're using Paul's verse in Galatians incorrectly.

Them the uncircumcision, AND the Israel of God the circumcision.

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy upon the Israel of God.

 

[glorydaz]

In order to protect its postulate that old Covenant physical Israel still exists and that the New Covenant does not say that the Old Covenant was done away with (Hebrews 8: 6-7, 13 and II Corinthians 3: 7-11), dispensationalism has to say also that there is not a unity between saved Jews and saved Gentiles, contrary to Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28 and Colossians 3: 11).

This is because Ephesians 2: 11-13 and Romans 11: 17-20 imply that saved Gentiles become part of remade Israel of the New Covenant which Paul calls the Israel of God in Galatians 6: 15-16. Ephesians 2: 11-13 has to be interpreted to be talking about the saved Gentiles who becoming "close" to The Commonwealth of Israel become part of remade Israel. And in Romans 11: 17-20 believing Gentiles are grafted into the Good Olive Tree which is a metaphor for remade Israel,

Dispensationalism cannot have saved Jews and saved Gentiles being united in a Good Olive Tree which is remade Israel. Or "made close to Israel" which means they become part of remade Israel of the New Covenant. In dispensationalism there is no remade Israel of the New Covenant.

And so dispensationalism becomes another Gospel which is in opposition to the true Gospel of Christ.

Those verses may imply that to you, but that's because you don't understand what Paul is saying in that verse about the Israel of God.

Israel has always been the people of the Circumcision.
Gentiles are the people of the UNcircumcision.

They are joined...NOT as a remade Israel, as you contend, but ONE NEW MAN.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul in Romans Chapter 9 and in Chapter 11 before Romans 11: 25-25 is gradually moving toward the doctrine that saved Gentiles and Jews together make up the Good Olive Tree, or the Israel of God.

Here is what is said about the Gentiles who are grafted into thre Olive Tree:

"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off" (Ro.11:22).​

Today it is the believing Jews and the believing Gentiles who are members of the Body of Christ. If the Olive Tree is the Body of Christ then we must believe that saved Gentiles can be "cut off" from the Body and lose salvation.

However, according to the Lord Jesus' words that will never happen:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (Jn.6:37).​

The Olive Tree does not represent the Body of Christ which is made up of both Jewish believers and Gentile believers.

 

[northwye]

"Paul in Romans Chapter 9 and in Chapter 11 before Romans 11: 25-26 is gradually moving toward the doctrine that saved Gentiles and Jews together make up the Good Olive Tree, or the Israel of God. This applies to the interpretation of Romans 11: 26 on who is saved in "All Israel shall be saved." "

By all Israel in Romans 11: 26 Paul means all the elect of God, which is all of the good olive tree of Romans 11: 24 and the Israel of God in Galatians 6: 15-16. Saved Gentiles and saved Jews are a unity, and not "rightly divided" as dispensationalism would say.

Of course, dispensationalists will not agree with this interpretation of Romans 11: 26, because they are in rebellion against several fundamental doctrines of the New Testament

 

[Right Divider]

"Paul in Romans Chapter 9 and in Chapter 11 before Romans 11: 25-26 is gradually moving toward the doctrine that saved Gentiles and Jews together make up the Good Olive Tree, or the Israel of God. This applies to the interpretation of Romans 11: 26 on who is saved in "All Israel shall be saved." "

By all Israel in Romans 11: 26 Paul means all the elect of God, which is all of the good olive tree of Romans 11: 24 and the Israel of God in Galatians 6: 15-16. Saved Gentiles and saved Jews are a unity, and not "rightly divided" as dispensationalism would say.

Of course, dispensationalists will not agree with this interpretation of Romans 11: 26, because they are in rebellion against several fundamental doctrines of the New Testament

You just insist on lying.

Israel does not ever mean simply "all the elect of God" anywhere in scripture. Except in the feeble mind of those that want to force the scripture into their bogus theory.

 

[northwye]

"You just insist on lying."

This is a personal attack, using one of the tactics of the Marxist version of the Hegelian dialectic. But since this is an attack upon a non-dispensationalist, it is maybe not considered a personal attack on TOL.

 

[Right Divider]

"You just insist on lying."

