Dispensationalism and Covenant Theologies

[christian73]

I expressed interest in learning about these 2 theologies. So for fear of hijacking the other thread, this thread has been created. Before the discussion begins, let me say this. I know this could get heated. I would respectfully ask that all who post, please do so in a Christian manner. It's not worth fighting over.

The question I would like to pose is this. Covenant theology says that we (christians) are not protected from trhe tribulation. Does the Bible say this?

[holdon]

The question I would like to pose is this. Covenant theology says that we (christians) are not protected from trhe tribulation. Does the Bible say this?

You would have to define what "the tribulation" is. Christ's words were clear: "in the world you will have tribulation." (not THE tribulation, but tribulation). Thus "many tribulations" are spoken of and certainly christians know of many and various tribulations.

In contradistinction, Scripture speaks of THE great tribulation, that is a tribulation unequalled in past history and unequalled thereafter. Mt 24 This is a period well defined it seems, especially on the back end as it is closed by Jesus' return in glory. It seems this period is also referred to as "the hour of trial" in Rev 3:10 and to the faithful of the church (Philadelphia) the promise is made that they will be kept out of that hour of trial.

Now, the question is why that promise to the Philadelphians would also apply to all faithful christians, alive at that moment. The answer seems to be because the faithful of the seven churches are all spoken to, since the Spirit is speaking the same messages to all the assemblies. Rev 2 and 3.

[GordonSlocum]

Covenant Theology
The concept of covenants is the organizing principle for this theology (conceptual)

Dispensational Theology
The actual progressive unfolding of God’s plan from Genesis to Revelation. (actual)

In the simplest way to put it

the two words Conceptual and Actual are the defining points of the systems

One is a concept and the other actual. This in and of itself was the fundamental reason I personally believe in Dispensational theology.

It is a no-brainer. It simply follows the outline of History.

Gordon

[Matthan]

It is likely nobody knows for sure about the exact order of the end times. However, an analysis of Revelation 7 appears to give us a great deal of information on the great tribulation period. First we see four angels poised to "hurt" the earth, but another angel holding the "seal of the living God" crys for them to hold off until he can seal the 144,000 Jews that will serve God during the great tribulation period. Immediately after this pronouncement there is a great multitude of people clothed in white standing before the throne and praising God. The actual verses read:
"9. After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10. And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
11. And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
12. Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
13. And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14. And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
16. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
17. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes."

The key is found in v.14. That "great multitude" came out of the "great tribulation." Since we know the great tribulation has not yet started, I believe it is safe to say that Christians are caught up just before the great tribulation actually begins.

Chapter 8 is where the great tribulation actually begins.

Matthan

[christian73]

It is likely nobody knows for sure about the exact order of the end times. However, an analysis of Revelation 7 appears to give us a great deal of information on the great tribulation period. First we see four angels poised to "hurt" the earth, but another angel holding the "seal of the living God" crys for them to hold off until he can seal the 144,000 Jews that will serve God during the great tribulation period. Immediately after this pronouncement there is a great multitude of people clothed in white standing before the throne and praising God. The actual verses read:


The key is found in v.14. That "great multitude" came out of the "great tribulation." Since we know the great tribulation has not yet started, I believe it is safe to say that Christians are caught up just before the great tribulation actually begins.

Chapter 8 is where the great tribulation actually begins.

Matthan
I don't know. That verse, in my opinion, doesn't really hint to the fact that Christians are not protected from the Great tribulation. I have heard that Revelation is not necessarily in chronological order. Is this true?

[HypoTypoSis]

Christians may get caught up in The Tribulation but it is not for them but rather it is for bringing the Jews to Christ. Many Christians would like to think it is for them, that they are at center stage for everything, even to the point of stealing all blessings and covenants God made with them and leaving the Jews all the curses. There you have pretty much in a nutshell the covenant issue. The book of Revelation is about the Jews salvation but if this were acknowledeged the covenants would have little to no ground for their beliefs in this regard to stand. Dispensations, on the other hand, place things in an order and the Church dispensation is one phase or stage. Those Covenant folk are what those that Paul wrote about came to be known as Replacement Theology and lasted until Darby's Dispensationalism was born whereupon RT in falling out of favor saw a rebirth with the new name Covenant Theology. CT, like its forebear, RT, is heretical in its own right as it perverts God's purpose and Word to that of certain men's pridefully selfish and most racially bigoted (anti-Zionist) interests. Sadly, there are many adherents to CT that are unaware of these ulterior motives just as there are millions of teachers in the public school system that live next door, go to church every Sunday and haven't a clue their union dues support one of the largest humanist organizations in the world, the NEA.

[DeaconDean]

I expressed interest in learning about these 2 theologies. So for fear of hijacking the other thread, this thread has been created. Before the discussion begins, let me say this. I know this could get heated. I would respectfully ask that all who post, please do so in a Christian manner. It's not worth fighting over.

The question I would like to pose is this. Covenant theology says that we (christians) are not protected from trhe tribulation. Does the Bible say this?

Friend, let me say this, there is nothing better than to study and see for yourself what these theologies teach. If you would, please take the time to read through some of the material here:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/Covenant-theology.html

And:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/dispensationalism.html

Judge for yourself the evidence and come to your own conclusion. That way your POV is not tainted by my viewpoint or somebody else's.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[HypoTypoSis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monergism

[HypoTypoSis]

be nice if there were a site that explained monergism in a neutral attitude. It would seem both sides of the argument are vociferously either calvinist or catholic. hardly would either viewpoint be considered neutral and unbiased, particularly, since both enjoy attacking the other.


nonethelss, while each is busy denouncing the other the main point, dispensationalism vs covenant theology is being ignored thus it would seem to continue on this rabbit trail will indeed derail the thread, something the OP requested not happen. Therefore I will return to the OP intended issue with:


Those Covenant folk are what those that Paul wrote about came to be known as Replacement Theology and lasted until Darby's Dispensationalism was born whereupon RT in falling out of favor saw a rebirth with the new name Covenant Theology. CT, like its forebear, RT, is heretical in its own right as it perverts God's purpose and Word to that of certain men's pridefully selfish and most racially bigoted (anti-Zionist) interests.

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

This is a subject that I have yet to tackle. I do know that A. Pink put out a work on the Dispy POV.

It seems that Baptist cover both sides of this issue. I do know that JM has spent many..many.. hours on this issue. I hope that he will share his toughts based upon his study.

Peace to u,

Bill

[holdon]

Judge for yourself the evidence and come to your own conclusion. That way your POV is not tainted by my viewpoint or somebody else's. How can you post those links and truthfully say "that way your POV is not tainted" as these links are tainted with scarlet against dispensationalism?

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I have a good book called Revelation - Four Views by Steve Gregg. It probably is as unbias as you can get. It mainly just tells you the 4 different views of passages in Revelation. Kind of reads like a commentary Bible with 4 different commentaries. What I still would like to find though is some online stuff or a book that presents a better overview of the different views out there in this area since there is much more to it then just Revelation.

[DeaconDean]

How can you post those links and truthfully say "that way your POV is not tainted" as these links are tainted with scarlet against dispensationalism?

I can say that truthfully because friend, they also provide both sides of the argument. Both for and against. That way a person can make an informed choice.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[mlqurgw]

Dispensationalism misses the message of the Book. For most Dispensationalists the OT is a closed book because it deals with the Jews and all the promises in it are for them. Most take a fairly strict literal interpretation of the Scriptures just as did the Pharisees and they missed Christ because of it. He didn't fit their literal interpretation of who He ought to be. For many the death of Chrisst as the substitute of His people was a plan B of sorts. The Jews rejected Him so God did something else.
Covenant theology takes the view that God has been working according to a covenant made between the persons of the Trinity before the foundation of the world called the Covenant of Grace, the Everlasting Covenant, the Covenant of Peace. All the other covenants made with men were conditional and were simply an outworking of the Covenant of Grace. They unfold the purpose and plan of God in Christ. The OT comes alive with this understanding. It is a book about Christ as much as the New. It is what Christ told those in His day spoke of Him. It is what He expoinded to the diciple on the road to Emmaus. He told the Pharisees that it testified of Him.
Covenant theology fits with the whole of Scripture very well and is no more complicated than Dispensationalism.
The main difference is that Dispensationalism see the church and the Jews as seperate and Covanant theology sees the church as the true Israel made up of both Jew and Gentile.

