ECT For MADs: if Scofield was right...

[Lon]

Why the 'quotes' around 'differently'?

Emphasis. Dispensational focuses on difference. Covenant emphasizes 'same' or unfolding.

Then it should be easily to prove from a flat statement from Paul (apostle to the Gentiles, no one argues that) that God indeed established a covenant with grace age Gentiles, who heretofore had no such deal with Him. If anyone would have mentioned such a momentous event, it would have been Paul.

It would depend if you believe Paul wrote Hebrews 8(Jeremiah 31:31-34), in connection with Romans where we are grafted in.

It is a difference (for others reading perhaps) of whether the gospel to the gentiles was different or the same. Though their gospel was seen as only being applicable to themselves, gentiles came to Peter for grace. I realize MAD sees this differently and you are correct these are the essential differences. -Lon

 

[musterion]

Emphasis. Dispensational focuses on difference. Covenant emphasizes 'same' or unfolding.

Dispensationalism emphasizes plenty of "same" or unfolding things.

It would depend if you believe Paul wrote Hebrews 8(Jeremiah 31:31-34), in connection with Romans where we are grafted in.

1. I have no reason to believe Paul wrote Hebrews. Seems to me he would have boldly signed his name to whatever and whomever Christ wanted him to write. Just my opinion.

2. Gentiles who believe are not graffed into anything. Being made a member of Christ is far beyond the idea of grafting, which - remember - absolutely does not mean "can't be broken off again" (Rom 11:21-22). But once united with Him, one cannot be "broken off" from Christ.

It is a difference (for others reading perhaps) of whether the gospel to the gentiles was different or the same.

Different. Had to be, they had nothing of Israel's to appeal to. But you've seen that discussed here for years, I need not belabor it.

Though their gospel was seen as only being applicable to themselves, gentiles came to Peter for grace.

They came to an apostle to Israel while Israel was still being dealt with as Israel. That stopped being the case no later than Acts 28.

Ever wonder why Peter and the others vanish from Acts not far past halfway through?

I know I've said nothing you haven't already read many times.

 

[Lon]

Dispensationalism emphasizes plenty of "same" or unfolding things.



1. I have no reason to believe Paul wrote Hebrews. Seems to me he would have boldly signed his name to whatever and whomever Christ wanted him to write. Just my opinion.

2. Gentiles who believe are not graffed into anything. Being made a member of Christ is far beyond the idea of grafting, which - remember - absolutely does not mean "can't be broken off again" (Rom 11:21-22). But once united with Him, one cannot be "broken off" from Christ.

Good bit of theology worth pondering. Is there a thread on this? If not, please consider it for another ECT. I often read with no interaction in these threads where scripture is discussed more than distractions that accompany some of them.

Different. Had to be, they had nothing of Israel's to appeal to. But you've seen that discussed here for years, I need not belabor it.



They came to an apostle to Israel while Israel was still being dealt with as Israel. That stopped being the case no later than Acts 28.

Ever wonder why Peter and the others vanish from Acts not far past halfway through?

I know I've said nothing you haven't already read many times.

Thank you for discussion, just the same. In Him

 

[Lon]

Here is a handy chart that I've seen posted around the web between Covenant and Dispensational Theology.

I'm pretty sure most have seen it before but it might be of use to someone, and they contain about all of the subjects discussed between these two theologies on TOL -Lon

