Scripture interpretation

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don,

Are you a dispensationalist and if so I'm interested in how you define it?

You are correct, definitions are important.

If I believe that the putting away of the Old Testament, to be replaced with the New Testament, makes someone a dispensationalist, then I'm a dispensationalist.

But I had asked first and don't think it proper to butt in. Did you not answer for a reason?

Please define covenant and dispensationalism. This is your thread and should have your definition.

[Amanah]

In the Bible, a covenant is a solemn agreement or binding relationship between God and his people. It involves mutual commitments, obligations, and promises, often sealed with signs, symbols, or sacrifices.

Key elements that define a covenant in the Bible include:

*Parties involved: God and his people.
*Promises and obligations: Specific commitments and responsibilities for each party (God's promise to bless Abraham, Abraham's promise to obey God).
*Signs and symbols: Tangible representations of the covenant ( the rainbow, circumcision, the Passover lamb).
*Purpose and blessings: Covenants often involve promises of blessings, protection, or land, and serve as a means of establishing or deepening relationships with God.

Examples of covenants in the Bible include:

- The Edenic Covenant (Genesis 2:15-17)
- The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3, Genesis15:1-21)
- The Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19-24)
- The Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:1-17)
- The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Luke 22:20)

These covenants shape the narrative of the Bible and reveal God's character, love, and plans for his people.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

If I believe that the putting away of the Old Testament, to be replaced with the New Testament, makes someone a dispensationalist, then I'm a dispensationalist.

But I had asked first and don't think it proper to butt in. Did you not answer for a reason?

Please define covenant and dispensationalism. This is your thread and should have your definition.

The old covenant has not been done away with.

The Old testament/covenant is with the house of Israel and Judah. It's the 10 commandments

The New testament/covenant is also with the house of Israel and Judah. It's the 10 commandments.

The old covenant is the ten commandments:

Deuteronomy 4:13 KJV
13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

The new covenant is also the ten commandments:

Hebrews 8:10 KJV
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

[Amanah]

The church is Israel.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The church is Israel.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

If I believe that the putting away of the Old Testament, to be replaced with the New Testament, makes someone a dispensationalist, then I'm a dispensationalist.

But I had asked first and don't think it proper to butt in. Did you not answer for a reason?

Please define covenant and dispensationalism. This is your thread and should have your definition.

I understand what you’re saying. And I agree that a definition should be established, for dispensationalism in particular. I was once accused of being a dispensationalist on here (shocking I know, but true). I didn’t understand enough about what the other party believed dispensationalism entailed to even be properly offended. (I still don’t, by the way). I definitely had a different idea of dispensations than they did. My understanding was that the old covenant and the new covenant were indeed two different, and distinct dispensations. I still believe that.

However, I am now aware that dispensationalism is a whole ‘nother thing. And it is easier to say the word than it is to agree on a definition. So, it seems that one person winds up speaking Chinese, while another is speaking Swahili.

[Amanah]

In Romans 11:16-24, Paul uses the metaphor of an olive tree to describe God's relationship with Israel and the inclusion of Gentiles in God's plan. Here's a breakdown:

- The olive tree represents Israel, the people of God (v. 16).
- The natural branches represent the Jewish people, who were broken off due to unbelief (v. 17-20).
- The wild olive shoots represent the Gentiles, who were grafted into the tree through faith in Jesus Christ (v. 17, 23-24).
- The root of the olive tree represents the promises and heritage of Israel, which the Gentiles are now part of (v. 17-18).

By being grafted into the olive tree, Gentiles are joined to the people of God, becoming part of the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). This doesn't replace Israel but expands it to include those who believe in Jesus, the Messiah.

Paul emphasizes that the Gentiles are not a new or separate tree but are grafted into the existing tree, connecting them to the rich heritage and promises of Israel. This metaphor shows that the Church is not a new entity but an extension of God's original plan, with Jesus as the connection point.

In Romans 9:24-26, Paul also writes about the inclusion of Gentiles in God's plan, quoting Hosea 2:23 and 1:10, saying, "They will be called 'my people' who were not my people, and she who was not beloved will be called 'beloved'." This echoes the idea that Gentiles are now part of the people of God, the Israel of God.

[Amanah]

A dispensationalist is a Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of Scripture and a distinction between Israel and the Church. They argue that God has two separate covenants

1. Israel: God's earthly people, with promises and prophecies yet to be fulfilled (e.g., kingdom restoration, land inheritance).
2. The Church: God's spiritual people, comprising believers from all nations, grafted into the olive tree (Romans 11).

Dispensationalists believe that the Church is not spiritual Israel or the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), but rather a distinct entity. They emphasize that the Church did not replace Israel but is a separate entity with its own unique purpose and destiny.

In contrast, non-dispensationalists see the Church as the spiritual continuation or fulfillment of Israel, with the promises and covenants extending to the Church.

Key dispensationalist beliefs:

- Distinction between Israel and the Church
- Literal interpretation of Scripture
- Separate plans and purposes for Israel and the Church
- No equivalence of Israel with the Church

Some notable dispensationalists include John Nelson Darby, Charles Ryrie, and Hal Lindsey.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

A dispensationalist is a Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of Scripture and a distinction between Israel and the Church. They argue that God has two separate covenants

1. Israel: God's earthly people, with promises and prophecies yet to be fulfilled (e.g., kingdom restoration, land inheritance).
2. The Church: God's spiritual people, comprising believers from all nations, grafted into the olive tree (Romans 11).

Dispensationalists believe that the Church is not spiritual Israel or the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), but rather a distinct entity. They emphasize that the Church did not replace Israel but is a separate entity with its own unique purpose and destiny.

In contrast, non-dispensationalists see the Church as the spiritual continuation or fulfillment of Israel, with the promises and covenants extending to the Church.

Key dispensationalist beliefs:

- Distinction between Israel and the Church
- Literal interpretation of Scripture
- Separate plans and purposes for Israel and the Church
- No equivalence of Israel with the Church

Some notable dispensationalists include John Nelson Darby, Charles Ryrie, and Hal Lindsey.

What if?

What if both are correct (to some extent) and both are partially in error?

I definitely agree with some points of dispensationalism (as you have defined it) AAAAND I certainly agree with some aspects of covenantism (once again, per your definition).

We often think that we all have to be either all this or all that. Sometimes the correct answer is in the middle (in my humble opinion).

Also I think your definition of the two covenants may be in error, but that’s a different subject for another post, or even another thread.

[Amanah]

Bro TM please explain how the definition of the two covenants may be in error.