[DeaconDean]

The main difference is that Dispensationalism see the church and the Jews as seperate and Covanant theology sees the church as the true Israel made up of both Jew and Gentile.

Thank you.

I see that dispensationalism is alive and well here on the Baptist threads too. I have seen that at least one person here uses the Darby Translation.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[mlqurgw]

Thank you.

I see that dispensationalism is alive and well here on the Baptist threads too. I have seen that at least one person here uses the Darby Translation.

God Bless

Till all are one.One of the many things that should send up red flags concerning dispensationalism is their focus on prophecy instead of Christ. When Satan can get you off on prophecy and end times conjecture he has won the day.

[HypoTypoSis]

Covanant theology sees the church as the true Israel
And that is where RT's child, CT, is in error. In this error CT continues in error by making those in Christ the Bride when that is Israel. Those in Christ are just that, in Christ. The Bride, on the otherhand, as the natural order exemplifies, is a separate entity and as a separate entity rules the nations in the new earth creation with the Messiah as their King from New Jerusalem. Those in Christ are where the Father and the Son are, in the New Jerusalem where there is no temple for the Father and the Son are the temple and it is there that we reside.

[Flynmonkie]

Hi!:wave: Listen, I asked this question a while back and rural_preacher had recommended to me two books, both short and sweet and to the point on each of these. One is out of print I believe and difficult to find new, however, you can pick one up on eBay or even Amazon. Or I might have that confused with another book he recommended to me on Christian Liberty - "Free to disagree" John Weaks (sp of last name??). Hmm.. Check these out though!
Here are a couple of books that will likely answer all your questions...and make you think of new questions that you never had before. :D

For dispensationalism...Dispensationalism by Charles Ryrie (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=2256X&netp_id=130757&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW)

For Covenant Theology...God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology by Michael Horton (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=012899&netp_id=418203&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW)
--
Here is a link to that discussion :prayer:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2563151-covenant-theology-dispensationalist-what-help.html
I miss RP! Man o Man, those were the good ole days!:cry:

One of the things that struck me right away in these studies is that the dispensations have dispensations and so on and so forth. There seems to be no real "set in stone" structure, IOW your going to get answers on dispensation clarification all over the place. My advice? Not that I am at all the scholarly type to offer it, however, read, decide for yourself, ask questions for clarification.. At a distance. I found I fit somewhere in the middle of both, but not soley into either :)

[Flynmonkie]

Just an additional note to the previous booklist: the book that is out of print is titled:

Free to Disagree: Moving Beyond Arguments of Christian Liberty -by John Wecks (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/082543954X)

You can find this used, and rather inexpensive at the above link. Several publishers are out of copies.

It is outside this topic but might prove useful in dealing with the rhetoric that usually starts with improper attitudes towards opposing positions, but of course this covers that from any perspective of disagreement in Christian faith.(RP always had good books to share!)

Now, I am not talking about those plainly condescending, rude, mean and/or insolent, I believe you have permission to bop those over the head at any given time!;) :thumbsup:

[novcncy]

Just an additional note to the previous booklist: the book that is out of print is titled:

Free to Disagree: Moving Beyond Arguments of Christian Liberty -by John Wecks (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/082543954X)

You can find this used, and rather inexpensive at the above link. Several publishers are out of copies.

It is outside this topic but might prove useful in dealing with the rhetoric that usually starts with improper attitudes towards opposing positions, but of course this covers that from any perspective of disagreement in Christian faith.(RP always had good books to share!)

Now, I am not talking about those plainly condescending, rude, mean and/or insolent, I believe you have permission to bop those over the head at any given time!;) :thumbsup:
Hi Flyn,

As an aside, what did happen to RuralPreacher? Do you know, or did he just sort of fade off??

[christian73]

Hi!:wave: Listen, I asked this question a while back and rural_preacher had recommended to me two books, both short and sweet and to the point on each of these. One is out of print I believe and difficult to find new, however, you can pick one up on eBay or even Amazon. Or I might have that confused with another book he recommended to me on Christian Liberty - "Free to disagree" John Weaks (sp of last name??). Hmm.. Check these out though!

Here is a link to that discussion :prayer:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2563151-covenant-theology-dispensationalist-what-help.html
I miss RP! Man o Man, those were the good ole days!:cry:

One of the things that struck me right away in these studies is that the dispensations have dispensations and so on and so forth. There seems to be no real "set in stone" structure, IOW your going to get answers on dispensation clarification all over the place. My advice? Not that I am at all the scholarly type to offer it, however, read, decide for yourself, ask questions for clarification.. At a distance. I found I fit somewhere in the middle of both, but not soley into either :)
Thanks. I'll see if I can find those.

[holdon]

That way a person can make an informed choice.No, you have it wrong. That way they can make a biased (and highly biased at that) choice.

[holdon]

Thank you.

I see that dispensationalism is alive and well here on the Baptist threads too. I have seen that at least one person here uses the Darby Translation. Yep, I do so frequently. It is one of the best translations by far. Trust me.

[holdon]

It is what He expoinded to the diciple on the road to Emmaus. I highly doubt that Jesus was explaining Covenant Theology to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, because CT didn't exist back then. Covenant theology fits with the whole of Scripture very well and is no more complicated than Dispensationalism.
The main difference is that Dispensationalism see the church and the Jews as seperateNo, that is a false statement. Dispensationalism sees that in the Church, Jews and Gentiles are no longer separate, but one flock, one body. and Covanant theology sees the church as the true Israel made up of both Jew and Gentile.It is true that CT disregards any current or future role for the Jews that are not part of the Church, despite all the prophecies to the contrary.

[Flynmonkie]

Hi Flyn,

As an aside, what did happen to RuralPreacher? Do you know, or did he just sort of fade off??

I think he faded away. I remember he had posted he would be away for a while, commitments, then reappeared and pouf nowhere to be seen. I have not checked his profile to see last visit, but I have not seen him around in quite a while. I miss 'em! Maybe someone can post a PM to him and ask where he is off to?:scratch:
As a matter of fact where have YOU been?;)

[HypoTypoSis]

THE DIFFERENT AGES AND DISPENSATIONS
OF GOD'S DEALINGS WITH MEN
-EWB (http://www.levendwater.org/)

God has spoken at "sundry times" as well as "in divers manners" (Heb. 1:1). The time when He spoke to "the fathers" is distinguished from the time in which He has "spoken to us". The time in which He spake by the prophets "stands in contrast with the time in which He spake by (His) Son". And the "time past" is obviously distinguished from "these last days" (Heb. 1:2). To "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15) it is essential to regard the times in which the words were spoken, as well as the times to which they refer.
Three Greek words in the New Testament call for careful consideration. These are :
chronos, time, duration unlimited unless defined; occ. fifty-three times and is translated "time" in thirty-two;
kairos, a certain limited and definite portion of chronos, the right time or season; occ. eighty-seven times;, and is rendered "time" in sixty-five passages, "season" in fifteen;
oikonomia, meaning lit. administration of a household (Eng., economy, including the idea of stewardship); occ. eight times, trans. "dispensation" four, "stewardship" three, "edifying" once (1Tim. 1:4), which the R.V. rightly corrects to "dispensation", making five occ. in all of that English term.A dispensation, administration, or arrangement, during a portion of chronos may, or may not, be equal to kairos, according as the context determines. Nothing but confusion can arise from reading into one dispensation that which relates to another. To connect with God said and did in one dispensation with another, in which His administration was on an altogether different principle, is to ensure error. And finally, to take doctrine of late revelation and read it into the time when it was "hidden" leads to disaster.
The nations, Israel the Chosen Nation, and the church are each dealt with in distinct "times" and on distinct principles, and the doctrine relating to each must be kept distinct. When our Lord speaks (Luke 21:24) of "the times (kairos) of the Gentiles", the implication is that there are times of the Jews (under Messiah, Isa. 33:6, &c.), whatever be the contrasted elements. So that what is recorded as connected with the times of the Jews is not necessarily applicable to the times of the Gentiles.

The present administration of God is in grace, not in law, judgment, or glory, and belongs to the "dispensation" (oikonomia) of the Mystery, that secret "which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to His saints" (Col. 1:26), that secret "which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men" (Eph. 3:5). Hid in God from the beginning of the world (see Eph. 3:9), it was kept secret since the world began (see Rom. 16:25). There is no authority for taking enactments Divinely fitted for the times of the Jews and transferring them to the present dispensation of God in grace. Similarly, the endeavor to read the precepts of the "Sermon on the Mount" (Matt. 5-7), which are the laws of the kingdom of heaven, into such church epistles as Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, not only obscures the truth, but antagonizes one part of Scripture with another.


THE SEVEN TIMES OR DISPENSATIONS
In the Bible seven distinct administrations are set before us. Each has its own beginning and ending; each is characterized by certain distinctive principles of God's dealings; each ends in a crisis or judgment peculiar to itself, save No. 7, which is without end. These may be tabulated thus :

The Edenic state of innocence.
End -- the expulsion from Eden.
The period "without law" (the times of ignorance, Acts 17:30).
End -- The Flood, and the judgment on Babel.
The era under law.
End - The rejection of Israel.
The period of grace.
End - The "day of the Lord".
The epoch of judgment.
End - The destruction of Antichrist.
The millennial age.
End - The destruction of Satan, and the judgment of the great white throne.
The eternal state of glory.
No EndAll seven dispensations exhibit differing characteristics which call for the close attention of the Bible student.

THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES. While the seven dispensations above specified are the main divisions of the long period of the Divine dealings, there is still another dispensation referred to as "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24), a dispensation which overlaps two of the above divisions. These times began when Jerusalem passed under the power of Babylon (477 B.C.), and continue while Jerusalem is "trodden down of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24). These "times" are referred to in Rom. 11:25, which has no reference to the completion of "the church", as is so generally believed, but relates to the fullness, or filling up, of the times of the Gentiles, the word "Gentiles" being put for the times which they fill up.
THE PARENTHESIS OF THE PRESENT DISPENSATION. In the Nazareth Synagogue (Luke 4:16-20) our Lord stood up and read from the book of the prophet Isaiah. After reading the first verse and part of the second (of ch. 61), He closed the book. Why stop there? Because the next sentence belonged, and still belongs, to a future dispensation. The acceptable "year of the Lord" had come, but "the day of vengeance of our God" has not even yet appeared. Thus did the Lord divide two dispensations. There is no mark in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61:2 to indicate any break, yet an interval of nearly 2,000 years separates the two clauses quoted. In this interval comes the whole of the present church dispensation, following on the years after Israel's final rejection (Acts 28:25-28).

[HypoTypoSis]

What Is Covenant Theology? (http://www.rockofoffence.com/covtheo.html)

It's not my goal to debate these principles in this article. For that reason, my comments will be generalized and limited. The hostilities between Calvinism and other Christian beliefs such as Dispensationalism have existed for many years. Hundreds of books are written on the topic. Endless debates continue to this day. For these reasons, we will not solve anything in the limited space in this article.

Two major forms of religious thought exist in Orthodox Christianity: Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology (also known as Dispensationalism).

Covenant Theology views Biblical history as one continuous "uniform" flow that does not disagree and is expressed in three basic "Covenants" known as:




Redemption
Works
Grace
These covenants do not necessarily represent actual historically established covenants--they are more like religious "ideologies" that enable Calvinism to make sense of their fundamental "uniform flow of Bible history" teaching. At this point, the reader is probably thinking, "What does "uniform flow" mean?" Generally, it's a belief that God deals with the human race today the same way he dealt with them under the Old Testament. It's called "uniform" because Covenant theologians believe no significant change has taken place. Later, we'll see how they bring this together under their Covenants of Law and Grace.

Covenant Theologians allegorizes (spiritualizes) the Scriptures, especially Bible prophecy. This allows the practice of applying extra-biblical interpretations. The reason there can be no solution in the ongoing debate with Calvinists is because of their methods of Bible interpretation. You can never discuss the principles of gravity or thermodynamics with a person who does not respect the "literal" laws of Physics. For the same reason, you can never discuss the details of salvation or Bible prophecy with someone who does not respect the literal interpretation of Scripture. It's an excercise in total frustration.

According to Covenant Theology, the church has always existed. It teaches that the "invisible church" began with Adam and later became "visible" during Abraham's life. They believe the Church didn't begin on the day of Pentecost--but pre-existed since the creation of man. Covenant theologians see Old Testament history as God's interaction with the entire human race, rather than only Israel. They believe Israel represents the church of the Old Testament, while the church of the New Testament (made up of mainly Gentile believers in Christ) is "the new Israel". It teaches that national Israel is cursed and eternally rejected by God because of her sin. The New Testament Church, which they call "the new Israel", has taken natural Israel's place and inherited all her promises. This belief is also known as "Replacement Theology". It is not a "minority" belief. This dangerous ideology results in various expressions of anti-Semitism toward the Modern State of Israel. It's one reason we see major Christian denominations routinely take the side of terrorist countries who are committed to the destruction of the Jewish State. They sincerely believe they're an extension of God's judgement upon Israel for her sins.

Important Note: It is not my intention to misrepresent the principles of Calvinism. Like other beliefs, Covenant Theology is embraced by various different branches (groupings) that may not all hold to the exact same beliefs. According to my research, the principles presented above are common within this group.

[HypoTypoSis]

Dispensationalism (http://www.rockofoffence.com/covtheo.html)

Rather than the "uniform view of history", Dispensationalists see Biblical history as different dispensations or administrations. In each dispensation God accomplishes something totally different. Covenant theologians teach a "sameness" or uniformity of God's purposes through history, while Dispensationalists explain the unique differences between each Divine administration. Covenant Theology spiritualizes Scripture to achieve agreement with the Biblical text. Dispensationalists use a "literal" interpretation of the Scripture, which makes it difficult to "theorize" their own interpretation to achieve Scriptural harmony.

Dispensationalists also disagree on issues because there are so many different "flavors". We attempt to keep things simple for the sake of brevity.

Dispensationalists believe Biblical history is divided into seven periods:



Innocence - Adam
Conscience - After Adam sinned, up to the flood
Government - After the flood
Promise - Abraham to Moses (the giving of the Law)
Law - Moses to Calvary
Grace - Calvary to the Millennial Kingdom
Millennial Kingdom - The literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earthNote: Since this article is not intended as a defense, but an examination of differences--we will restrict our discussion to the two dispensations of Law and Grace.

During the dispensation of Law, God deals only with Israel as his chosen people. He gave them the Mosaic Law, an exclusively Jewish institution. Only circumcised Jews as the natural seed of Abraham are permitted to practice its rituals. Gentiles are not welcomed into this religious system. It wasn't designed for the entire human race, but only for Israel as Abraham's offspring. In the Old Testament, God was known by the name of "The Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" (1 Kings 18:36, 1 Chron. 29:18, 2 Chron. 30:6). God's original intention was for Israel to be the custodians of His Law and for salvation to flow from them to the rest of the Gentile nations of the world (Isaiah 49:6). Yet, because they were disobedient and crucified their Messiah, God extends salvation directly to the Gentiles through Grace. Old Testament prophets foretell this outcome. With teaching from the Pauline Revelation, we can now see that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is part of God's design to provide the legal foundation for the next part (dispensation) of his plan. The blood of Christ fulfills the just requirements of the Law and pays the price for the redemption of not just the Jews, but also the remaining non-Jewish part of the human race.

Under the dispensation of Grace, God no longer exclusively deals with Israel through the Mosaic Law. He is now dealing with all nations of the world. Paul tells us about this important change after Calvary:
"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." (Rom 3:27-30 KJV)

For this reason, the requirements of the exclusively Jewish Law can never be part of Gentile salvation. Through the Pauline Revelation, God unveiled the Gospel of Grace. This gospel is known as the Gospel of Christ, or Paul's gospel. It outlines salvation by Grace (unmerited favor) through faith in Christ alone--without any need for the deeds of the Law. Under the dispensation of Grace, the earned merits of obedience to Law are eliminated and salvation is granted as "the gift of God" on the basis of the believer's confession of faith in Christ alone (Rom. 10:9-10, 13).

To summarize: Under the dispensation of the Law God dealt only with Israel--under the dispensation of Grace (after the cross) he deals with the human race as a whole. The "uniform history theory" of Covenant Theology that teaches God only dealt with the human race as a whole in the Old Testament is not true. This can be proven by an honest study of the Old Testament using a literal interpretation of Scripture. In order to make their "uniform theory" of the Old Testament work, Covenant theologians must spiritualize the Scriptures.

The "church" is mentioned on the day of Pentecost and later in the epistles of Paul when the Holy Spirit came to indwell believers. It is not discussed in the Old Testament before Christ. The term "Church" is applied to believers, who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The indwelling Spirit is unique to the New Testament Church and was impossible before the day of Pentecost--meaning that the "Church" didn't exist in the days of either Adam or Abraham. This also means that Israel and the Church are two separate and distinct entities in the Scriptures. It means that Israel is not the "church" of the Old Testament and that the "Church" of the New Testament can never be the "new Israel".

[christian73]

Thanks Hypo. I can see where Covenant Theology is not necessarily biblical. I say this because, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jesus told Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church". That tells me that until that point in time the church didn't exist. Am I on the right track?

[HypoTypoSis]

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The first thing we need to do is forget everything we've heard with respect to the Catholic view.

Jesus was not speaking of Peter, a movable rock, his denials evidence this; however, in the previous verses we have his confession and that is what Jesus is referring to.

Matthew 16:16-17, "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

And the confession is that Jesus is the Immovable Rock, the Cornerstone, itself; thus, we see Jesus was speaking of Himself, and upon that Rock His Church would be built.

The 'gates' is the figure of speech, metonymy of the adjunct, and refers to the power of death. Hell refers to the grave. And 'shall not prevail against it' means death shall have no power (death where is thy sting?) for Jesus, Who is 'the Resurrection and the Life' has conquered death so the grave no longer has any power, or hold, over us.

[Jason of Iolkos]

Hi Christian73! :wave:

Some books you might want to check out from the Covenant Theology point of view are:

God of Promise by Michael Horton
-This book, in the early chapters at least, explore how covenants play a crucial role in understanding Scripture.

The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson
-This author explores the various biblical covenants and show how they all connect.

Blessings in your studies,

Justin

[JacobHall86]

The Church are Gods chosen People. Thats why we live under the NEW covenant.

[HypoTypoSis]

The Jews are God's chosen people.


Deuteronomy 7:6, "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."

Deuteronomy 14:2, "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth."

Psalms 33:12, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance."

Psalms 89:3, "I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,"

Psalms 105:6, "O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen."

Psalms 135:4, "For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure."

Isaiah 41:9, "Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and NOT cast thee away."

Isaiah 44:1, "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:"


Christians are the in grafted people.

The Jews will rule the nations of the new earth with the Messiah as their king.

Christians will be in, with and where the Father and the Son are.

[HypoTypoSis]

All promises and covenants God made with Israel are still good and those still awaiting to be fulfilled will be fulfilled to the benefit of the Jews.

Promises and covenants made on behalf of the Christians are separate and distinct from those made to the Jews and will, also, al be fulfilled.

NO promises or covenants made with the Jews are or will be taken from the Jews and given to the Christians.

[JacobHall86]

Nothing is taken from them, All Coveneants are conditional, so is the New Covenant, if you dont accept Christ, you are not in the new covenant. Regardless of your background.

[HypoTypoSis]

Covenants made with the Jews are for the JEWS.

Covenants with the Christians are for the Christians.

RT's and CT's would take from the Jews their covenants and leave them the curses.

[JacobHall86]

No, rejecting Christ leaves them cursed.

[novcncy]

I was thinking about this last night, and I can't remember if it's posted on this thread or not...but here goes.

I noticed while reading in Colossians that the church is the Body of Christ, and He is its Head.

Frequently in the OT, specifically throughout the minor prophets, Israel is referred to as God's bride.

I have heard the church referred to as the Bride of Christ, but I know I saw a post in this thread saying that was not so.

So, while I plan to study this in depth, here's my question for discussion: Is it only applicable to consider the church as the body of Christ, or are they the bride of Christ as well? If however, the body is exclusively the church, and the bride of exclusively the Jews, then this lends itself to dispensationalism in general, and seems to practically exclude both replacement and covenant theologies.

Please proceed with your thoughts, and BE NICE!!!! :)

BTW, I want to commend Hypo for his posts regarding the summaries of CT and DT.

[GordonSlocum]

Those two statement are some of the issues that divide the camps.

I too remember the discussion where some have posited that "the bride of Christ" was not the same as "the Church". For me I see the Church as the Bride of Christ.

I am a dispensationalist.

Good observation.

Gordon

[novcncy]

Those two statement are some of the issues that divide the camps.

I too remember the discussion where some have posited that "the bride of Christ" was not the same as "the Church". For me I see the Church as the Bride of Christ.

I am a dispensationalist.

Good observation.

Gordon
Gordon, WHY do you see the church as the Bride of Christ. I'm wondering if it's a tradition, or a defensible position?

[christianmomof3]

This is interesting. Thank you for the definitions and links. :wave:

[mlqurgw]

I highly doubt that Jesus was explaining Covenant Theology to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, because CT didn't exist back then.I didn't say He was. I said that He was expounding the OT Scriptures to them. Twisting again?
No, that is a false statement. Dispensationalism sees that in the Church, Jews and Gentiles are no longer separate, but one flock, one body.Not any Dispensationalist I have read.
It is true that CT disregards any current or future role for the Jews that are not part of the Church, despite all the prophecies to the contrary.Actually there are many premillenial Calvinists. I don't happen to be one but my favorite theologian, John Gill, was.

[novcncy]

Not any Dispensationalist I have read.

Walvoord?

[holdon]

I didn't say He was. I said that He was expounding the OT Scriptures to them. Twisting again? I think you may not read me correctly.
Not any Dispensationalist I have read. Then either you have not read them, or not read them correctly, or have not read correctly what I said. Take your pick.
Actually there are many premillenial Calvinists. I don't happen to be one but my favorite theologian, John Gill, was.

CT stands for Covenant Theology. Not: Calvinistic Theology, as you may have assumed, which would explain the misunderstandings.
But it is true that most CT'ers are Calvinists.

[mlqurgw]

What Is Covenant Theology? (http://www.rockofoffence.com/covtheo.html)

It's not my goal to debate these principles in this article. For that reason, my comments will be generalized and limited. The hostilities between Calvinism and other Christian beliefs such as Dispensationalism have existed for many years. Hundreds of books are written on the topic. Endless debates continue to this day. For these reasons, we will not solve anything in the limited space in this article.

Two major forms of religious thought exist in Orthodox Christianity: Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology (also known as Dispensationalism).

Covenant Theology views Biblical history as one continuous "uniform" flow that does not disagree and is expressed in three basic "Covenants" known as:



Redemption
Works
GraceThese covenants do not necessarily represent actual historically established covenants--they are more like religious "ideologies" that enable Calvinism to make sense of their fundamental "uniform flow of Bible history" teaching. At this point, the reader is probably thinking, "What does "uniform flow" mean?" Generally, it's a belief that God deals with the human race today the same way he dealt with them under the Old Testament. It's called "uniform" because Covenant theologians believe no significant change has taken place. Later, we'll see how they bring this together under their Covenants of Law and Grace.

Covenant Theologians allegorizes (spiritualizes) the Scriptures, especially Bible prophecy. This allows the practice of applying extra-biblical interpretations. The reason there can be no solution in the ongoing debate with Calvinists is because of their methods of Bible interpretation. You can never discuss the principles of gravity or thermodynamics with a person who does not respect the "literal" laws of Physics. For the same reason, you can never discuss the details of salvation or Bible prophecy with someone who does not respect the literal interpretation of Scripture. It's an excercise in total frustration.

According to Covenant Theology, the church has always existed. It teaches that the "invisible church" began with Adam and later became "visible" during Abraham's life. They believe the Church didn't begin on the day of Pentecost--but pre-existed since the creation of man. Covenant theologians see Old Testament history as God's interaction with the entire human race, rather than only Israel. They believe Israel represents the church of the Old Testament, while the church of the New Testament (made up of mainly Gentile believers in Christ) is "the new Israel". It teaches that national Israel is cursed and eternally rejected by God because of her sin. The New Testament Church, which they call "the new Israel", has taken natural Israel's place and inherited all her promises. This belief is also known as "Replacement Theology". It is not a "minority" belief. This dangerous ideology results in various expressions of anti-Semitism toward the Modern State of Israel. It's one reason we see major Christian denominations routinely take the side of terrorist countries who are committed to the destruction of the Jewish State. They sincerely believe they're an extension of God's judgement upon Israel for her sins.

Important Note: It is not my intention to misrepresent the principles of Calvinism. Like other beliefs, Covenant Theology is embraced by various different branches (groupings) that may not all hold to the exact same beliefs. According to my research, the principles presented above are common within this group.
I know you tried but your bias against Covenant Theology is blatant in this post. I have many times responded to the false claim that Covenant Theology is Replacement Theology. Your caracature of it as siding against Israel and with terrorists is going too far.
Also we don't spititualize the Scriptures. We do recognize the literal but also see the typical (as in type) nature of what is written. It is a legitimate method of interpretation.
You say it isn't your intention to misrepresent but you do anyway.

[GordonSlocum]

I know you tried but your bias against Covenant Theology is blatant in this post. I have many times responded to the false claim that Covenant Theology is Replacement Theology. Your caracature of it as siding against Israel and with terrorists is going too far.
Also we don't spititualize the Scriptures. We do recognize the literal but also see the typical (as in type) nature of what is written. It is a legitimate method of interpretation.
You say it isn't your intention to misrepresent but you do anyway.

Let me ask one question of you:

When it comes to prophecy concerning the second coming what is your Millennial view?

A-mil
Post-mil
Pre-mil

Thanks

[JM]

I'm a premil 7 point Calvinist.

From John Nelson Darby's letter, "Letter on Free-will"

Quote:
If Christ has come to save that which is lost, free-will has no longer any place.

I can't remember who wrote it, but someone once wrote that Darby "thought" on paper, which maybe why his works seem to be all over the place.

Quote:
I believe we ought to hold to the word; but, philosophically and morally speaking, free-will is a false and absurd theory. Freewill is a state of sin.

http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/10009E.html (http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/10009E.html)

From his letter, "Freewill as to Inclination to Choice"

Quote:
All men speak about freewill is nonsense - free and will do not go together - there is no will till a person is decided and determined.

http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/NOTESCOM/41023_6E.html (http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/NOTESCOM/41023_6E.html)

I've studied Darby, reading many of his works on www.stempublishing.com (http://www.stempublishing.com) and owning some of them. It seems he's true Amyraldian, believing in the T, U, I and P while denying the L. His work on Lev. 16 reads, "That Christ died for all is, as we have seen, often said in Scripture. Hence I go with His death to the world as their ground and only ground of approach, with the love shewn in it. When a man believes, I can say, Now I have more to tell you: Christ has borne every one of your sins; they never can be mentioned again.

If we look at the difference of Arminian and Calvinistic preaching, we shall see the bearing of this at once. The Arminians take up Christ's dying for all, and generally they connect the bearing of sins with it; and all is confusion as to the efficacy and effectualness of Christ's bearing our sins, for they deny any special work for His people. They say, If God loved all, He cannot love some particularly; and an uncertain salvation is the result, and man often exalted. Thus the scapegoat is practically set aside.

288 The Calvinist holds Christ's bearing the sins of His people, so that they are effectually saved; but he sees nothing else. He will say, If Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it, there can be no real love for anything else. Thus he denies Christ's dying for all, and the distinctive character of propitiation, and the blood on the mercy-seat. He sees nothing but substitution.

The truth is, Christ is said to love the church, never the world. That is a love of special relationship. God is never said to love the church, but the world. This is divine goodness, what is in the nature of God (not His purpose), and His glory is the real end of all. But I do not dwell on this, only pointing out the confusion of propitiation and substitution as necessarily making confusion in the gospel, enfeebling the address to the world, or weakening the security of the believer, and in every respect giving uncertainty to the announcement of the truth. I believe earnestness after souls, and preaching Christ with love to Him, will be blessed where there is little clearness, and is more important than great exactitude of statement. Still it is a comfort to the preacher to have it clear, even if not thinking about it at the moment; and, when building up afterwards, the solidness of the foundation is of the greatest moment."
http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/29009E.html (http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/29009E.html)

[GordonSlocum]

Dispensationalism (http://www.rockofoffence.com/covtheo.html)


Rather than the "uniform view of history", Dispensationalists see Biblical history as different dispensations or administrations. In each dispensation God accomplishes something totally different. Covenant theologians teach a "sameness" or uniformity of God's purposes through history, while Dispensationalists explain the unique differences between each Divine administration. Covenant Theology spiritualizes Scripture to achieve agreement with the Biblical text. Dispensationalists use a "literal" interpretation of the Scripture, which makes it difficult to "theorize" their own interpretation to achieve Scriptural harmony.

Dispensationalists also disagree on issues because there are so many different "flavors". We attempt to keep things simple for the sake of brevity.

Dispensationalists believe Biblical history is divided into seven periods:



Innocence - Adam
Conscience - After Adam sinned, up to the flood
Government - After the flood
Promise - Abraham to Moses (the giving of the Law)
Law - Moses to Calvary
Grace - Calvary to the Millennial Kingdom
Millennial Kingdom - The literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earthNote: Since this article is not intended as a defense, but an examination of differences--we will restrict our discussion to the two dispensations of Law and Grace.

During the dispensation of Law, God deals only with Israel as his chosen people. He gave them the Mosaic Law, an exclusively Jewish institution. Only circumcised Jews as the natural seed of Abraham are permitted to practice its rituals. Gentiles are not welcomed into this religious system. It wasn't designed for the entire human race, but only for Israel as Abraham's offspring. In the Old Testament, God was known by the name of "The Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" (1 Kings 18:36, 1 Chron. 29:18, 2 Chron. 30:6). God's original intention was for Israel to be the custodians of His Law and for salvation to flow from them to the rest of the Gentile nations of the world (Isaiah 49:6). Yet, because they were disobedient and crucified their Messiah, God extends salvation directly to the Gentiles through Grace. Old Testament prophets foretell this outcome. With teaching from the Pauline Revelation, we can now see that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is part of God's design to provide the legal foundation for the next part (dispensation) of his plan. The blood of Christ fulfills the just requirements of the Law and pays the price for the redemption of not just the Jews, but also the remaining non-Jewish part of the human race.

Under the dispensation of Grace, God no longer exclusively deals with Israel through the Mosaic Law. He is now dealing with all nations of the world. Paul tells us about this important change after Calvary:
"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." (Rom 3:27-30 KJV)

For this reason, the requirements of the exclusively Jewish Law can never be part of Gentile salvation. Through the Pauline Revelation, God unveiled the Gospel of Grace. This gospel is known as the Gospel of Christ, or Paul's gospel. It outlines salvation by Grace (unmerited favor) through faith in Christ alone--without any need for the deeds of the Law. Under the dispensation of Grace, the earned merits of obedience to Law are eliminated and salvation is granted as "the gift of God" on the basis of the believer's confession of faith in Christ alone (Rom. 10:9-10, 13).

To summarize: Under the dispensation of the Law God dealt only with Israel--under the dispensation of Grace (after the cross) he deals with the human race as a whole. The "uniform history theory" of Covenant Theology that teaches God only dealt with the human race as a whole in the Old Testament is not true. This can be proven by an honest study of the Old Testament using a literal interpretation of Scripture. In order to make their "uniform theory" of the Old Testament work, Covenant theologians must spiritualize the Scriptures.

The "church" is mentioned on the day of Pentecost and later in the epistles of Paul when the Holy Spirit came to indwell believers. It is not discussed in the Old Testament before Christ. The term "Church" is applied to believers, who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The indwelling Spirit is unique to the New Testament Church and was impossible before the day of Pentecost--meaning that the "Church" didn't exist in the days of either Adam or Abraham. This also means that Israel and the Church are two separate and distinct entities in the Scriptures. It means that Israel is not the "church" of the Old Testament and that the "Church" of the New Testament can never be the "new Israel".

Outstanding Post - Thanks - One of the best yet - Very Good. Will have to keep it out there as this question arises here and there.

Gordon.

[JPPT1974]

Those two statement are some of the issues that divide the camps.

I too remember the discussion where some have posited that "the bride of Christ" was not the same as "the Church". For me I see the Church as the Bride of Christ.

I am a dispensationalist.

Good observation.

Gordon

I see the Church as the Bride of
Christ as well! Very good Gordon!
Keep up the good work!

[HypoTypoSis]

Is it only applicable to consider the church as the body of Christ, or are they the bride of Christ as well?

How can Christ's 'Body' be His 'Bride?

Can a man's wife (bride) be his body? Or, are they separate entities?

A man cannot 'marry' himself. Always, we have the natural (physical) correlations when comparing with the spiritual and, in this, Israel is the physical and those in Christ are the spiritual.

Israel is God's promised earthly people; Christians are God's promised heavenly people.

Israel actually gets the second prize in being the promised earthly people because they believe by seeing.

Christians receive the first prize because they believe without seeing.

Faith over rides belief.

Israel will rule the nations of the new earth.-Physical.

Christians will live 'in' Christ and the Father.-Spiritual.

Why desire (steal) second prize when we are promised first prize?

Why settle for ruling the earth when we can have the glory of God He gave Jesus that Jesus gave us?

John 17:20-24, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

[mlqurgw]

Let me ask one question of you:

When it comes to prophecy concerning the second coming what is your Millennial view?

A-mil
Post-mil
Pre-mil

ThanksMy position on end times is that Christ is coming back. I do ahve a leaning but I take no position on purpose. I believe it is mostly conjecture and no one knows for sure. As I have said before, when Satan can get you off of the Gospel and focused on prophecy he has won the day. I do not concern myself with what may or may not happen as the Lord is in control of it all and He always does right. Rather than looking for prophetic happenings in the Scriptures I seek to find how what is said concerns Christ and His Gospel. I just don't view having a position on the millennium as all that important.

[Jason of Iolkos]

How can Christ's 'Body' be His 'Bride?

Can a man's wife (bride) be his body? Or, are they separate entities?

A man cannot 'marry' himself. Always, we have the natural (physical) correlations when comparing with the spiritual and, in this, Israel is the physical and those in Christ are the spiritual.

Israel is God's promised earthly people; Christians are God's promised heavenly people.

Israel actually gets the second prize in being the promised earthly people because they believe by seeing.

Christians receive the first prize because they believe without seeing.

Faith over rides belief.

Israel will rule the nations of the new earth.-Physical.

Christians will live 'in' Christ and the Father.-Spiritual.

Why desire (steal) second prize when we are promised first prize?

Why settle for ruling the earth when we can have the glory of God He gave Jesus that Jesus gave us?

John 17:20-24, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

There is only one people of God, those of faith. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile but God's people are those who are of the Promised One.

Have you not read Romans 9:6-13?

As far as whether or not the Church is the bride of Christ I must say we are! Paul even speaks of this in Ephesians 5:25-33:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of this body. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. Howerver, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

It is obvious from the plain reading of Scripture that the Church is depicted as the Bride of Christ!

[HypoTypoSis]

I take no position on purpose.
I believe it is mostly conjecture and no one knows for sure.
I do not concern myself with what may or may not happen
the Lord is in control of it all and He always does right.
I just don't view having a position on the millennium as all that important.With all due respect isn't that a bit of a laissez faire attitude? Afterall, a very large part of the bible, perhaps as much as thirty percent, is prophetic in nature.

In at least seven different instances both Jesus and Paul instruct us that we are to watch and the importance and reasoning is stressed each time.

Jesus, Paul, John, Peter, Moses, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, Ezekial, Job, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakuk, Zephania, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachai.

Surely these people were not writing just so future people would just say,

"it's God's business",
"in His own good time",
"He'll do what He will when the time comes",
"I'm not going to concern myself",
"I shouldn't concern myself",
"I should concern myself with the only the elementary principles of the Gospel".Aren't those copouts? Aren't they just excuses?

Hebrews 5:12, "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."

Surely, we should advance beyond the basics as our molars grow out and we are able to chew on meat and, eventually, even some tough chewy gristle.

We weren't told we shouldn't or that we couldn't know, or, for that matter, that we even couldn't know the year or the season, only the time and the day was hid.

Mark 13:32-33, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is."

Mark 13:35, "Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:"

Mark 13:37, "And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch."

Luke 12:36-40 "Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching"

And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched

Luke 12:45-46"But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers."

Luke 21:34-36 "And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."

Rev 3:2-3 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

Titus 2:11-14 "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

1Thes 5:1-6 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober."

[HypoTypoSis]

Have you not read Romans 9:6-13?
Sure. Have your molars grown out sufficiently that you can identify who it was being addressed and what the subject of the entire discourse was?

[Jason of Iolkos]

Sure. Have your molars grown out sufficiently that you can identify who it was being addressed and what the subject of the entire discourse was?


Actually I have. The entire discussion, as you put it, deals with the issue as to whether or not the Jews have been cast aside. Paul's answer was no. There will be a great number of Jews who, in the last days, will accept Christ. The issue wasn't whether or not there were two peoples but rather what role did the Jews play in this eschatalogical timeline. Because of their disobedience, had they fallen as not to recover? No, those who believe in Christ will be saved.

Again, the distinction is not placed on ethnicity but rather on FAITH. Just because you are a physcial descendent of Abraham does not mean you are of Israel. And still God has not forsaken the Jews but will have a remnant.

One body, not two. :thumbsup:

HypoTypoSis
How can Christ's 'Body' be His 'Bride'?


Now would you care to address Ephesians 5:25-33? ;)

In view of the plain reading, it seems simple to understand the concept.

[HypoTypoSis]

Jesaiah,

The first 11 verses are not covenantal but dispensational in nature.

Romans 9:1-5, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

Verses 6-13 speaks to God's purpose having respect only to a portion.


Romans 9:6-13, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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. For this is the word of promise,At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Verses 14-29 speaks to God's purpose regarding only a remnant.

Romans 9:14-29, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 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: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha."

[Jason of Iolkos]

HypoTypoSis,

I am getting ready for work and so I will address your response on Romans 9 later today.


BUT

In light of your statement that the Church could not be the Bride of Christ, could you please address Ephesians 5:25-33? :thumbsup:

Or will you continue to just ignore it in light of the fact that it it blatantly opposed to your view?

[GordonSlocum]

2 Cor. 11: 1. I (Paul) hope you will be patient with me as I keep on talking like a fool. Please bear with me. 2. I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God himself. For I promised you as a pure bride* to one husband, Christ.

Rev. 19:7. Let us be glad and rejoice and honor him. For the time has come for the wedding feast of the Lamb, and his bride has prepared herself.

Rev 21: 2. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven like a beautiful bride prepared for her husband.

and
9. Then one of the seven angels who held the seven bowls containing the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come with me! I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

Just using the terms employed in Scripture clearly we have to agree that the Church is called a Bride.

Second the illustrations of the body as one -united together as man and wife are to become one (in physical reality they are not put in union they are) So to is the relationship with the Church to Christ.

Bride is a word used to convey a truth.

Christians are related to Christ. The relationship is simply described as such. Believers are call a temple and a body and a bride. In the old testament Israel is described as a wife and sometimes as an unfaithful wife. The Church is described as a bride in waiting and the Jewish wedding has its parallels to the prophetic passages as they relate to the Church and the specific and illustrative references to the body as his bride.

To me it is a very secure understanding and fosters confidence in Christ. It describes a genuine love relationship. Betrothal in Jewish times was as serious as marriage is to a real God fearing Believer today.

[novcncy]

2 Cor. 11: 1. I (Paul) hope you will be patient with me as I keep on talking like a fool. Please bear with me. 2. I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God himself. For I promised you as a pure bride* to one husband, Christ.

Rev. 19:7. Let us be glad and rejoice and honor him. For the time has come for the wedding feast of the Lamb, and his bride has prepared herself.

Rev 21: 2. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven like a beautiful bride prepared for her husband.

and
9. Then one of the seven angels who held the seven bowls containing the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come with me! I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

Just using the terms employed in Scripture clearly we have to agree that the Church is called a Bride.

Second the illustrations of the body as one -united together as man and wife are to become one (in physical reality they are not put in union they are) So to is the relationship with the Church to Christ.

Bride is a word used to convey a truth.

Christians are related to Christ. The relationship is simply described as such. Believers are call a temple and a body and a bride. In the old testament Israel is described as a wife and sometimes as an unfaithful wife. The Church is described as a bride in waiting and the Jewish wedding has its parallels to the prophetic passages as they relate to the Church and the specific and illustrative references to the body as his bride.

To me it is a very secure understanding and fosters confidence in Christ. It describes a genuine love relationship. Betrothal in Jewish times was as serious as marriage is to a real God fearing Believer today.

Gordon, None of the passages you quote directly equate the church to the bride of Christ. I can see potentila in the Corinthians passage, and will study that, but the verses from Revelation, in particular, require a great deal of assumptions to view the church as the bride. I'm not saying that those assumptions can't be factual, if they are based on other scriptures, but the verses you quoted do not clear anything up.

