Session 3: The Church and Israel: A Defense of Dispensational Theology
Posted by: carrie in Fall 2008Fall 2007 Online Certificate Students:
View all sessions below. Then log all your comments, questions, discussion question answers, criticisms, or thoughts below.
NOTE: This is not the place for general discussion and questions. Go to the foyer for general discussion and refer to the FAQ on the right for question. Time spent in the comments section will apply toward your one hour of community time per week. To download audio sessions, visit the course homepage on the TTP site. The next session will be posted each Wed.
_____________________________
What is dispensationalism? What is the difference between dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, and covenant theology with regards to the Church? What is progressive covenantalism? This session will seek to answer such questions in an often heated debate. Here students will hear a explanation and defense of classical dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, and progressive covenantalism. Students should leave with an understanding that God is in the process of redeeming people and history is a history of redemption.
What is Classic Dispensationalism? [17:49m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download A defense of Classic Dispensationalism [29:08m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download What is Progressive Dispensationalism? [9:24m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download What is Progressive Covenantalism? [6:14m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download What is the difference between Israel and the Church? [4:16m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Powered by FireStats
September 9th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Group Discussion Questions #3
1. It was said in the lesson that the dispensationalist distinction between the Church and Israel is of recent development that essentially was not held until the 20th century.
How does the fact that it is new affect your views?
I don’t believe that swayed one way or the other in my understanding of the church and Israel based on when that doctrine was purposed or clarified. Often the timing of history helps our understanding of prophecy. Did Daniel understand the image in Daniel chapter 2 as well as those who live in the 20th century? Understanding the particulars was not necessary to understanding the intent. I do have difficulty understanding why this is so important to people.
There is a popular dictum in Christianity that says, “If it is true, it’s not new; if it is new, it’s not true.” Do you agree with this? If so, does this mean that Christianity does not ever advance in its understanding and articulation of doctrine? Explain.
I don’t agree with the statement at all, but I understand why many would. There is a lot of “junk” theology circulating. We can make the Bible say all too often what we want it to say. Through TTP, I have grown in my appreciation of the writings of the early church. I am amazed at how quickly we embrace every kind of doctrine before we adequately examine it in light of scripture.
2. Now that you have been explained all positions, which position do you agree with most? Explain.
I’m not comfortable in placing myself in a box; but, I probably am closest to Progressive Convenentalism, but I have done very little study in this area of theology. As I said before, I have yet to understand why so many consider this to be so important. What difference does it make if ethnic Israel will be separate from the church in the New Heaven and New Earth? Although I believe that only the redeemed will spend eternity with the Savior; what difference does that make in how I live today?
3. Reread arguments two and three in the defense of dispensationalism and read these scriptures: Deut. 30:3-4; Isa. 11:11-16; 27: 12-13; 43:6; 49:12; Jer. 3:18; 16:15; 23:3; Eze. 23:5; 34:13; 36:24; Am. 9:11, 14, 15; Hos. 1:11; Ob. 1:17-21; Mic. 7:11, 12.
Dispensationalists often claim that they interpret the scripture more literally than views that see no future for ethnic Israel. Discuss the validity of this claim.
I would agree that Dispensationalists adhere generally to a more literal interpretation of scripture, but that does not necessarily mean their view is more accurate. A literal reading of Hosea 11:1 would be that the prophet is speaking of the historical event of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Yet Matthew interprets Hosea 11:1 as a reference to Jesus and Joseph taking Jesus and Mary to Egypt for safety. Likewise, Jeremiah 31:15 is the cries that rent Israel when its children were lead away into captivity. But Matthew interprets this passage as prophecy of the slaughter by King Herod of the infants after the birth of Christ.
