Flaws with Dispensational Theology

[jlay]

For clarification, you claimed that there was NO justication by faith in the OT, and contrary to Scofield, you also claimed that there was no justification by law. So how were the OT saints justified? You still haven't answered that.

Let's make sure the water doesn't get Muddy. I said that there nothing written in the literal words that preaches justification by faith. You are welcome to see if the word justify or justified appears in the OT. Again, Heb 11 and Rom 4 explains OT faith. What they had faith in, and how it was credited to them as righteousness. In fact check out Heb 11:39-40 "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect." None of them received what? What is, "the something better?" Christ?

You'd have to link where Scofield says there is justification by the law. Here is what my Scofield notes say.
JUSTIFICATION, SUMMARY
Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Justification and righteousness are inseparably united in Scripture by the fact that the same word (Greek, "dikaios", means "righteous"; Greek, "dikaioo", means "to justify") is used for both. The believing sinner is justified because Christ, having borne his sins on the cross, has been "made unto him righteousness" (1Co. 1:30).

Justification originates in grace; (Rom. 3:24); (Tit. 3:4); (Tit. 3:5) is through the redemptive and propitiatory work of Christ, who has vindicated the law; (Rom. 3:24); (Rom. 3:25); (Rom. 5:9) is by faith, not works; (Rom. 3:28-30); (Rom. 4:5); (Rom. 5:1); ( Gal. 2:16); ( Gal. 3:8); ( Gal. 3:24) and may be defined as the judicial act of God whereby He justly declares righteous one who believes on Jesus Christ. It is the Judge Himself (Rom. 8:31-34) who thus declares. The justified believer has been in court, only to learn that nothing is laid to his charge. (Rom. 8:1); (Rom. 8:33); (Rom. 8:34).

Another good linkhttp://www.biblecentre.org/topics/cis_r ... _grace.htm

The Jews were called to be God's people as an example to the nations around them but why would that imply that we were not under the law?

Because that is what the scripture says. Zoe, the Law was given to Israel. Everyone is under the power of sin, law or not. We don't want to equivocate universal law to God's specific covenant law. Rom 2:12
Rom 3
Also, I'm not sure I understand what you are taking exception with here.

PL, your condescension is noted, and it is getting quite tiring. Do you want to get in a peeing match about who has answered who's questions??

[jlay]

Genesis 18:18. It says so in the NT (Galatians 3:8). Was Paul mistaken?

Last I checked Gen 18:18 was in the OT, and Gal 3:8 was in the new? No Paul wasn't mistaken.

In any case, the OT prophets saw it, and it happened in the church age. You still need to explain this.

Do you mean the church age you don't believe in?
Please tell us, what specifically did the PROPHETS see?
Paul says, "The scripture." I don't recall any of the scripture being written when Abraham was on the earth. What is Paul communicating here? What revelation was given to the Abraham and the OT prophets, "All the nations will be blessed in you.”

1.) How were the OT saints justified?

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Rom 4:3

Sadly, I don't think you'll be convinced of your very serious error, as every question I ask exposes that you are straying further and further from the true gospel. At least I've done my part to see that others who may read this won't be led astray.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[zoegirl]

A Jew today is saved just like you and I. That is why Paul said, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him"
Let me ask you this. Was there a distinction before??

You need to clarify then what it means for the Jews to come into their kingdom....does this not imply that they have been saved? Is there some time in the future that God essentially declares to them "ok guys, you really did mess up in rejecting Christ...He really is my son and you really need to be saved through Him...believe in Him now or you will not be allowed into your Kingdom?"

So what about my question above? If the Jews are guaranteed a nation/kingdom/heaven, why bother with salvation through belief? So why isn't this another gospel?

And my exception concerns this idea that we were not under the law. What is the law other than the delineation of "what is sin and what isn't?" If we are not under the law then how are we condemned?

It is my understanding that God choose the Jewish nation and called them out from other nations as an example, not because we were not also under the law but because He choose them to show His law and establish the covenant.

[zoegirl]

Romans 2 also declares that even those who do not hear the law have the law written on their hearts

They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts

[Byblos]

Where does it say in the OT, that the OT prophets saw that they would be justified by faith?

Plenty of places:

Psalm 51:1-2, 16-17
Micah 6:6-8
Micah 7:18-19

and many more.

Obedience to the law including animal sacrifices were outward manifestations of faith. It was and still is grace though faith that saves.

[Gman]

Where does it say in the OT, that the OT prophets saw that they would be justified by faith?

Plenty of places:

Psalm 51:1-2, 16-17
Micah 6:6-8
Micah 7:18-19

and many more.

Obedience to the law including animal sacrifices were outward manifestations of faith. It was and still is grace though faith that saves.