This is a personal attack, using one of the tactics of the Marxist version of the Hegelian dialectic. But since this is an attack upon a non-dispensationalist, it is maybe not considered a personal attack on TOL.

No, it's just the truth. You don't like the truth.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"Paul in Romans Chapter 9 and in Chapter 11 before Romans 11: 25-26 is gradually moving toward the doctrine that saved Gentiles and Jews together make up the Good Olive Tree, or the Israel of God. This applies to the interpretation of Romans 11: 26 on who is saved in "All Israel shall be saved." "

Today saved gentiles and saved Jews make up the Body of Christ so you must think that the Olive Tree is the Body of Christ. So let us look at this verse which speak of the Gentiles in the Olive Tree:

"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off" (Ro.11:22).​

If the Olive Tree is the Body of Christ then we must believe that saved Gentiles can be "cut off" from the Body and lose salvation.

However, according to the Lord Jesus' words that will never happen:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (Jn.6:37).​

Do you teach that those in the Body of Christ can be cut off from the Body and lose their salvation?

Or are you going to take the fifth on the grounds that your answer will tend to expose the fact that you are clueless when it comes to understanding the Bible?

 

[northwye]

The use of carnal-type name-calling cannot be allowed on a Christian forum. James Lloyd has said that dispensationalists are a pack of liars, but it is a bad idea to call any individual on a forum a liar. James Lloyd did not say that on a Forum, and he was talking about a large group of people, dispensationalists, and not an individual. A verbal attack upon an individual is not the same at all to a verbal attack upon a group.

There are rational discussions of three or four main interpretations of Romans 11: 25, "και ουτως πας ισραηλ σωθησεται, "and in this way all Israel shall be saved," on the Internet. The interpretation of John Calvin in his Commentaries saying that "I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.”

Calvin's is the one interpretation of Romans 11: 26 that the dispensationalists, in their rebellion against New Testament doctrines, totally reject.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Calvin's is the one interpretation of Romans 11: 26 that the dispensationalists, in their rebellion against New Testament doctrines, totally reject.

There is a good reason why dispensationalists reject Calvin's understanding of the verse. The following passage is the only place in the OT where we find the words "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; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).​

The LORD says that He will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The "fathers" of those who will partake of this covenant were the children of Israel whom the Lord redeemed out of Egypt and the same people who broke His covenant (Jer.11:1-8). Since the "fathers" of these future members of the houses of Israel and Judah were the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob then that can only mean that in the future the members of both houses will also be the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So in the future there will be a generation made up of the physical descendants of Jacob (Israel) who will all know the LORD and all of them will have their sins forgiven and be saved. Since that has never happened in the past that explains why Paul put the fulfillment of this prophecy in the future:

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:26-27).​

From this we know that the fulfillment of the New Covenant remains in the future because there has never been a time when all of the physical descendants of Israel knew the LORD and had their sins forgiven--"for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

 

[Right Divider]

The use of carnal-type name-calling cannot be allowed on a Christian forum.

When you lie... you will be called a liar.

That's not name-calling... it's called telling the truth.

 

[northwye]

"The following passage is the only place in the OT where we find the words "new covenant":" And he sites Jeremiah 31: 31-33. " Then he says "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:26-27)."

"From this we know that the fulfillment of the New Covenant remains in the future because there has never been a time when all of the physical descendants of Israel knew the LORD and had their sins forgiven-"

He is admitting in this argument that the focus of dispensationalism is on the multitude of Old Covenant Israel, which Paul in I Corinthians 10: 18 calls Israel after the flesh.

This is a rebellion against more than one New Testament scripture here. There are at least seven texts in the New Testament on the subject of the New Covenant. Some of them just refer to the Covenant, but we know they are talking about the New Covenant.

He may be implying for the sake of this argument here that saved Gentiles are not brought into the New Covenant, and that only Jews are in the New Covenant. This opposes some New Testament texts, on saved Jews and Saved Gentiles being a unity, which he once agreed on - but that was part of a different argument of his.

And the implication of his argument is that Ephesians 2: 11-13, Romans 11: 17-20 on saved Gentiles being brought into Israel or the good olive tree cannot say that saved Gentiles are brought into New Covenant Israel.

