Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe
No, there were several dispensations before THAT ONE.

The fact that you agree that the Gentiles were not included in the church from Adam to Christ is evidence that you are a dispensationalist.

Like it or not every Christian is a dispensationalist. God worked differently at different times with different peoples.


185 posted on 04/16/2007 9:00:33 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: HarleyD; P-Marlowe
"The fact that you agree that the Gentiles were not included in the church from Adam to Christ is evidence that you are a dispensationalist."

But there WERE Gentiles included from Adam to Christ. Naaman and Nebuchadnezzar are examples. There is no evidence they "kept the Law" but they certainly were believers. Nebuchadnezzar gave his personal testimony in scripture. They simply had a different set of problems but they were saved in the same fashion; through grace by faith.

What about the even bigger picture that I pointed out here?

When Abraham circumcised all the members of His house, “gentiles” were included in that covenant promise and identified with the Church.

When Moses was told to circumcise any stranger who wanted to participate in the Passover, “gentiles” were included in that covenant promise and identified with the Church (Exodus 12:). By the time Israel entered the promised land, it’s clear they are far from a genetically related group of people. Lots of “gentiles” were now part of “the Church” (Israel).

And the fact that the “land prophecy” of Ezekiel 47:21-23 included “strangers” is also evidence that “the Church” (Israel) was always intended to include gentiles.

God's people have always been identified primarily by covenant, not by race. That's the real basis for identifying Israel and the Church.

Dispensationalists miss this big picture.

186 posted on 04/16/2007 9:25:39 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Light beer is the devil’s beverage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies ]

To: HarleyD; P-Marlowe
The Westminster Confession does a good job stating it this way:
4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

Chapter 7


194 posted on 04/16/2007 7:17:46 PM PDT by topcat54 ("Light beer is the devil’s beverage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson