Why do Dispensationalists teach Separation Theology?
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi, I would offer as a reminder we must be careful how we hear or say we do hear our God.
As to when when I don't think would matter .I think its more of a principle
Acts 3:24 is a witness to the time we are in the last day . The time of reformation had come. (Hebrews 9)
God does not number people or days. He will come as a thief in the night. We can watch for him but like with Noah he will still come in the twinkling of the eye. I would offer we therefore walk by faith the unseen eternal. The thousand years represents a unknown. a faith principle. We are not to be of the number as those who do number what the eyes see rather than walking by faith.
Verse 23 of Acts 3 informs us of the Son of man, Jesus . If they reject "that prophet", Jesus, they also reject the father who works in him with him to bring to us the peace of God .The gospel. The loving father strengthening the Son of man, Jesus to both will and do the good pleasure of God. Jesus said; the father and I are one. Apart form each other we cannot know God. It is how the Son of man reveals us to Him who has no form so that we might learn to walk by faith . the unseen eternal.
For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear "that prophet", shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Acts3:22-23 KJV
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same "hath not" the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.1 John 2:22-23 (KJV)
As to when when I don't think would matter .I think its more of a principle
Acts 3:24 is a witness to the time we are in the last day . The time of reformation had come. (Hebrews 9)
God does not number people or days. He will come as a thief in the night. We can watch for him but like with Noah he will still come in the twinkling of the eye. I would offer we therefore walk by faith the unseen eternal. The thousand years represents a unknown. a faith principle. We are not to be of the number as those who do number what the eyes see rather than walking by faith.
Verse 23 of Acts 3 informs us of the Son of man, Jesus . If they reject "that prophet", Jesus, they also reject the father who works in him with him to bring to us the peace of God .The gospel. The loving father strengthening the Son of man, Jesus to both will and do the good pleasure of God. Jesus said; the father and I are one. Apart form each other we cannot know God. It is how the Son of man reveals us to Him who has no form so that we might learn to walk by faith . the unseen eternal.
For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear "that prophet", shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Acts3:22-23 KJV
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same "hath not" the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.1 John 2:22-23 (KJV)
I don't like using the word Calvinist. John Calvin believed in a lot of things I don't, including infant baptism.
But, yes, I believe God is sovereign in salvation. He gives a heart of flesh to replace the heart of stone the unsaved man possesses. This heart of flesh generates faith and repentance. Free-willers believe that somehow, their hard heart of stone can produce faith and repentance, in order to receive a heart of flesh. This is called "decisional regeneration".
My view is that regeneration precedes faith. Their view is that their faith and repentance produces regeneration.
In the past, I used the term "Arminian" to refer to free-willers but in reality, Jacob Arminius had a better view (but still inadequate) of the redical corruption of mankind than modern day Arminians. The Remonstrants took Arminius' doctrine even further than Arminius. I would call both of them semi-Pelagians though. And, some free-willers are even worse than modern-day Arminians. There are Pelagians in the midst of free-willers.
It doesn't help that almost all free-willers are dispensationalists in the USA. That pretty much assures that I would never attend a free-willer or dispensationalist church as a member.
But, yes, I believe God is sovereign in salvation. He gives a heart of flesh to replace the heart of stone the unsaved man possesses. This heart of flesh generates faith and repentance. Free-willers believe that somehow, their hard heart of stone can produce faith and repentance, in order to receive a heart of flesh. This is called "decisional regeneration".
My view is that regeneration precedes faith. Their view is that their faith and repentance produces regeneration.
In the past, I used the term "Arminian" to refer to free-willers but in reality, Jacob Arminius had a better view (but still inadequate) of the redical corruption of mankind than modern day Arminians. The Remonstrants took Arminius' doctrine even further than Arminius. I would call both of them semi-Pelagians though. And, some free-willers are even worse than modern-day Arminians. There are Pelagians in the midst of free-willers.
It doesn't help that almost all free-willers are dispensationalists in the USA. That pretty much assures that I would never attend a free-willer or dispensationalist church as a member.
This is true. There are multiple belief systems, extending from JN Darby to "progressive dispensationalists".
This is because they keep patching their system as time goes on, and the issues become more apparent. However, there will always be groups that hold on to the old, classical dispensationalism and probably every generation since it.
This is because they keep patching their system as time goes on, and the issues become more apparent. However, there will always be groups that hold on to the old, classical dispensationalism and probably every generation since it.
-
1
- Show all
Regarding Daniel 9:24-27, this guy explains the claims of dispensationalism concerning these Scriptures very well.
He provides an amillennial response to them.
The big issue that they have is their claim that there is a 2000 year gap between v.26 and v.27.
But they have absolutely no basis for their claim. According to their own hermeneutic, they should admit that they are working on unscriptural hermeneutical principles while making their claim.