He uses the dialectic as a method of argument, but he is not consistent in the doctrines which he argues for and against from the New Testament to support dispensationalism. . I noticed this trait in the group of dispensationalists on ECT of TOl a couple of years ago, that they were using forms of the dialectic in their quarrels, which seemed to be important to them in itself. That is, the quarrel itself, regardless of its content, was important to them.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He is admitting in this argument that the focus of dispensationalism is on the multitude of Old Covenant Israel, which Paul in I Corinthians 10: 18 calls Israel after the flesh.

My argument is based on the plain meaning of Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Your argument is based on the idea that what the LORD told the Israelites at Jeremiah 31:31-34 cannot be believed.

 

[northwye]

"My argument is based on the plain meaning of Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Your argument is based on the idea that what the LORD told the Israelites at Jeremiah 31:31-34 cannot be believed"

This is a tactic of the dialectic, attributing to the opponent that which the opponent did not say.

I do not see that this use of the dialectic advances the argument that the New Covenant is yet future, or is yet future for the believing Gentiles but not for the Jews.

It does increase the number of views of this thread, which brings more viewers from the Internet to this thread. Try typing in the name of TOL threads on www.duckduckgo.com or www.bing.com, which have been going on at least a while.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I do not see that this use of the dialectic advances the argument that the New Covenant is yet future, or is yet future for the believing Gentiles but not for the Jews.

How can you say that. The way I came to my conclusion in both a rational and logical way. Here is the passage again which speaks of the New Covenant promised to Israel:

"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; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).​

We can see that the "fathers" of those who will partake of this covenant are the Israelites whom the LORD took out of Egypt and the same Israelites which broke the covenant which he gave them (the Mosaic Covenant).

Logical point #1: The fathers were the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Logical Point #2: Since the fathers were the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob then that means that those who will partake of the covenant will also be the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Logical Point #3: All of these people who will partake of this new covenant know the LORD, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, and they will all have their sins forgiven.

Logical Point #4: Since the LORD made the promise concerning the New Covenant to those of the house of Israel and the house of Judah then "all" of them will be saved and they will all be the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Logical Point #5: Since there has never been a time when all of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have had their sins forgiven then the promise will be fulfilled in the future.

If I have made in error in my reasoning then tell me exactly what I said that it not logical.

 

[northwye]

Here is what is of the dialectic: "Your argument is based on the idea that what the LORD told the Israelites at Jeremiah 31:31-34 cannot be believed" It is attributing something to the opponent which is not said by the opponent"

Your argument using what you call "Logical Points 1,2,3 and 4" are all within dispensationalist doctrine.

And it is not clear whether you are saying that all Jews - those of the Bloodline - are in the New Covenant and will therefore all be saved, or whether you are saying the New Covenant in what is called the New Covenant in New Testament scripture is not now in effect for anyone.

One of John Hagee's positions was that Jews will be saved based upon the Bloodline alone, but he got so much opposition to that, that he seemed to moderate that position.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your argument using what you call "Logical Points 1,2,3 and 4" are all within dispensationalist doctrine.

And it is not clear whether you are saying that all Jews - those of the Bloodline - are in the New Covenant and will therefore all be saved, or whether you are saying the New Covenant in what is called the New Covenant in New Testament scripture is not now in effect for anyone.

Tell me specifically which point it is that you think is not logical.

 

[jamesdyson]

This would be the OT Scriptures (Including those verses on Israel's land promise).

Please keep in mind that the promise came with conditions.
The Lord said I will do this if you do that, if not all bets are over, back to square one.

Israel is in that square one spot right now.

 

[jamesdyson]

Dispensationalism

Dispensational theology refers to the unified teachings of dispensationalism that address what other views teach as divergent theologies in the Old Testament and New Testament. Its name reflects a view that biblical history is best understood as a series of dispensations, or separated time-periods, in the Bible.

Each dispensation is said to represent a different way in which God deals with man. Some writers also believe that it also involves a different testing of Man. "These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God's method of dealing with mankind, in respect to two questions: of sin, and of man's responsibility," explained C. I. Scofield. "Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment—marking his utter failure in every dispensation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology

I am a bit confused; is the definition of Dispensationalism above the same meaning being debated here?