Again, I ask you, why would anyone post anything from A.I. if it doesn't represent their view? They don't.
I'm not teaching a system. I'm teaching you scripture and it appears to be working for you since you wouldn't even consider anything from the Old Testament as anything other than a "shadow of things to come" instead of looking at it like you should have been all along, as prophecy. Keep up the good work.
There is no escape from the truth, it's all written right there in God's Word, including
Luke 24:44. As cv5 would say, it really is the CT and RT's who aren't following the scripture and I think you're finally realizing that.
There is no founder of the system. Maybe you missed all of the posts I made showing how the earliest church believed in the Premillennialist view before the impact of Rome around 410 AD changed their view with Augustine Hippo. If you need me to dig that out for you again I will.
If you want to swipe at cv5's posts. Try to take a swing at this one
https://christianchat.com/threads/replacement-theology-yes-or-no.222339/post-5837016.
Dispensationalism is not scripture.
Dispensationalism was largely systematized by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) among the Plymouth Brethren movement.
Darby taught that God administers history through distinct dispensations, maintained a strong distinction between Israel and the Church, and popularized a futurist reading of prophecy and a pre-tribulation rapture.
His views spread widely through the Scofield Reference Bible and later evangelical schools and ministries.
John Nelson Darby's system was influential, but its distinct Israel-Church separation is widely disputed on biblical grounds.
The most debated question, Does Scripture teach two covenant peoples of God, or one people of God made up of believing Jews and Gentiles? The New Testament teaches the latter, making the core of dispensationalism difficult to reconcile with Scripture.
If you want to swipe at cv5's posts. Try to take a swing at this one
https://christianchat.com/threads/replacement-theology-yes-or-no.222339/post-5837016.
The biggest problem with this argument is not Jeremiah 31.
Jeremiah 31 really does say God will make the New Covenant with "the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah."
The problem is that Fruchtenbaum's distinction between covenant possessor and covenant participant is not found anywhere in the text.
It is a theological construct imposed upon the text.
Jeremiah 31 says who the covenant was promised to. Agreed.
But the New Testament repeatedly identifies believers as participants in that very covenant, not merely beneficiaries standing next to it. Jesus said, "This cup is the new testament in my blood" (Luke 22:20).
Paul told the Corinthians, a largely Gentile church, that God had made them "able ministers of the new testament" (2 Cor. 3:6).
The writer of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31 at length (Heb. 8:8-12) and applies its blessings to the believers he is addressing.
The New Testament nowhere pauses to say, "You receive the blessings, but you are not actually part of the covenant."
The argument from Ephesians 2 also cuts both ways.
Paul does not say Gentiles remain outsiders receiving borrowed blessings from Israel's covenant.
He says Christ "hath made both one" (Eph. 2:14).
He says Gentiles are now "fellow citizens" and members "of the household of God" (Eph. 2:19).
The emphasis is not on two covenant peoples sharing benefits.
The emphasis is on one new man in Christ.
Romans 11 likewise does not say what the teacher needs it to say.
The olive tree contains believing Jews and believing Gentiles.
Unbelieving Jews are broken off.
Believing Gentiles are grafted in.
The root supports all the branches.
But Paul never says, "Israel possesses the New Covenant while the Church merely participates in it."
In fact, Romans 11 undermines rigid distinctions because Jews and Gentiles exist together in the same olive tree.
The greatest weakness of the entire post is the repeated assumption that if national Israel still has a future in God's plan, then dispensationalism must be true.
That simply does not follow.
Many non-dispensational interpreters affirm a future large-scale turning of ethnic Israel to Christ based on Romans 11 while rejecting the dispensational division between Israel and the Church.
Romans 11 can support future mercy toward ethnic Israel without requiring two covenant peoples of God.
And then there is the attitude. "Your quaint little ideology is about to collapse around you."
That is not apostolic argumentation. That is triumphalism.
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient." (2 Tim. 2:24)
"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves." (2 Tim. 2:25)
"Let your speech be alway with grace." (Col. 4:6)
A teacher confident in Scripture does not need to announce that everyone's theology is collapsing.
He simply opens the text and makes his case.