Spoiler

DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY The following are the major differences between these two systems of theology. They represent the mainstreams of both systems, though there are variations in each. Representative systematic theologies are those of L.S. Chafer and Charles Hodge.
DISPENSATIONALISM		COVENANT THEOLOGY
1. May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never 5-point Calvinist.		1.Always Calvinist. Usually 5-point.
2. Stresses 'literal' interpretation of the Bible.		2.Accepts both literal and figurativeinterpretation of the Bible.
3. Usually does not accept the idea of the 'Analogy of Faith.'		3. Almost always accepts the idea of The ‘Analogy of Faith.’
4. 'Israel' always means only the literal, physical descendants of Jacob.		4. ‘Israel’ may mean either literal, physicaldescendants of Jacob or the figurative, spiritual Israel, depending on context.
5. 'Israel of God' in Gal. 6:16 means physical Israel alone.		5. ‘Israel of God’ in Gal. 6:16 means spiritual Israel, parallel to Gal. 3:29; Rom. 2:28029, 9:6; Phil. 3:3.
6. God has 2 peoples with 2 separate destinies: Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly).		6. God has always had only 1 people, the Church gradually developed.
7. The Church was born at Pentecost.		7. The Church began in O. T. (Acts 7:38) and reached fulfillment in the N. T.
8. The Church was not prophesied as such in the O.T. but was a hidden mystery until the N.T.		8. There are many O. T. prophecies of the N. T. Church.
9. All O.T. prophecies for 'Israel' are for literal Israel, not the Church.'		9. Some O. T. prophecies are for literal Israel, others are for spiritual Israel.
10. God's main purpose in history is literal Israel.		10. God’s main purpose in history is Christand secondarily the Church.
11. The Church is a parenthesis in God's program for the ages.		11. The Church is the culmination of God’s saving purpose for the ages.
12. The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Isaac and literal Israel.		12. The main heir to Abraham’s covenantand was Christ and spiritual Israel.
13. There was no eternal Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity.		13. The eternal Covenant of Redemption was within the Trinity to effect election.
14. There was no Covenant of Works with Adam in the Garden of Eden.		14. God made a conditional Covenant of Works with Adam as representative forall his posterity.
15. There was no Covenant of Grace concerning Adam.		15. God made a Covenant of Grace with Christ and His people, including Adam.
16. Israel was rash to accept the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.		16. Israel was right to accept the Covenant Mt. Sinai.
17. The 'New Covenant' of Jer. 31:31- 34 is only for literal Israel and is not the New Covenant of Lk.22:20.		17. The ‘New Covenant’ of Jer. 31 is the same as in Lk. 22; both are for spiritual Israel according to Heb. 8.
18. God's program in history is mainly through separate dispensations.		18. God’s program in history is mainly through related covenants.
19. Some Dispensationalists have said that O. T. sinners were saved by works.		19. No man has ever been saved by works, but only by grace.
20. Most Dispensationalists teach that men in the O.T. were saved by faith in a revelation peculiar to their dispensation, but this did not include faith in the Messiah as their sin-bearer.		20. All men who have ever been saved have been saved by faith in Christ as their sin-bearer, which has been progressively revealed in every age.
21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.		21. O. T. believers believed in the Gospel of Messiah as sin-bearer mainly by the sacrifices as types and prophecies.
22. The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the dispensation of Grace, not O.T. and not after the Rapture.		22. The Holy Spirit has indwelt believers in all ages, especially in the present N. T. era, and will not be withdrawn.
23. Jesus.made an offer of the literal Kingdom to Israel; since Israel rejected it, it is postponed.		23. Jesus made only an offer of the spiritual Kingdom, which was rejected by literal Israel but has gradually been accepted by spiritual Israel.
24. O.T. believers were not in Christ, not part of the Body or Bride of Christ.		24. Believers in all ages are all ‘in Christ’ and part of the Body and Bride of Christ.
25. The Law has been abolished.		25. The Law has 3 uses: to restrain sin in society, to lead to Christ, and to instruct Christians in godliness. The ceremonial Laws have been abolished; the civil laws have been abolished except for their general equity; the moral laws continue.
26. O. T. laws are no longer in effect unless repeated in the N.T.		26. O. T. laws are still in effect unless abrogated in the N.T.
27. The Millenium is the Kingdom of God. Dispensationalists are always Pre-Millenial and usually Pre-Tribulational.		27. The Church is the Kingdom of God. Covenanters are usually Amillenial, sometimes Pre-Millenial or Post-Millenial, rarely Pre-Tribulational.
28. The O.T. animal sacrifices will be restored in the Millenium.		28. The O. T. sacrifices were fulfilled and forever abolished in Christ.
29. The Millenium will fulfill the Covenant to Abraham. Israel has a future.		29. Christ fulfilled the Covenant to Abraham. Some Covenanters believe in a future forliteral Israel, most don’t.
30. David will sit on the Millenial throne in Jerusalem.		30. Christ alone sits on the throne. Saints rule under Him.

 

[DAN P]

Good bit of theology worth pondering. Is there a thread on this? If not, please consider it for another ECT. I often read with no interaction in these threads where scripture is discussed more than distractions that accompany some of them.




Thank you for discussion, just the same. In Him

Hi and I have written on Rom 11 but it was a long time ago !!