They believe the prophetic time-clock stopped approximately after the destruction of the Temple in AD70, and will begin again seven years prior to Jesus' return, when the rapture occurs. But, they have no basis for this claim.
Here's the video:
He provides an amillennial response to them.
The big issue that they have is their claim that there is a 2000 year gap between v.26 and v.27.
But they have absolutely no basis for their claim. According to their own hermeneutic, they should admit that they are working on unscriptural hermeneutical principles while making their claim.
They believe the prophetic time-clock stopped approximately after the destruction of the Temple in AD70, and will begin again seven years prior to Jesus' return, when the rapture occurs. But, they have no basis for this claim.
Here's the video:
Here's a very good set of messages by Brian Chappell on the four views of the Millennium (premillennial dispensationalism, historic premillennialism, amillennialism and postmillennialism).
He prepared it for Bible Study Fellowship. This organization tends to avoid sectarian conflict.
Bryan is historic premillennial and I am amillennial, however, his portrayal of the four views is very accurate from what I've seen.
If you are trying to understand the differences between these groups, these are great videos to watch. The charts are very good.
In addition, his notes with the charts are in the pdf below (note that you can watch these on Vimeo but the preview will not appear here..the title is Four Views of the Millennium by Bryan Chappell and there are two parts).
The pdf of the notes is here, and also attached below:
https://media.gracepres.org/mediaplayer/gracepres/media/Four Views of the Millennium (Dr. Bryan Chapell).pdf?fbclid=IwAR2kzhSpOYdqSkGLAumM3foBfoJh6qniIVCXLfvJUQGIzY3OfNEuniLm1m8
Bryan points out that very few hold to the dispensationalism of previous eras, but instead hold to "progressive dispensationalism". One of the problems on this forum and others is that you have all kinds of different dispensationalists holding more modern views, or outdated views, of dispensationalism.
Bryan is much more ecumenical than I am on this topic. I don't care for dispensationalism at all.
He prepared it for Bible Study Fellowship. This organization tends to avoid sectarian conflict.
Bryan is historic premillennial and I am amillennial, however, his portrayal of the four views is very accurate from what I've seen.
If you are trying to understand the differences between these groups, these are great videos to watch. The charts are very good.
In addition, his notes with the charts are in the pdf below (note that you can watch these on Vimeo but the preview will not appear here..the title is Four Views of the Millennium by Bryan Chappell and there are two parts).
The pdf of the notes is here, and also attached below:
https://media.gracepres.org/mediaplayer/gracepres/media/Four Views of the Millennium (Dr. Bryan Chapell).pdf?fbclid=IwAR2kzhSpOYdqSkGLAumM3foBfoJh6qniIVCXLfvJUQGIzY3OfNEuniLm1m8
Bryan points out that very few hold to the dispensationalism of previous eras, but instead hold to "progressive dispensationalism". One of the problems on this forum and others is that you have all kinds of different dispensationalists holding more modern views, or outdated views, of dispensationalism.
Bryan is much more ecumenical than I am on this topic. I don't care for dispensationalism at all.
Concerning the dispensationalist/covenant theology argument, which is assuredly foundational to the amillennial issue, I would suggest that the real issue with dispensationalism involves how they read NT references to the OT.
The apostles and Christ were definitely not dispensational in how they used OT Scripture, as they take Scripture applying to Israel and apply it to Jesus or believers, who are Jesus' body.
For example, you can read Matthew and see that Matthew takes Scriptures applying to Israel and applies them to Jesus.
Matthew 2:14-15 4 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
Hosea 11:1 1 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
Why?
Jesus is true Israel.
And, Matthew does this over and over again in his gospel. That is because he wanted to show them that Jesus was the true Israel, as well as being the true Adam. He defeated evil, whereas the first Adam and first Israel did not. That is why the desert temptation scene is presented in Matthew 4. It was an echo of Adam's testing in the Garden of Eden, and Israel's testing in the wilderness.
And, Peter does the same thing for the Church when he takes Scriptures applying to Israel in Exodus 19 and alludes to them in his epistle.
Exodus 19:5-6 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”
1 Peter 2:9-10 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Why?
The Church, as Jesus' body, is True Israel.
It's really not hard to figure out that the Apostles believed in "covenant theology" because they take Scriptures applying to Israel and apply them to Jesus or the Church.
GK Beale and DA Carson wrote a long commentary where they examine every incidence where the NT quotes or alludes to the OT. It is on my reading list.
https://smile.amazon.com/Commentary...ed+in+the+new+testament&qid=1583315983&sr=8-2
Somehow I don't think many dispensationalists will be reading this. I plan on buying a copy though
The apostles and Christ were definitely not dispensational in how they used OT Scripture, as they take Scripture applying to Israel and apply it to Jesus or believers, who are Jesus' body.
For example, you can read Matthew and see that Matthew takes Scriptures applying to Israel and applies them to Jesus.