4. Read Romans 11. Paul is arguing that contrary to the way things seem, God has not forgotten about Israel.
In this context, the “root” seems to be Israel. In his commentary on this passage, Dr. Robert Mounce writes: “The root, which sopplied the rich and nourishing lit to the cultivated olive tree, represented historical Israel, specifically the patriarchs through whom God brought the nation into existence”. “Paul admonished his gentile readers not to view themselves as somehow superior to the former branches. After all, they owed their spiritual existence to Israel; it was not the other way around. They did not support the root; the root supported them.” John 15 speaks of vine-branch. It is interesting that Jesus, in John 15 pictures unproductive branches being cut off and burned up. In Romans 11:20-21, Paul warns his readers of the danger in being cut off. Israel and the church stand before God, approved by Faith, for “without faith, it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”
5. The Creed of Nicea (325) says that the Church (invisible) is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Do you believe that this is a good definition for the Chruch?
I believe the church includes all who have trusted Christ and who have received His gift of salvation. I believe the Creed of Nicea gives a correct and clear definition for the church.
6. “One” carries the idea of unity among all believers who hold to the essentials of the Christian faith; do you believe that the local church exemplifies this oneness? Why or why not?
Through the years, it has become more and more obvious that many who are members of the local church are not “one” with Christ in the forgiveness of sin. They do not believe or embrace the essentials of the Christian faith and have never received Christ in the forgiveness of sin. In our haste to “not be offensive” and to be “all inclusive” we have received into membership those who are not regenerate.
What can be done to change this?
In our church’s infancy, a family visited for several months and the father met with me to discuss church membership. I believe him to be a Christian, but some of his beliefs are heretical. I welcomed him to continue to visit but told him he could not be a member. We remain friends, but he no longer attends. His teachings would have led others astray! A young couple who have actively attended for 8 months approached me inquiring about membership. I met with them and let them know that there would need to be some lifestyle changes and a full understanding of salvation and what it means to be one of Christ’s disciples. They were in attendance yesterday for Bible study and worship. I believe one day soon the commitment will be there, but not yet. This past month, an Awana leader brought a 10 year old boy to me because he had prayed to receive Christ. After spending time with the child (he didn’t know what sin was or why Christ died on the Cross), I said, “Let’s wait.” No one is received into our church’s membership until I spend time with them. We offer a potential members class but even that is inadequate. Too many believe that church membership and/or baptism makes them “saved”. We need to do a better job educating and in our counseling.
7. “Catholic” refers to the universality of the Church in the sense that it is made up of believers from every race, tribe, social status, personality, etc. Do you think that most local churches represent this universality? Why or why not?
I grew up in segregated churches in the Deep South. I remember being called into deacon’s meetings and told that certain families we reached were not welcome. I’ve gotten calls from larger, more affluent churches recommending families who didn’t fit in at their church because the church was “white collar”. I believe this trend is changing in churches, but remains a problem in small groups, Sunday school classes, bible study groups, and within ministries.
What can be done to change this?
Preachers need the backbone to call prejudice, in all its forms, sin. We need to mirror for our congregation hospitality and fellowship as we open our homes to all people, regardless of race, color, social, or financial standings, etc.
8. “Apostolic” refers to the Great Tradition (orthodoxy) that has been handed down to us through the apostolic testimony in the New Testament and through a common confession throughout church history. Do you believe that most local churches are concerned about being apostolic in their teaching? Why or why not?
Some in our church are very concerned that teaching and preaching accurately reflect scriptural truth. Sadly, many attend because attending makes them feel good. How many in our congregation study the scriptures on their own? How many are satisfied believing whatever the tv evangelist says? II Tim. 4:3-4 gives the reason why.
What can be done to change this?
The church, its ministers, and teachers must never compromise on truth. Ultimately, there must be a heart change in the individual.
9. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
I am struggling with the distinctions between dispensation and covenant theology. It is good to struggle.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
1. It was said in the lesson that the dispensationalist distinction between the Church and Israel is of recent development that essentially was not held until the 20th century.
How does the fact that it is new affect your views?
Growing up in a dispensationalist background, I was not as familiar with the history of replacement theology and its overall acceptance within the early church and the extend to which it was accepted. I think it has led me to give more creedence and thought to replacement theology and try to understand why it has been understood the way it has for much of church history.