Yes many places...

Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Genesis 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

[puritan lad]

You'd have to link where Scofield says there is justification by the law. Here is what my Scofield notes say.
JUSTIFICATION, SUMMARY
Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

But that's not what he said about the OT saints. Did you see this Scofield goodie:

“The righteous man under law became righteous by doing righteously; under grace he does righteously because he has been made righteous.” (Scofield Reference Bible Notes on 1 John 3:5-7)

We can see that the very foundations of Dispensational Theology are shaky.

Let's analyse Galatians 3:8 real close:

"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed.""(Galatians 3:8)

"And the Scripture," (That would be the OT, agree?)

"foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith," Paul said that the OT foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. Was he mistaken?

"preached the gospel" (what gospel? The one that would justify the Gentiles by faith, right?)

"beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."" (Not just Jews, but all nations)

This passage alone...

...is contrary to the idea that the OT prophets did not see the church age.

...is contrary to the idea that the gospel preached to Abraham was a different gospel than what Paul preached.

...is contrary to the idea that Abraham's gospel was for Jews only.

At this point, I would consider the case closed, until you answer my questions, or have any new arguments. I'll let the reader decide if my case has been made.

(I would be remiss if I didn't, per the title of this thread, add the disclaimer that jlay's theology is not mere dispensationalism. While I find dispensationalism to be in error on any number of counts, it does not teach two gospels, or at least not blatantly).

[jlay]

Zoe: That is why I quoted Rom 2:12

So what about my question above? If the Jews are guaranteed a nation/kingdom/heaven, why bother with salvation through belief? So why isn't this another gospel?

Zoe, forgive me, but I don't completely understand your question here.

Byblos, I do appreciate that. And please don't misunderstand what I'm speaking of here in the wrong context.

Obedience to the law including animal sacrifices were outward manifestations of faith. It was and still is grace though faith that saves.

Well they were to be, no argument there. But grace through faith in what? What was there specific revelation in regards to justification. Because you won't find the word justification in the OT. We are talking about what is shadowed in the OT, vs. what is clearly revealed in the New. How that faith was appropriated, etc.

And we haven't even gotten into the issue of how Rom 4:3 conflicts with Calvinism.

If you really want to see how far this type of thread can go. viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1717

Anyways, wish I had more time and resource, but got to check out for the day.

[zoegirl]

Well, let's just go with your link...it says there are two Gospels, Peter and PAuls...Peter to the Jews and Pauls to the Gentiles. What's the difference between the two gospels and why are there two gospels?

You say that the Jews are saved through faith, and yet it sounds like from the link that while the gospel is being preached to the Gentiles the nation of Israel, their plan, has been put on pause, whcih sounds like they have a different plan than faith. How will the gospel (which gospel) be presented to them?

Well they were to be, no argument there. But grace through faith in what? What was there specific revelation in regards to justification. Because you won't find the word justification in the OT. We are talking about what is shadowed in the OT, vs. what is clearly revealed in the New. How that faith was appropriated, etc.

The entire purpose of sacrifice is atonement for sin. Atonement and justification, it seems, are intricately tied together....Why sacrifice if not to atone for the sins? Throughout the OT it's pretty obvious that they had a healthy understanding of atoning sacrifice and propitiation for sins. With Christ being the full atoning sacrifice for our sins....we the need for another gospel?

[puritan lad]

And we haven't even gotten into the issue of how Rom 4:3 conflicts with Calvinism.

Even though you have clearly not answered my questions, you have my curiosity here.

[zoegirl]

Peter preached kingdom doctrine to the Jews in the land of Israel,

so what is the kingdom doctrine?

[jlay]

You say that the Jews are saved through faith, and yet it sounds like from the link that while the gospel is being preached to the Gentiles the nation of Israel, their plan, has been put on pause, whcih sounds like they have a different plan than faith.

Let's be clear. When we are speaking of Israel we are speaking of a nation. When a dispensationalist talks about the Kingdom program, etc., we are talking about God's plan to restore the nation of Israel. If you remember the disciples asking, "Is this the time when you will restore the Kingdom of Israel." Jesus doesn't rebuke them. He simply tells them, "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority, But you will receive power ...." Acts 1:7-8

Then there is a seperate matter of one's individual salvation. A person's salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. (Always has been, always will be.) Quote: "Also it is made quite clear that dispensations are not separate ways of salvation; rather, there is only one way of salvation -- "by God's grace through the work of Christ... on the cross."
If you want to know more, it might be a good idea to read this page to understand what a dispensation is to being with. http://www.biblecentre.org/topics/ccr_2 ... nalism.htm

PL, Regarding Scofield's quote. Obvioulsy, the quote in and of itself regards a specific verse. Taken by itself, out of context of all he taught on the matter, I would disagree. For example this is linked to the same comment.
Romans 10:3 "The word "righteousness" here, and in the passages having marginal references to this, means legal, or self-righteousness; the futile effort of man to work out under law a character which God can approve."