Matthew 2:14-15 4 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
Hosea 11:1 1 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
Why?
Jesus is true Israel.
And, Matthew does this over and over again in his gospel. That is because he wanted to show them that Jesus was the true Israel, as well as being the true Adam. He defeated evil, whereas the first Adam and first Israel did not. That is why the desert temptation scene is presented in Matthew 4. It was an echo of Adam's testing in the Garden of Eden, and Israel's testing in the wilderness.
And, Peter does the same thing for the Church when he takes Scriptures applying to Israel in Exodus 19 and alludes to them in his epistle.
Exodus 19:5-6 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”
1 Peter 2:9-10 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Why?
The Church, as Jesus' body, is True Israel.
It's really not hard to figure out that the Apostles believed in "covenant theology" because they take Scriptures applying to Israel and apply them to Jesus or the Church.
GK Beale and DA Carson wrote a long commentary where they examine every incidence where the NT quotes or alludes to the OT. It is on my reading list.
https://smile.amazon.com/Commentary...ed+in+the+new+testament&qid=1583315983&sr=8-2
Somehow I don't think many dispensationalists will be reading this. I plan on buying a copy though
The New Testament is clear about a believers new identity in Christ. e.g. Gal 3:28.
The New Testament is also clear that Israel and the church as a separate entity. e.g. Rom 11:25; Luke 21:24.
The critical distinction to make is that some verses describe what we are in the Spirit, while other verses describe what we are in the flesh. e.g. Eph 2:11
What we are in the Spirit determines our destination (heaven). What we are in the flesh determines our journey (earth).
We who are in Christ have certainly been joined with him in the Spirit (1 Cor 6:17), but until we have been united with him in glory, our flesh remains as Jew or Gentile.... A similar principle is found in the order of church government and the roles of men and women in marriage . Although we are equal in Christ, we have different roles and responsibilities in God's plan while we are on this earth in these mortal bodies.
This physical identity (jew/gentile) makes no difference now. But when the times of the gentiles have been fulfilled, then those who are a Jew in the flesh will be dealt with according to God's agenda (in the 70th week of Daniel).
I hope this is clarifying and helpful. God bless you all!
The New Testament is also clear that Israel and the church as a separate entity. e.g. Rom 11:25; Luke 21:24.
The critical distinction to make is that some verses describe what we are in the Spirit, while other verses describe what we are in the flesh. e.g. Eph 2:11
What we are in the Spirit determines our destination (heaven). What we are in the flesh determines our journey (earth).
We who are in Christ have certainly been joined with him in the Spirit (1 Cor 6:17), but until we have been united with him in glory, our flesh remains as Jew or Gentile.... A similar principle is found in the order of church government and the roles of men and women in marriage . Although we are equal in Christ, we have different roles and responsibilities in God's plan while we are on this earth in these mortal bodies.
This physical identity (jew/gentile) makes no difference now. But when the times of the gentiles have been fulfilled, then those who are a Jew in the flesh will be dealt with according to God's agenda (in the 70th week of Daniel).
I hope this is clarifying and helpful. God bless you all!
would recommend the book, A Case for Amillennialism, by Kim Riddlebarger, for a good understanding on this topic.
Dispensationalists are not even aware that there are other options, for the most part.
Here's what you must believe as a dispensationalist:
You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming
You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the fall of man.
You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.
You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
Here's an article which addresses the problems with each of these claims, by an ex-dispensationalist, Sam Storms.
By the way, the problem is not only with dispensationalists, it is a problem with historical premillennialism.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...u-must-believe-if-you-are-a-premillennialist/
Dispensationalists are not even aware that there are other options, for the most part.
Here's what you must believe as a dispensationalist:
You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming
You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the fall of man.
You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.
You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
Here's an article which addresses the problems with each of these claims, by an ex-dispensationalist, Sam Storms.
By the way, the problem is not only with dispensationalists, it is a problem with historical premillennialism.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...u-must-believe-if-you-are-a-premillennialist/
Here's a pdf file with an article by Sam Storms that explains the problems with premillennialism, including dispensationalism, very well.
i don't think the link I listed above works.
Sam is an amillennialist like myself. He used to be a dispensationalist. He has written a book "Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative" on this matter.
Kim Riddlebarger's book "A Case For Amillennialism" is also excellent.
I challenge dispensationalists or historical premillennialists to refute his arguments. I find them rock solid.
I used to be a premillennialist myself.
i don't think the link I listed above works.
Sam is an amillennialist like myself. He used to be a dispensationalist. He has written a book "Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative" on this matter.
Kim Riddlebarger's book "A Case For Amillennialism" is also excellent.
I challenge dispensationalists or historical premillennialists to refute his arguments. I find them rock solid.
I used to be a premillennialist myself.