2. Now that you have been explained all positions, which position do you agree with most? Explain.
I personally would lean more toward the progressive dispensationalist view. I appreciate Michael’s compromise view and like how it incorporates God’s covenants. I think there are 2 points that I think are important when examining this issue. God has made covenants to ethnic Israel and the church both and both must be fulfilled. How that will exactly play out, I have some theories on, but can not know for certain. Also, I believe God will have a role for ethnic Israel in the future and now as well as the church. How they mix and match I am not entirely sure. What I am sure of is that God will keep His promises!!! That is the main point in all of this for me.
3. Reread arguments two and three in the defense of dispensationalism and read these scriptures: Deut. 30:3-4; Isa. 11:11-16; 27: 12-13; 43:6; 49:12; Jer. 3:18; 16:15; 23:3; Eze. 23:5; 34:13; 36:24; Am. 9:11, 14, 15; Hos. 1:11; Ob. 1:17-21; Mic. 7:11, 12.
Dispensationalists often claim that they interpret the scripture more literally than views that see no future for ethnic Israel. Discuss the validity of this claim.
I think this is an imporant and emphatic claim. It certainly is more consistent than replacement theology from a hermeneutical perspective. If we are going to use a historical-grammatical interpreation method, I believe that dispensationalism best fits with that method.
4. Read Romans 11. Paul is arguing that contrary to the way things seem, God has not forgotten about Israel.
I do not think that God has forgotten about Israel. God has chosen them for a purpose to represent Him on earth and has made certain promises to them that must be fulfilled. As Romans 11 points out, God has made a hardening there so that the world (Gentiles) may be given the opporuntity to come to faith in Christ. In my opinion, God will once again bring about revivall in Israel as He has promised in Romans 11.
5. The Creed of Nicea (325) says that the Church (invisible) is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Do you believe that this is a good definition for the Chruch?
I think this is a good definition of the Church. We are one people of God, universal in our belief in Christ and built upon the teachings of the Apostles.
6. “One” carries the idea of unity among all believers who hold to the essentials of the Christian faith; do you believe that the local church exemplifies this oneness? Why or why not?
I think this certainly carries the idea, but I think many local churches do not exemplify this oneness. Mainly due to how often we separate ourselves over issues which are not essential for fellowship. It seems like many churches are quick to condemn other as not being part of the true church and not recognize what the true church is.
What can be done to change this?
Certainly, better theological education and a softening of hearts is needed. Way too many churches spoon-feed theology and do not welcome critical thought. One thing I love about my local church is that our elders and senior pastor routinely encourage and work through difficult questions that people have and are willing to discuss and hear peoples opinions on various issues.
7. “Catholic” refers to the universality of the Church in the sense that it is made up of believers from every race, tribe, social status, personality, etc. Do you think that most local churches represent this universality? Why or why not?
Again, many do not. People seem to naturally choose to associate themselves with their particular denomination and ethnic group. Its the way we are and what we feel comfortable with. I love travelling to different countries and cultures and experiencing church. Its great to see how various cultures worship and practice their faith. I learn so much. Many local churches are missing out!!!
8. “Apostolic” refers to the Great Tradition (orthodoxy) that has been handed down to us through the apostolic testimony in the New Testament and through a common confession throughout church history. Do you believe that most local churches are concerned about being apostolic in their teaching? Why or why not?
I think in as much that churches think they have the exclusive truth than yes. It seems to me that most local churches like to claim they are the ones that really have it right. This theological arrogance is not healthy. I do not have all the answers. I do not know of the perfect local church. The church is made up of saved sinners, so we’re all fallible and subject to messing things up from time to time.
9. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
I’ve become more comfortable in my understanding of replacement theology. Although I feel there are certain problems with it, I’ve grown in my understanding as to why people believe replacement theology and I can greater respect why they do.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
EE -Week 3 – Group Discussion Questions;
1. It was said in the lesson that the dispensationalist distinction between the Church and Israel is of recent development that essentially was not held until the 20th century.
How does the fact that it is new affect your views?
–Not really at all. This is a new subject for me so I didn’t have a previous view.