Unless , you have verses that I have not seen OIKONOMIA / DISPENSATION is only expounded by Payl !!

There are 2 words that mean a lot and carry a lot of weight PRO / BEFORE and APO / AFTER !!

We were called /chosen PRO / BEFORE TIME BEGAN and all else is APO / AFTER time began !!

The Greek dispensation is ONLY found in the following passages that I have seen !!

#1 , 1 Cor 9:17

#2 , Eph 1:10

#3 , Eph 3:2

#4 1 Tim 1:4

I believe that all other time periods are called AGES / AION !!

This means that OIKONOMIA is only used by Paul !!

It seem that 7 dispensations is a myth !!

What say you ?

dan p

 

[Danoh]

And not all MADS hold the same view of aspects of Romans in general, etc., nor of Romans 11's grafting in, in particular, that some on here hold.

 

[Lon]

Hi and I have written on Rom 11 but it was a long time ago !!

Unless , you have verses that I have not seen OIKONOMIA / DISPENSATION is only expounded by Payl !!

There are 2 words that mean a lot and carry a lot of weight PRO / BEFORE and APO / AFTER !!

We were called /chosen PRO / BEFORE TIME BEGAN and all else is APO / AFTER time began !!

The Greek dispensation is ONLY found in the following passages that I have seen !!



This means that OIKONOMIA is only used by Paul !!

It seem that 7 dispensations is a myth !!

What say you ?

dan p

Dan, see here, Luke used it regarding 'stewardship' (so did Paul much of the time).

It seems to be yet another dispensational discussion over the material of whether we are 'grafted in.'

And not all MADS hold the same view of aspects of Romans in general, etc., nor of Romans 11's grafting in, in particular, that some on here hold.

I believe OSAS doctrine is attached to those differences and would explain them. Because Musterion knows I'm of a similar mind, I believe that was what he was addressing. It becomes an interesting conversation, you are correct, after that because then it is a three-way (at least) conversation about our being 'grafted in.' It was that, actually, that prompted the idea. I think it'd be an interesting discussion, but I didn't want to get too far of the premise off this thread. It is a doozy of a topic all its own (at least that's how my prediction went) -Lon

 

[DAN P]

Dan, see here, Luke used it regarding 'stewardship' (so did Paul much of the time).

It seems to be yet another dispensational discussion over the material of whether we are 'grafted in.'


I believe OSAS doctrine is attached to those differences and would explain them. Because Musterion knows I'm of a similar mind, I believe that was what he was addressing. It becomes an interesting conversation, you are correct, after that because then it is a three-way (at least) conversation about our being 'grafted in.' It was that, actually, that prompted the idea. I think it'd be an interesting discussion, but I didn't want to get too far of the premise off this thread. It is a doozy of a topic all its own (at least that's how my prediction went) -Lon

Hi and any time , I will answer what I have learned about DISPENSATIONALISM at any time as there are DISPENSATIOPNALIST and DISPENSATIONALISTS and it seems that there are 77 variety of them !!

dan p

 

[Lon]

Hi and any time , I will answer what I have learned about DISPENSATIONALISM at any time as there are DISPENSATIOPNALIST and DISPENSATIONALISTS and it seems that there are 77 variety of them !!

dan p

:chuckle: I think you may be right about that, Dan

I remember after I took my Dispensationalism class, my two room mates took the advanced. It was like watching two deer caught in the headlights.

Musterion, here is Hilston's MAD One-on-One I said I'd find btw

 

[Danoh]

Dan, see here, Luke used it regarding 'stewardship' (so did Paul much of the time).

It seems to be yet another dispensational discussion over the material of whether we are 'grafted in.'


I believe OSAS doctrine is attached to those differences and would explain them. Because Musterion knows I'm of a similar mind, I believe that was what he was addressing. It becomes an interesting conversation, you are correct, after that because then it is a three-way (at least) conversation about our being 'grafted in.' It was that, actually, that prompted the idea. I think it'd be an interesting discussion, but I didn't want to get too far of the premise off this thread. It is a doozy of a topic all its own (at least that's how my prediction went) -Lon

Israel had had the privilege of direct access to God and His salvation - of the Jews.

Also, to the privilege of its' calling - unto service.

Election of grace is the later of those two.