There is a rigid view of so-called dispensationalism that does it disservice. IMO the core issue is the reconstitution of national Israel (as a witness and servant and to preach Gods will) post-rapture when the Bride has been removed from the earth. Yes there is a millenial reign of course, which gives purpose to regathered and now obedient Israel.
Amillenialism is a no-sell heresy. There is zero possibility that Gods covenants and prophecy towards Israel will fail.
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, jlest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness lin part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Amillenialism is a no-sell heresy. There is zero possibility that Gods covenants and prophecy towards Israel will fail.
“I say then, have they [the Jew] stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their [the Jew’s] fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles for to provoke them [the Jews] to jealousy.” (Romans 11:11).
“For as ye [Gentiles] in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their[the Jew’s] unbelief: even so have these [the Jews] also not believed, that through your [Gentiles’] mercy they [the Jews] also may obtain mercy.” (Romans 11:30, 31).
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, jlest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness lin part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Admittedly, not all dispensationalists take this view, but some do
View attachment 213651
View attachment 213651
Why do you think that the blindness will be lifted when the fulness of the Gentiles comes in? The verse doesn't say that and neither does the verse after.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
All Israel is saved Jews AND saved Gentiles... And so all Israel - all the Jews that are to be saved and all the Gentiles that shall be saved shall be saved.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
All Israel is saved Jews AND saved Gentiles... And so all Israel - all the Jews that are to be saved and all the Gentiles that shall be saved shall be saved.
The bible is crystal clear, God is finished with national Israel.
Amo 8:2 And he said, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A basket of summer fruit. Then said the LORD unto me, The end is come upon my people of Israel; I will not again pass by them any more.
Why do you not believe that verse?
Amo 8:2 And he said, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A basket of summer fruit. Then said the LORD unto me, The end is come upon my people of Israel; I will not again pass by them any more.
Why do you not believe that verse?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Concerning the dispensationalist/covenant theology argument, which is assuredly foundational to the amillennial issue, I would suggest that the real issue with dispensationalism involves how they read NT references to the OT.
The apostles and Christ were definitely not dispensational in how they used OT Scripture, as they take Scripture applying to Israel and apply it to Jesus or believers, who are Jesus' body.
For example, you can read Matthew and see that Matthew takes Scriptures applying to Israel and applies them to Jesus.
Matthew 2:14-15 4 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
Hosea 11:1 1 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
Why?
Jesus is true Israel.
And, Matthew does this over and over again in his gospel. That is because he wanted to show them that Jesus was the true Israel, as well as being the true Adam. He defeated evil, whereas the first Adam and first Israel did not. That is why the desert temptation scene is presented in Matthew 4. It was an echo of Adam's testing in the Garden of Eden, and Israel's testing in the wilderness.
And, Peter does the same thing for the Church when he takes Scriptures applying to Israel in Exodus 19 and alludes to them in his epistle.
Exodus 19:5-6 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”
1 Peter 2:9-10 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Why?
The Church, as Jesus' body, is True Israel.
It's really not hard to figure out that the Apostles believed in "covenant theology" because they take Scriptures applying to Israel and apply them to Jesus or the Church.
GK Beale and DA Carson wrote a long commentary where they examine every incidence where the NT quotes or alludes to the OT. It is on my reading list.
https://smile.amazon.com/Commentary...ed+in+the+new+testament&qid=1583315983&sr=8-2
Somehow I don't think many dispensationalists will be reading this. I plan on buying a copy though
The apostles and Christ were definitely not dispensational in how they used OT Scripture, as they take Scripture applying to Israel and apply it to Jesus or believers, who are Jesus' body.
For example, you can read Matthew and see that Matthew takes Scriptures applying to Israel and applies them to Jesus.
Matthew 2:14-15 4 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
Hosea 11:1 1 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
Why?
Jesus is true Israel.
And, Matthew does this over and over again in his gospel. That is because he wanted to show them that Jesus was the true Israel, as well as being the true Adam. He defeated evil, whereas the first Adam and first Israel did not. That is why the desert temptation scene is presented in Matthew 4. It was an echo of Adam's testing in the Garden of Eden, and Israel's testing in the wilderness.
And, Peter does the same thing for the Church when he takes Scriptures applying to Israel in Exodus 19 and alludes to them in his epistle.
Exodus 19:5-6 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”
1 Peter 2:9-10 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Why?
The Church, as Jesus' body, is True Israel.
It's really not hard to figure out that the Apostles believed in "covenant theology" because they take Scriptures applying to Israel and apply them to Jesus or the Church.
GK Beale and DA Carson wrote a long commentary where they examine every incidence where the NT quotes or alludes to the OT. It is on my reading list.
https://smile.amazon.com/Commentary...ed+in+the+new+testament&qid=1583315983&sr=8-2
Somehow I don't think many dispensationalists will be reading this. I plan on buying a copy though
-
1
- Show all