There is a popular dictum in Christianity that says, “If it is true, it’s not new; if it is new, it’s not true. Do you agree with this? If so, does this mean that Christianity does not ever advance in its understanding and articulation of doctrine? Explain.
–I feel that it is a great slogan, but can’t be used 100% of the time. When is “New”? When is “Old”. Yesterday? 100 years ago? 1000, 2000, 10, 000 years?
2. Now that you have been explained all positions, which position do you agree with most? Explain.
–Still trying to figure this out. While I am trying to figure out which position will affect my salvation and eternity. I still have not read Revelations, mostly because I don’t think I’d understand it AND I’m not a Sci-Fi kinda guy. Not that Revelations is Sci-Fi, It just has similar characteristics.
3. Reread arguments two and three in the defense of dispensationalism and read these Scriptures: Deut. 30:3–4; Isa. 11:11–16; 27:12–13; 43:6; 49:12; Jer. 3:18; 16:15; 23:3,8; Eze. 23:5–6; 34:13; 36:24; 39:25; Am. 9:11, 14, 15; Hos. 1:11; Ob. 1:17–21; Mic 7:11, 12. Dispensationalists often claim that they interpret the Scripture more literally than views that see no future for ethnic Israel. Discuss the validity of this claim.
–As I read each passage, I hear God saying that the land will be returned to Israel and it’s people, over and over again. It seems pretty clear with these selected passages.
4. Read Romans 11. Paul is arguing that contrary to the way thing seem, God has not forgotten about Israel.
What does the “rich root of the olive tree” represent (v. 17)?
Options:
1. The Church
2. Israel
3. Abrahamic Covenant
4. The blessings of God in general
– To answer this, I found The Message version to be helpful. In v:11, Paul say “But the next thing you know, the Jews were starting to wonder if perhaps they had walked out on a good thing.” Then goes on in v:14 to say “my Israelite kin, the so-called insiders, hoping they’ll realize what they’re missing and want to get in on what God is doing.” He is definitely hurting or the Jews scattered about. As for the root… He talks in v:16-18 “If the primary root of the tree is holy, there’s bound to be some holy fruit. Some of the tree’s branches were pruned and you wild olive shoots were grafted in. Yet the fact that you are now fed by that rich and holy root gives you no cause to crow over the pruned branches. Remember, you aren’t feeding the root; the root is feeding you.”
The root is the connection to God.
5. The Creed of Nicea (325) says that the Church (invisible) is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Do you believe that this is a good definition for the Church?
– Yes I do. One people or group of believers, Holy in His name, universally catholic in the believing that Jesus is the Messiah, and apostolic in that we believe the written Word of God via the apostles teachings.
6. “One” carries the idea of unity among all believers who hold to the essentials of the Christian faith; do you believe that the local church exemplifies this oneness? Why or why not?
– No. Not on any given street corner. There is so much division amongst the catholic (universal) followers to be “One” church. It’s sad.
What can be done to change this?
– I don’t think it will change until Christ comes back and kicks some butt in the church offices. There is too much power and corruption to be had in separation to want to be “One”.
7. “Catholic” refers to the universality of the Church in the sense that it is made up of believers from every race, tribe, social status, personality, etc. Do you think that most local churches represent this universality? Why or why not?
– I think each denomination tries to be universal, but it falls apart when there are sub denominations, even in the non-denominational church you have the same problem. You can have 4 ND churches on the same block with totally different representations of universalality.
What can be done to change this?
–I’m praying that Jesus will take care of it upon His return… see above answer in #6.
8. “Apostolic” refers to the Great Tradition (orthodoxy) that has been handed down to us through the apostolic testimony in the New Testament and through a common confession throughout Church history. Do you believe that most local churches are concerned about being apostolic in their teaching? Why or why not?
– I mean they try to be apostolic, but even tradition and sacraments aren’t held the same at most churches. They mostly post the belief in the same Nicean Creed on the website or in their bulletins, but that doesn’t mean that they operate this way.
What can be done to change this?
–More study amongst the laypeople, members. Classes like TTP being taught locally to educate the masses so they can see for themselves what “Apostolic” really means.
9. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
– First it has begun a process of challenge to dig and understand God’s plan, not just be a caregiver, Home Group leader, greeter, child care provider… but to at least try to understand what God has planned for us beyond today and this coming weekend.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Group Discussion Questions:
1. It was said in the lesson that the dispensationalist distinction between the Church and Israel is of recent development that essentially was not held until the 20th century.
How does the fact that it is new affect your views? Would cause me to examine its beliefs very carefully.
There is a popular dictum in Christianity that says, “If it is true, it’s not new; if it is new, it’s not true. Do you agree with this? Not necessarily
If so, does this mean that Christianity does not ever advance in its understanding and articulation of doctrine? Explain. It is possible to attain a greater amount of information through research based on historical writings outside the Bible. If that were the case then new information could affect interpretation of the Scriptures.
2. Now that you have been explained all positions, which position do you agree with most? Explain. At this point, I am leaning toward Replacement Theology. Rom. 9:6-7a states my position fairly well. “It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants.” Romans 11:14 “by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.” Paul saw a future for the remnant of national Israel through the New Covenant Church.
3. Reread arguments two and three in the defense of dispensationalism and read these Scriptures: Deut. 30:3–4; Isa. 11:11–16; 27:12–13; 43:6; 49:12; Jer. 3:18; 16:15; 23:3,8; Eze. 23:5–6; 34:13; 36:24; 39:25; Am. 9:11, 14, 15; Hos. 1:11; Ob. 1:17–21; Mic 7:11, 12.
Dispensationalists often claim that they interpret the Scripture more literally than views that see no future for ethnic Israel. Discuss the validity of this claim.
On the surface that would be true, however, literal today may not be the true literal meaning of Scripture at the time it was written.
4. Read Romans 11. Paul is arguing that contrary to the way thing seem, God has not forgotten about Israel.
What does the “rich root of the olive tree” represent (v. 17)? The rich root of the olive tree is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the fathers of the Abrahamic covenant.
Options:
1. The Church
2. Israel
3. Abrahamic Covenant
4. The blessings of God in general
5. The Creed of Nicea (325) says that the Church (invisible) is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Do you believe that this is a good definition for the Church?
Yes, The Creed summarizes Scripture well.
6. “One” carries the idea of unity among all believers who hold to the essentials of the Christian faith; do you believe that the local church exemplifies this oneness? Why or why not? No, The local church is the visible church made up of believing members who
are members of the invisible church.
What can be done to change this? Wouldn’t want to change that.
7. “Catholic” refers to the universality of the Church in the sense that it is made up of believers from every race, tribe, social status, personality, etc. Do you think that most local churches represent this universality? Why or why not? No, most churches represent a very small selection of beliefs, races, social status. Members seem to be more comfortable with people like themselves.
What can be done to change this? A more thorough presentation of the Holy Scriptures for a start. I do not think many churches today are presenting to its members what it means to be in unity with the One Body of Christ.
8. “Apostolic” refers to the Great Tradition (orthodoxy) that has been handed down to us through the apostolic testimony in the New Testament and through a common confession throughout Church history. Do you believe that most local churches are concerned about being apostolic in their teaching? Why or why not? No, I believe churches today are more concerned with feel good portions of Scripture.
What can be done to change this? Teach the true Word of God
9. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
Each of the questions set my head spinning, leading me to spend a good deal of time in research.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Discussion Questions 3:
1. It was said in the lesson that the dispensationalist distinction between the Church and Israel is of recent development that was essentially not held until the 20th century. How does the fact that it is new affect your views?
Although Dispensationalism has recently been systematized with its distinction between the Church and Israel, allowances for it exist in the writings of theologians throughout Church history. That it has been articulated recently does not affect its Scriptural validity. However one has to be cautious of new ideas that arise.
There is a popular dictum in Christianity that says, “If it is true, it’s not new; if it is new, it’s not true.” Do you agree with this? If so, does this mean that Christianity does not ever advance in its understanding and articulation of doctrine?