Once saved upon their having believed, one is then elected into the service of God for which God is saving men, to begin with.

The latter, the intent of the former.

The believing remnant of Israel obtained that which He had sought for - their belief towards His plan and purpose for them as His elect or servants.

At one point, He sealed said election of Israel, and concluded the rest blind for their unbelief.

Obviously Israel's election is also - once in, ever in.

What the remaining ones were cut off from was access to said two-fold privilege - from salvation and it's intended servant-hood.

The Gentiles (and also lost Jews as UN-circumcision, now - this side of Israel's fall) were now being offered access to both salvation and its' election unto service...by faith.

Those who do not avail themselves of said access by believing, will be cut off from it.

Paul is addressing Gentiles in general, not Gentiles in the Body.

Body members are also sealed.

And said offer among the Gentiles is only until the fulness of this Gentile offer be come in.

 

[Danoh]

:chuckle: I think you may be right about that, Dan

I remember after I took my Dispensationalism class, my two room mates took the advanced. It was like watching two deer caught in the headlights.

Musterion, here is Hilston's MAD One-on-One I said I'd find btw

Lol - Hil and I used to go back and forth way before there was a TOL.

Sharp, sharp mind.

As I was already a bit advanced as well, by then; we reached a stalemate.

His study approach itself is obviously somewhat different from my own, and vice-versa.

I've missed his high level of back and forth.

One sharp brother, he was way back when. As I'm sure he still is.

Poor Tet didn't know what hit him in his encounter with Hil :chuckle:

 

[DAN P]

Dan, see here, Luke used it regarding 'stewardship' (so did Paul much of the time).

It seems to be yet another dispensational discussion over the material of whether we are 'grafted in.'
/QUOTE]

Hi and when you are ready , present your OP !!

The Greek word for STEWARD /OIKONOMOS is a different word as is FELLOWSHIP / KOINONIA and all sound the same , BUT have different meanings !!

OIKOS means House and NOMOS means LAW !!

DAN P

 

[musterion]

Here is a handy chart that I've seen posted around the web between Covenant and Dispensational Theology.

I'm pretty sure most have seen it before but it might be of use to someone, and they contain about all of the subjects discussed between these two theologies on TOL -Lon

Spoiler

You know much of that Chafer list doesn't apply to MAD?

 

[musterion]

Good bit of theology worth pondering. Is there a thread on this? If not, please consider it for another ECT.

Nothing more I could say. Paul plainly said that that which is grafted on can be ungrafted.

But will Christ mutilate Himself, His own Body?

No.

Can one lose the life of Christ which is his own life now?

Can't.

So the Rom 11 grafting does not - CANNOT - apply here.

 

[Nang]

You know much of that Chafer list doesn't apply to MAD?

How so?

 

[Nang]

So the Rom 11 grafting does not - CANNOT - apply here.

How so?

 

[Bright Raven]

Stuff like what you're responding to is why I wish Knight would set up a MAD Only subforum. I'm sure we would come out onto the board every now and then. Maybe

There is a forum for MAD under the Theology Club.

 

[Interplanner]

Nothing more I could say. Paul plainly said that that which is grafted on can be ungrafted.

But will Christ mutilate Himself, His own Body?

No.

Can one lose the life of Christ which is his own life now?

Can't.

So the Rom 11 grafting does not - CANNOT - apply here.

A person only stands by faith. Of course the Rom 11 section is much more about the two groups in contrast to each other than the individual believer and his struggle to stay faithful.

 

[Lon]

Nothing more I could say. Paul plainly said that that which is grafted on can be ungrafted.

But will Christ mutilate Himself, His own Body?

No.

Can one lose the life of Christ which is his own life now?

Can't.

So the Rom 11 grafting does not - CANNOT - apply here.

I agree BUT I think you have to prove your point (or will have to) to others. It will need a little expiation, I think, from Romans 11, specifically as to what 'gentiles grafted' in means, I think (especially as he says "You" gentiles...").
-Lon

 

[Interplanner]

I agree BUT I think you have to prove your point (or will have to) to others. It will need a little expiation, I think, from Romans 11, specifically as to what 'gentiles grafted' in means, I think (especially as he says "You" gentiles...").
-Lon

They believe; that's what grafts them in. Many Jews did not, so they were 'out.' It is not determined by ancestry anymore--if it was even then.