[GordonSlocum]

Gordon, None of the passages you quote directly equate the church to the bride of Christ. I can see potentila in the Corinthians passage, and will study that, but the verses from Revelation, in particular, require a great deal of assumptions to view the church as the bride. I'm not saying that those assumptions can't be factual, if they are based on other scriptures, but the verses you quoted do not clear anything up.

From a Dispensational understanding of Revelation the revelation passages are clear representations of The Church.

I don't know your particular theological belief. But I place my belief in the main stream of Dispensational theology and that would be the interpretation this camp comes to out of its hermeneutics.

You may have this book - if so you can read his argument on the subject. "Maranath Our Lord, Come!" by Renald Showers

The book is "A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Chruch"

He deals with this subject in his book - Bride of Christ

Gordon

[novcncy]

From a Dispensational understanding of Revelation the revelation passages are clear representations of The Church.

I don't know your particular theological belief. But I place my belief in the main stream of Dispensational theology and that would be the interpretation this camp comes to out of its hermeneutics.

You may have this book - if so you can read his argument on the subject. "Maranath Our Lord, Come!" by Renald Showers

The book is "A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Chruch"

He deals with this subject in his book - Bride of Christ

Gordon
That's my point...an understanding of the revelation passages is built on many assumptions. (I'm not even saying they are wrong) But the question I have is where is this equation made? It's not made in Revelation.

The Ephesians reference seems strong to me, and I will check that out, as well as the 2 Corinthians reference.

[HypoTypoSis]

All these verses are Jews speaking to Jews regarding the salvation of the Jews and their marriage to the Messiah.

2 Corinthians 11:2, "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I (Paul) have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

Paul talking to the Jews.

Revelation 19:7, "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready."

The marriage to Israel has already taken place, speaks of the wife.

Revelation 21:2, "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

Speaks of a city, Jerusalem, ie Jews Salem

Revelation 21:9, "...And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. "

Refers to Jerusalem in 21:2

[HypoTypoSis]

The purpose and thrust of John's Revelation is by a Jew, to Jews, regarding the salvation of the Jews written entirely in Jewish figures and terminolgy.

[GordonSlocum]

That's my point...an understanding of the revelation passages is built on many assumptions. (I'm not even saying they are wrong) But the question I have is where is this equation made? It's not made in Revelation.

The Ephesians reference seems strong to me, and I will check that out, as well as the 2 Corinthians reference.
7. Let us be glad and rejoice and honor him. For the time has come for the wedding feast of the Lamb, and his bride has prepared herself.
8. She is permitted to wear the finest white linen." (Fine linen represents the good deeds done by the people of God.)
9. And the angel said, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb." And he added, "These are true words that come from God."
10. Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said, "No, don't worship me. For I am a servant of God, just like you and other brothers and sisters* who testify of their faith in Jesus. Worship God. For the essence of prophecy is to give a clear witness for Jesus.*
Not sure exactly what you are asking. These verses mention a feast of the Lamb. And his bride. We have to ask ourselves how we should understand this imagery of a Groom and Bride. The Lamb, Christ as the Groom and the Bride. What is the process of the Jewish custom that surrounds this analogy?
We are not directly told that the bride is the church. This may be what you are referring to. The inferences in the NT and the few direct representations along with the historical understanding of the Jewish wedding brings us to this conclusion. Our goal is to make sense of the terms in a moral sense. What does the culture say about the terms being used and how would they see it.
For me these verses make more sense in the Dispensational Point of view vs. all the others. There is correlation and agreement both in direct statement, and practice.
Lets look at the Jewish Custom of marriage.
A. The Bridegroom (groom) leaves his father’s house
B. The Bridegroom arrives at the Bride’s house and here the groom establishes a marriage covenant
C. The Bridegroom then pays a purchase price by which this establishes the covenant
D. The Bride now has been purchased for a price and the covenant is established and the Bride is at that point set apart exclusively for the Groom,
E. Both drink a symbolic cup of wine representing the covenant
F. The Groom then leaves to return unannounced later
G. The Groom will be separated for an unspecified amount of time
H. The Groom in separation will prepare a place for his bride
I. At the end of this separation the Groom will return for his bride Unannonced
J. The bride did not know when he would return
K. As the Groom arrives there is a shout given by him
L. The bride will not go with the Groom
M. As the Groom and Bride return to the Grooms fathers house there are guest there to welcome them
N. The Groom and Bride will remain in hiding to consummate the marriage for 7 days
O. At the end of the 7 days both return together and wife is unveiled. Now all can see who the bride is.
This parallels the Rapture, tribulation and Second coming
Christ will return for his bride and then after 7 years return again with his unveiled bride the church.

[HypoTypoSis]

From a Dispensational understanding of Revelation the revelation passages are clear representations of...
...the salvation of the Jews. The book of Revelation is in nature Jewish.

Also, bear in mind that all but 7 books of the entire bible were written to Jews; only that small handful were specifically written to Gentiles.

Until Acts 28:28, the entire material was directed to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. At that point, as the Jewish leaders of Rome left Paul saying, "Yeah, well", did Paul throw Isaiah 6 at them with the remark that this message would now be given to the Gentiles and that "they will hear it".

The prison epistles comprise Ephesians, Phillipians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy and Titus. In them we see God's dealings with the ingrafted Gentiles, the heavenly people. The other letters pertain with His dealings with His earthly people, the Jews.

Problems develop when people mix God's dealings with one class in a certain time with those in another time. Example: no one (except Hasidic Jews) bother with separate cooking utensils for milk and meat, or with traveling further than about a half mile (a Sabbath's day journey) on the Sabbath. Mixing Romans 8 with Romans 11 will upset anyone for the former speaks of no condemnation while the latter, specifically addressed to the Gentiles, speaks to works. Also, Revelation speaks directly to God's people, the Jews regarding the scenario of their salvation.

We need all of the Bible, every bit of it, we cannot do without even one word. But while all of it is FOR us not all of it is written TO us. Example: many directives may cross a, say, shipping person's desk regarding company activities, not all of which pertain to shipping but all of which generally inform the shipping department what is going on in the company; necessary information in a general sense. But, now and then, comes a directive particularly pertaining to the shipping department with specific instructions. So it is with the Bible.

[HypoTypoSis]

Gordon,
Where does it say He is going to come back twice?

[novcncy]

A. The Bridegroom (groom) leaves his father’s house
B. The Bridegroom arrives at the Bride’s house and here the groom establishes a marriage covenant
C. The Bridegroom then pays a purchase price by which this establishes the covenant
D. The Bride now has been purchased for a price and the covenant is established and the Bride is at that point set apart exclusively for the Groom,
E. Both drink a symbolic cup of wine representing the covenant
F. The Groom then leaves to return unannounced later
G. The Groom will be separated for an unspecified amount of time
H. The Groom in separation will prepare a place for his bride
I. At the end of this separation the Groom will return for his bride Unannonced
J. The bride did not know when he would return
K. As the Groom arrives there is a shout given by him
L. The bride will not go with the Groom
M. As the Groom and Bride return to the Grooms fathers house there are guest there to welcome them
N. The Groom and Bride will remain in hiding to consummate the marriage for 7 days
O. At the end of the 7 days both return together and wife is unveiled. Now all can see who the bride is.
This parallels the Rapture, tribulation and Second coming
Christ will return for his bride and then after 7 years return again with his unveiled bride the church.


That's interesting, but is it scriptural? Also, where did you get that illustration from, or are you a super expert on Jewish culture and just knew it? About the only thing I can come up with I got from Fiddler on the Roof. Mazeltoff! (JK :) )

IMHO, we need te be careful about relying on tradition in forming doctrine.

Sorry to be ambigous with my question. I'll reframe it.

Why do you equate the church with the bride of Christ? I understand the implication, I just don't understand the equation.

[GordonSlocum]

Gordon,
Where does it say He is going to come back twice?


Him. At that time Christ sets up his earthly kingdom.

The passage in Revelation 4:1. After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.''

lends to this as well. John, taken up and gets to see the great tribulation. No where in this terrible time is the church mentioned.


One of the verses that gave me fits a long time ago was the Romans passage on "all Israel will be saved". From a then A-millennial and Covenant view I would not reconcile this in my mind. This passage and the Second coming passages were the biggest influence on me to change to dispensational theology.