As a general rule, there is a lot going for it. I don’t believe it to be true in all cases as there seem to be a few exceptions. Dispensationalism has some good ideas and the term semper reformanda still applies even today.
2. Now that you have been explained all positions, which position do you agree with most?
I would mostly agree with classic Dispensationalism with the view that although the Church replaced Israel in some ways, it did not do so in every way, and that there is a future role for national, ethnic Israel.
3. Reread arguments two and three in the defense of Dispensationalism and read these Scriptures (listed in workbook). Dispensationalists often claim that they interpret the Scripture more literally than views that see no future for ethnic Israel. Discuss the validity of this claim.
Argument 2: God’s promise to give Abraham physical descendants who would possess the land forever was unconditional.
Argument 3: the promise God made to Abraham to give physical descendants who possess the land forever can only be fulfilled by ethnic Israel.
After looking through these verses the normal readings would seem to indicate that ethnic Israel is going to be literally restored to their ancient lands in the future. To argue otherwise, that the Church has inherited these promises completely and Israel is forever rejected requires an undue spiritualizing of these and other related texts.
4. Read Romans 11. Paul is arguing that contrary to the way things seem, God has not forgotten about Israel. What does the “rich root of the olive tree” represent (v.17)? Options: The Church, Israel, Abrahamic Covenant or the blessings of God in general.
In Romans 11, Paul speaks of branches (i.e., people) broken off because of unbelief. This being the case, I believe the root of the olive tree here refers to the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. The ones grafted into the olive tree are those who are accepted by God and are His chosen witnesses in the world. In Galatians 3:6 Paul says, “Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham”. The righteous standing before God that Abraham had came by faith as it does to all who are believe God, as Abraham did.
5. The creed of Nicea (325) says that the Church (invisible) is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Do you believe that this is a good definition for the Church?
The invisible Church, made up of all true believers in Christ since Pentecost is well described by these four terms.
6. “One” carries the idea of unity among all believers who hold to the essentials of the Christian faith; do you believe that the local church exemplifies this oneness?
Local churches, unlike the true invisible Church vary widely in the four descriptions in question five.It depends on each particular local church. Some emphasize this oneness, others don’t.
What can be done to change this?
The essentials of the faith need to be emphasized and taught carefully to make sure that members are united in these.
7. “Catholic” refers to the universality of the Church in the sense that it is made up of believers from every race, tribe, social status, personality, etc. Do you think that most local churches represent this universality? Why or why not?
Once again some do, others don’t. In America, often churches are not very diverse in their membership. One reason for this is comfort. Often, people will join churches that reflect their race, social status and religious opinions.
What can be done to change this?
Recognize that the Great Commission commands us to spread the gospel to all people and obey it.
.
8. “Apostolic” refers to the Great Tradition (orthodoxy) that has been handed down to us through the apostolic testimony in the New Testament and through a common confession throughout Church history. Do you believe that most local churches are concerned about being apostolic in their teaching? Why or why not?
Most local churches say that they are concerned about being apostolic but there are those who have a loose interpretation of what that means. Others make good efforts at being truly apostolic in their teachings.
What can be done to change this?
Attention to doctrinal purity in the essentials is needed to ensure that church members know the Biblical basis for their faith and how to explain it to others.
9. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson?
Fine shades of meaning are involved in the dispensationalist vs. covenantalist debate and it is sometimes difficult to make a case for one’s position because distinctions between the Church and Israel in Scripture can be made to read a number of ways.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
EE -Week 3 – Group Discussion Questions
1. It was said in the lesson that the dispensationalist distinction between the Church and Israel is of recent development that essentially was not held until the 20th century.
How does the fact that it is new affect your views?
The newness of the idea causes me to scrutinize it more closely, considering great minds in theology had not come to this conclusion for many centuries.
There is a popular dictum in Christianity that says, “If it is true, it’s not new; if it is new, it’s not true. Do you agree with this? If so, does this mean that Christianity does not ever advance in its understanding and articulation of doctrine? Explain.
