No announcement yet.

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

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46

    According to John Darby, it says here, "The full provisions of this new covenant are to be fulfilled in the millennium. [6] The author of Hebrews cites Jeremiah in the 8th chapter only to demonstrate to his Jewish readers that the fact of a second covenant promise shows the first covenant to be both faulty and temporary, thus enjoining them not to rest in the first covenant but rather to look to the Mediator of the new covenant. [7] The church, according to Darby, as a result of her relation to the Mediator of the new covenant, presently enjoys its spiritual, its heavenly blessings and privileges even though it is not formally under the covenant. "

    "Scofield's view differs, however, in that he affirms that this covenant has a two fold applications 1) to Israel in the future (i.e. it "secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of Israel."); [10] and 2) to the Church in the present (i.e. it "secures the eternal blessedness... of all who believe.") [11] The distinction between Darby and Scofield in this regard is a fine one."

    Lewis S. Chafer states,

    "The New Covenant guarantees what God proposes to do for men on the ground of the blood of His Son. This may be seen in two aspects (a) that He will save, preserve and present in Heaven conformed to His Son, all who have believed on Christ...(b) The future salvation of Israel is promised under the unconditional New Covenant (Isa. 27:9; Ezek. 37:23; Ro. 11:26, 27). [13]

    A decade later in Dispensationalism Chafer begins to reflect a dual covenant structure. He says,

    No human conditions can be forced into this great declaration of Jehovah's concern for what He will yet do for Israel, nor can it be demonstrated that such promises have ever been fulfilled for Israel, nor that they even remotely apply to the Church.

    When a parallel is drawn between the New Covenant now in force for the Church (Matt. 26:28) and the New Covenant yet to be made for Israel (Jer. 31:31-34), it is found that all that is promised Israel is now vouchsafed to the Church and that the range of blessing for the Chy ch far exceeds the restricted provisions for Israel. [14]

    With the publication of his eight volume Systematic Theology, 1948 the two new covenant structure is clearly set forth. For example, Chafer after speaking of the eighth covenant with Israel that of Jeremiah 31: 31states,

    There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is styled like the proceeding one for Israel a "new covenant." It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two new covenants – one for Israel and one for the Church – are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God's purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church. Israel's covenant is new only because it replaces the Mosaic, but the Church's covenant is new because it introduces that which is God's mysterious and unrelated purpose."

    This does not clear up very well the confusion that dispensationalism brings to the topic of the New Covenant for Israel and the Gentile Church (a dispensationalist "right dividing" of Israel from the Church


    • #47
      Look at

      Dispensationalists expect that the multitude of physical Israel will be restored in the Millennium. This millennial Israel will include a rebuilt temple and its sacrificial system. It is this restored physical Israel which is seen to be under Jeremiah’s New Covenant, not the Church.

      J. Dwight Pentecost says “… the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 must and can be fulfilled only by the nation of Israel and not by the Church…the covenant stands as yet unfulfilled and awaits a future, literal fulfillment.”6 Charles C. Ryrie states, “The New Covenant is not only future, but millennial.”7 Likewise John Walvoord tells us “…the premillennial position is that the new covenant is with Israel and the fulfillment in the millennial kingdom after the second coming of Christ."

      "The New Covenant therefore is not the possession and privilege of the Church. The Dispensationalist separates the Church and Israel as two peoples of God, each with their own promises and destinies. According to Ryrie, “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct…a man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions.”9 “If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the New Covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then premillennialism is condemned.”

      But as happens to dispensationalist when "rightly dividing" New Testament scripture, the dispensationalist doctrine that the New Covenant applies only to physical Israel in the millennial kingdom, and not to the church, runs headlong into New Testament doctrine.

      "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
      6. 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." II Corinthians 3: 5-6

      Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles - Romans 11: 13, I Timothy 2: 7. All who come to faith in Christ through the writings of Paul have received his ministry of the New Covenant.

      In Romans Chapters nine through eleven, Paul uses the word "Israel" in two different ways. One "Israel is what he calls "Israel after the flesh," or the multitude of physical Israel, which is dispensationsm is all about, in I Corinthians 10: 18, and the other way he used "Israel" is in a redemptive sense, as a believing remnant.

      If the New Covenant applies only to a future, millennial, restored physical and national Israel, how could Paul be a servant of the New Covenant and at the same time the apostle of the Gentiles?

      And again dispensationalists just ignore this disagreement with the New Testament and assert their "authority" in place of that of the New Testament.

      In Romans 11: 26 Paul defines "All Israel" in terms of salvation, not by race or nationality.

      The complete remnant of believing Jews are, under Christ, made equal to and combined with the full remnant of believing Gentiles who together make up the Good Olive Tree in Romans 11: 24 which is the Israel of God.


      • #48
        Originally posted by northwye View Post
        This was fulfilled in the First Century when a remnant of physical Israel accepted Christ, was born again, and many of this remnant brought the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the other Jews and also to the Gentiles, especially Paul.
        So was the Body of Christ also a curse among the heathen at one time?:
        "And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing" (Zech.8:8,13)"


        • #49
          Hi and as usual your knowledge of DISPEMSATIPNALISM is CALLOW and saying the Holy Spirit writings in 1 Cor 9:17 and Eph 1:10 and in Eph3:2 and in Col 1:25 were penned recently , LOL !!

          And that goes for your Greek word DIATHEKE / TESTAMENT and what DIATHEKE and it's many meaning is LOL !!

          So explain what 2 Cor 3:6 THAN REALLY MEANS , if you can ??

          The Greek word OIKONOMIA did not come into existence in the 19 century , what a laugh !!

          dan p


          • #50
            This may appear to be a repost of a March 14, 2019 post on TOL by northwye. But it is not a reposr of a March 14th, 2019 post by northwye, but a repost of it by Dan P.


            • #51
              Hi and you can not ANSWER what 2 Cor 3:16 really means ??

              You posted it so you can not explain it meaning ?? so why post something that has no meaning in 2019 but know what is written in the 19 CENTURY about DISPENSATIONALISM ? and say that DISPENSATIONALISM is something NEW ?? who taught you that , the BIBLE ??

              dan p