[JM]

E.W. Bullinger is intoxicating, convincing and dead wrong.

Books of his that I own and have read are Great Cloud of Witnesses, How to Study Your Bible, The Companion Bible and his commentary on Revelation. [I also own the Grace Library with mid to latter Acts dispensational writtings] When I was a dispensationalist and studied my dispensational presuppositions, I pursued those dispensational presuppositions to their logical conclusion and ended up with Acts 28 Dispensationalism.

Soon after I became convinced my Dispensational understandings were extreme and extremely wrong.

[holdon]

E.W. Bullinger is intoxicating, convincing and dead wrong.

Books of his that I own and have read are Great Cloud of Witnesses, How to Study Your Bible, The Companion Bible and his commentary on Revelation. [I also own the Grace Library with mid to latter Acts dispensational writtings] When I was a dispensationalist and studied my dispensational presuppositions, I pursued those dispensational presuppositions to their logical conclusion and ended up with Acts 28 Dispensationalism.

Soon after I became convinced my Dispensational understandings were extreme and extremely wrong.



So, MADness drove you over the edge?

[Flynmonkie]

[

Soon after I became convinced my Dispensational understandings were extreme and extremely wrong.



I have not conclusivly decided this yet but I lean toward this perspective too of lack of balance in Bullingers position. However, I have been very impressed with other explainations by Bullinger. In fact, I now study the Companion Bible moreso than any other version right now.

[eldermike]

Jesus said that Abraham saw His day and was glad. That's enough for me to reject the dispensational way of understanding.

[holdon]

Jesus said that Abraham saw His day and was glad. That's enough for me to reject the dispensational way of understanding.

Or that might just strongly confirm the dispensational way of understanding...... Because Abraham recognized that to him was "dispensed" a different blessing as that better one to come.

[Jason of Iolkos]

To HypoTypoSis:

I was prepared to respond to your post concerning Romans 9 but after coming home from work I see that you have still not addressed Ephesians 5:25-33 where Paul describes the Church as both the body of Christ and in terms of being the Bride of Christ. Just as a man and woman are husband and wife so they also become one body. And you can't use the excuse that Paul is speaking of Jews because even you admit that Ephesians is addressed to Gentiles (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28096641&postcount=65).

You have had several opportunities to address that passage, in light of your statement that the Church could not be the Bride of Christ and thus using that as a support for your two-bodies theology, yet you have failed to do so. Why should I engage your responses when you pick and choose which issues I raise you would like to address? ;)

In light of that I shall no longer reply to your posts in this thread until you address that passage. :thumbsup:

[Jason of Iolkos]

Or that might just strongly confirm the dispensational way of understanding...... Because Abraham recognized that to him was "dispensed" a different blessing as that better one to come.

I think this is word play gone awry :doh:

[GordonSlocum]

Jesus said that Abraham saw His day and was glad. That's enough for me to reject the dispensational way of understanding.
Interesting

[eldermike]

Or that might just strongly confirm the dispensational way of understanding...... Because Abraham recognized that to him was "dispensed" a different blessing as that better one to come.
Think on it.

[HypoTypoSis]

You have had several opportunities to address that passage

I posted a lengthy post with post # 50 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28084016&postcount=50)

You asked a question in a brief post # 52 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28084831&postcount=52)

I then replied in a lengthy post to someone in post # 53 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28085388&postcount=53)

To which I then answered your brief post #52 in post # 54 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28085543&postcount=54),

To which you replied briefly in the negative and asked a different question in post # 55 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28086070&postcount=55)

To which I replied in length in post # 56 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28087638&postcount=56)

To which you briefly responded with, again, a request for the second passage in post # 57 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28090315&postcount=57)

I then replied in some length to someone else's passages in post # 62 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28095974&postcount=62)

I then made a short reply to someone else in post # 63 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28096034&postcount=63)

I then replied to someone else in detail in post # 65 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28096641&postcount=65)

Now you're back once again niggling me with on-demand requests to continue doing your own studies and research in post # 74 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28104936&postcount=74) .

Do you see a common messageboard pattern of abuse developing between us here?

As much as it would be nice to oblige you it would be nicer if you would invest a little in depth time and research in you own bible study.

Based on the track record so far you have already made up your mind, are not interested in anything said and will only continue to object with further proof texting and indiscriminate tossing out of verses with, "but what about this verse" rabbit trail responses.

Obviously, if only one of us is going to be doing the lengthy and indepth study and the all the other one is going to do is always object tossing out endless multitudinous rabbit trails the end result is nada for both of us so it would be better if we did not pursue this vein of action-reaction, wouldn't you agree?

[GordonSlocum]

That's interesting, but is it scriptural? Also, where did you get that illustration from, or are you a super expert on Jewish culture and just knew it? About the only thing I can come up with I got from Fiddler on the Roof. Mazeltoff! (JK :) )

IMHO, we need te be careful about relying on tradition in forming doctrine.

Sorry to be ambigous with my question. I'll reframe it.

Why do you equate the church with the bride of Christ? I understand the implication, I just don't understand the equation.

No problem. I am a big fan of Friends of Israel Ministry. They publish a host of books and a magazine too call "Israel My Glory". They are in the business of being missionaries to the Jewish community and many of them are form Jewish backgrounds.

The specific data was from Renald Showers book. "Maranatha" which can be purchased from FOI.

Gordon

FOI Web Address http://www.foigm.org/

[JacobHall86]

Jesus Christ, God in Human Form, came and Died for his Church, he chose his Church. If that isnt reason enough to think that the Body of Believers isnt Gods Chosen people I dont know what it is.

[Jason of Iolkos]

I posted a lengthy post with post # 50 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28084016&postcount=50)

You asked a question in a brief post # 52 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28084831&postcount=52)

I then replied in a lengthy post to someone in post # 53 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28085388&postcount=53)

To which I then answered your brief post #52 in post # 54 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28085543&postcount=54),

To which you replied briefly in the negative and asked a different question in post # 55 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28086070&postcount=55)

To which I replied in length in post # 56 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28087638&postcount=56)

To which you briefly responded with, again, a request for the second passage in post # 57 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28090315&postcount=57)

I then replied in some length to someone else's passages in post # 62 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28095974&postcount=62)

I then made a short reply to someone else in post # 63 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28096034&postcount=63)

I then replied to someone else in detail in post # 65 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28096641&postcount=65)

Now you're back once again niggling me with on-demand requests to continue doing your own studies and research in post # 74 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28104936&postcount=74) .

Do you see a common messageboard pattern of abuse developing between us here?

As much as it would be nice to oblige you it would be nicer if you would invest a little in depth time and research in you own bible study.

Based on the track record so far you have already made up your mind, are not interested in anything said and will only continue to object with further proof texting and indiscriminate tossing out of verses with, "but what about this verse" rabbit trail responses.

Obviously, if only one of us is going to be doing the lengthy and indepth study and the all the other one is going to do is always object tossing out endless multitudinous rabbit trails the end result is nada for both of us so it would be better if we did not pursue this vein of action-reaction, wouldn't you agree?

Messageboard abuse? :D Get off it!


Anyway in light of your extensive referencing to previous posts none of those posts dealt with Ephesians 5:25-33 wherein Paul explicitly shows that the Church is both the body of Christ and bride of Christ in his exortation to husbands and wives.

If you do not think that addressing a passage that deals specifically with the topic at hand and that from the plain reading seems to be in direct oposition to your viewpoint then there is no point in trying to discuss this topic.

And as for those pesky "rabbit trail" verses that you claim I will throw out, I notice that in my first post to you I referenced both Romans 9 and Ephesians 5 yet you chose to only address one of those two. So no rabbit trails here friend, just sticking with my original post whether or not you refuse to acknowledge it.

I'm off to bed for tomorrow is a big day...I get to bake cookies with my four year old niece :thumbsup:


Blessings,

Justin

[FreeinChrist]

Jesus said that Abraham saw His day and was glad. That's enough for me to reject the dispensational way of understanding.

That doesn't conflict with dispensationalism at all. Abraham saw His day....meaning His day was not in Abraham's day.
Paul tells us that the gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham when he was told that all nations would be blessed through him, the blessing being Christ.

Abraham died in faith...but his salvation was not realized until the cross.

[HypoTypoSis]

scratched

[HypoTypoSis]

Jesus said that Abraham saw His day and was glad.
John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."