I don’t agree with this. I think our core beliefs have been held since the apostles, but those beliefs must now be applied to new issues (cloning, stem cells, life support systems, etc…etc…) and this will require new doctrines to be developed or old ones expanded. I also believe God is free to progressively reveal truth.
2. Now that you have been explained all positions, which position do you agree with most? Explain.
The simplicity of Replacement Theology is appealing because I believe we have a tendency to read too much into scripture. However, the completeness and attention to detail in the Progressive Covenantalism discussed here is very convincing.
3. Reread arguments two and three in the defense of dispensationalism and read these Scriptures: Deut. 30:3–4; Isa. 11:11–16; 27:12–13; 43:6; 49:12; Jer. 3:18; 16:15; 23:3,8; Eze. 23:5–6; 34:13; 36:24; 39:25; Am. 9:11, 14, 15; Hos. 1:11; Ob. 1:17–21; Mic 7:11, 12. Dispensationalists often claim that they interpret the Scripture more literally than views that see no future for ethnic Israel. Discuss the validity of this claim.
These passages do seem to explicitly refer to bringing back a united Israel and giving them their land. I think this begs the question as to what exactly do the prophets mean when they refer to “Israel”. Could it be the prophets appeared to be referring to ethnic Israel, when God was using them to describe a broader meaning of “Israel”?
4. Read Romans 11. Paul is arguing that contrary to the way thing seem, God has not forgotten about Israel.
What does the “rich root of the olive tree” represent (v. 17)?
Options:
1. The Church
2. Israel
3. Abrahamic Covenant
4. The blessings of God in general
The root of the tree of Israel is Abraham. The rich root is Abraham being blessed by God. Gentiles grafted into the tree of Israel share the blessings God promised Abraham and his children. The rich root refers to the Abrahamic Covenant.
5. The Creed of Nicea (325) says that the Church (invisible) is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Do you believe that this is a good definition for the Church?
Yes. I like this definition because it captures the essence of what the Church has always been.
6. “One” carries the idea of unity among all believers who hold to the essentials of the Christian faith; do you believe that the local church exemplifies this oneness? Why or why not?
Yes and no. Yes, because I think n the essentials of our faith, local churches are unified. No, because we are divided over non-essentials. However, there is much more in common among local churches than there are differences.
What can be done to change this?
Local churches need to emphasize the common ground and core, essential beliefs of our faith. We also need to allow non-essential differences to exist without fear of somehow ruining the Church.
7. “Catholic” refers to the universality of the Church in the sense that it is made up of believers from every race, tribe, social status, personality, etc. Do you think that most local churches represent this universality? Why or why not?
No. Most local churches represent their community, which is usually somewhat homogeneous in race, social status, etc…etc… But, we need to look at the local church as a piece of a larger puzzle and then the local church becomes the catholicity of the Church as a whole.
What can be done to change this?
I don’t think every local church needs to encompass the full catholicity of the Church as a whole. We should strive to reach out to all in our local neighborhoods and let that determine the make-up of the local congregation.
8. “Apostolic” refers to the Great Tradition (orthodoxy) that has been handed down to us through the apostolic testimony in the New Testament and through a common confession throughout Church history. Do you believe that most local churches are concerned about being apostolic in their teaching? Why or why not?
I don’t know about “most”, but the local churches I have been a part of do strive to be apostolic. I think the churches we see dying are the ones that stray from orthodoxy.
What can be done to change this?
I think it helps for a church to belong to some sort of structural authority. Not that large denominations guarantee apostolic teaching, but when a church is a member of a larger body of churches with some oversight, perhaps the tendency to slide away from apostolic teaching could be curbed or slowed. When a larger body of overseers must approve of teaching and doctrines, changes are more deliberate. Outside of this, we must depend on the truth of scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit to guide us.
9. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
Big challenges here to understand whether the Church is separate from ethnic Israel when it comes to the prophecies that promise things specifically for ethnic Israel. Challenging to think about how we become blended, united and one people of God.