It also must be noted, that dispensationalist do not 'follow' Scofield anymore than Calvanists 'follow' Calvin. The merit of the teaching is either true or false. Scofield's commentary is not scripture, anymore than TULIP is scripture.

[B. W.]

Please bear in mind the quote Below:

http://www.gotquestions.org/covenant-theology.html

Many more things can be said regarding Covenant Theology, but the important thing to keep in mind is that Covenant Theology is an interpretive gird for understanding the Scriptures. As we have seen, it is not the only interpretive grid for reading Scripture. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism have many differences, and sometimes lead to opposite conclusions regarding certain secondary doctrines, but both adhere to the essentials of the Christian faith: Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, and to God alone be the glory!

I like this quote because of what it states: the important thing to keep in mind is that Covenant Theology is an interpretive gird for understanding the Scriptures. As we have seen, it is not the only interpretive grid for reading Scripture.

This link is enlightening - http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... srael.html - as it sums up all the different points being brought up here.

Next, Regarding 1948 issue...

The Palestine Mandate Draft was formally confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922. Came into effect on 9/26/1923.The Mandate preamble proclaimed:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country..."

From about 1923 on up to 1939, what is known as the seconded regathering of the Jewish people into Israel/Palestine began with a trickle. Not many Jews went there due to the British putting the skids on this as well as WW2 began. After WW2, the 2nd regathering reached full steam as the Jews were hated by the majority of masses of people (who denied their right to exist) and they had nowhere else to go except back to the Land God swore to their fathers that this land was theirs. The British blocked them but failed, they could not stop it. By 1948 - May 1948 - Israel won the right to be a nation in one day, by one vote at the UN.

The surrounding Arab countries with professional armies sought to wipe them out the next day, they failed. 1948 does not mark an end or a beginning of any church age - it marks the return of the Jewish people back into their homeland God swore to them to have. The 2nd regathering continues as a very slow trickle to this very day. About 48% of the world Jews live in Israel, I think it is roughly the majority live in the USA and the others elsewhere. 1948 marks the year that a nation was literally born in one day, by one vote, which substantiated the 1917-1922 Mandate for a Jewish Homeland.

Of all the Jews in the world, only a few have become completed Jews (Born Again and reside in Christ). They’ll tell you that they had to become born again like anyone else. One must remember God keeps his word to the Jewish people who are not yet members of Christ; others like the goyim without Christ we all know will be lost and damned.

The Lord is betrothed to the Jewish people, and bound by his word to them. He will save a remnant and join them with the gentiles. This will happen sometime after the 2nd regathering as prophesied. The Lord is making peoples for himself to live with for eternity Rev 21-22. God is not done with the Jewish people, nor written them off as some Preterist desire to do.

As the bible speaks about, the Jews from the 2nd regatherings will one day look upon the one whom they have pierced. That day has not happened – for it to have – the Jews would have been grafted back into the true vine of Christ and be believing in Christ like everyone else, etc and etc. Paul writes of this in Romans 11.

If I am understanding PL correctly, the OT prophets spoke of the Church? Really???

I would like to remind PL that we as believers in Christ are placed in Him and in Him alone - we are not placed in a church or dogma. We do not belong to the Church - we as believers belong to Christ alone. We do not belong to the Church, rather we belong to Christ. Jesus said that he would build his church. In other words, he is the herald that gathers us unto himself thru the Father's will they are drawn and assembled to the herald Christ.

The Church is a mere assembly of believers, nothing more. The Greek word ekklesia translated as Church is used 115 times in the NT. The word means the called ones gathered in an assembly by a herald: An assembly. The OT prophets were not speaking about a Church or seeing a future church, they saw Christ – not the church and that many Jew and Gentile will be called to him alone, not to a church, but to Christ. The Old Testament testifies of Jesus the Messiah – not to give glory to a future Church of Reformed/Covenant theologist.

As believers we are in Christ. The Church is not spiritual Israel. The prophets were not looking forward to the church but rather to Christ. When they speak of Israel, they refer to the Jewish people. Gentiles, grafted into the true vine are not called Israel. As gentile believers, we share the true wealth of blessing of Israel – that is not materialism but this wealth of blessings is the great treasure hidden is Christ himself. The blessing of Israel is Christ alone. He is the treasure and the wealth that was foretold about in the OT that Israel will seek after in the last days that Gentile believers will pour out into Israel – treasures of knowing Christ.

We are called by the Lord's name and placed in him - not the Church. As individual believers we share the same root as the Jews do and thus partake of many of the same blessing as they. This does not mean a Church takes over Israel’s spot in history. We are placed into Christ - in his assembly - in eternity. All of Israel have not yet come to know Christ. They have been, and are being, gathered a second time into Israel. God keeps his word. What is left to come in fully is a time of division, seasons cut short, a time of dividing. Pray that you may avoid this or stand through it as this time has not happened yet.

Again this link below provides balence:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... srael.html

As it sums up all the different points being brought up here. Do well for us all to read it.

I am Attaching the Article/PDF if anyone is interested in Reading It-
-
-

[Gman]

This link is enlightening - http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... srael.html - as it sums up all the different points being brought up here.

Great link Bryan... That sums it up very well... Thank you.

I especially loved this part.

The Olive Tree and the Remnant Chosen by Grace

The statement of Paul that "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (Rom. 6:9) means that a person can be a descendant of ethnic Israel but not part of the remnant of Israel that was chosen by God for salvation in Messiah. In Romans 9:1-31, Paul reveals his heartfelt desire to see all of Israel come to understand the truth of salvation as given through Jesus, though he specifically mentions that a godly remnant has always existed.

Later Paul explicitly asked the question of whether God was "finished" with ethnic Israel, to which he replied:

"God forbid! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. (Rom. 11:1-5)

Paul goes on to give the analogy of the Olive Tree to illustrate how the Church is grafted in to the remnant of Israel. The natural branches broken off represent unbelieving, ethnic Israel, while the "wild olive shoots" grafted in among the others represent Gentiles who come to faith in the Messiah. But note especially the prepositional phrase, "among the others." These remaining branches represent remnant Israel, who never were separated from the supporting Root (which represents the covenant promises given to the patriarchs of Israel - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob - as given by the LORD). This metaphor clearly indicates that the wild olive shoots (believing Gentiles) are placed within the remaining branches on the tree (believing Jews). The Olive Tree, in other words, pictures the covenantal saving program of God based on His faithfulness to Israel.

Note also that Paul goes on to state that the restoration of the broken off branches is within the power and ultimate purposes of God (Rom. 11:23-24), who has temporarily "hardened" ethnic Israel until all the "wild olive shoots" have been added to the remnant Tree (11:25), and then "all Israel will be saved" (11:26).

While it is true that ethnic Israel has rejected their Mashiach (a "partial hardening of Israel" - Rom. 11:25), Paul consoles himself by reflecting that not all physical descendants of Abraham are made the inheritors of the covenantal blessings from the LORD. No, Abraham had two sons, but it was Isaac (not Ishmael) who was chosen; and Isaac also had two sons, but it was Jacob (not Esau) who was chosen. In other words, even though Ishmael and Esau were physical descendants of Abraham, they were not chosen to be inheritors of the blessing of God.

Indeed, regarding the case of Jacob and Esau, Paul goes further by saying that "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad -- in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, Rebecca was told, "The older will serve the younger." Paul then quotes from Malachi 1:3, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Paul then asks the rhetorical question of whether all this might be unfair. After all, was it Esau's fault that he was rejected when God had Himself foreordained that the blessing should not be his? Paul answers this by flatly saying that the LORD God of Israel is sovereign and can choose to show mercy and grace to whomsoever He wills - man's objections notwithstanding. In other words, God has the complete right to predestine outcomes to suit His good pleasure and purposes, and mankind must simply accept His rule and reign in the universe.

Being a physical descendant of Abraham is not enough to be a part of God's family, since only the children of the promise are counted as God's offspring. And that even includes Gentiles, as the prophet Hosea revealed: "those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call children of the Living God" (Hosea 1:10). And did not the prophet Isaiah also cry out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved"?

Paul ends this line of thinking by saying that those who trust in the promise of God's salvation through the Mashiach have attained righteousness by faith; but those who pursue their own righteousness based on the law will never succeed in reaching that goal, since Yeshua alone is the "end of the law for righteousness" to all who believe.

It is further evidenced in the New Testament:

* John the Baptist distinguished between those merely born Jewish and those who are part of remnant Israel (Matt. 3:9)
* God chose a remnant of Israel to receive the Messiah (Rom. 11:5)
* After the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, God preserved a remnant of Israel which has continued to this day.
* Paul spoke of the remnant of Israel chosen by God's grace (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:27, 11:5) and the one "New Man" compos

[Gman]

After nearly 2 thousand years the scriptures are finally becoming unlocked as our understanding increases...

All I can say is WOW.... This is freaking AMAZING.

Does everyone here really want to see Jesus come back? I do!!!