Simplified vs. Complicated

[Ransom]

What would you deem a "common-sense distinction"?  I have no problem affirming that the nation of Israel and the church of Christ are not, strictly speaking, one and the same - but I would also have to reject that radical discontinuity between Israel and the Church that Scofield-style dispensationalism insists on.

There is continuity between them - Paul obviously intended (per Romans 11) that we see the Church as the logical continuation of the nation: Israel - unbelieving Jews + believing Gentiles = the Church.  And though there is also discontinuity, we also cannot ignore that the Apostles cited many Old Covenant prophecies as having found their ultimate fulfilment in Christ or the Church (whereas Scofield et al argued that the Church is a "parenthesis" that was not in the prophets' view).

 

[FSSL]

What would you deem a "common-sense distinction"?

Promise of land for Israel alone
Promise of wealth for obedience. We have no health and wealth gospel.
I believe the 10 commandments are binding on the NT saint.
I believe the HS indwelt the people in the OT. In fact He indwells everyone who lives and breathes.

Just to name a few....

I am not against the idea of having some continuity. I do not buy into the Scofield approach. Earlier dispensationalists viewed each economy as a mailbox which had its own "goodies."

I view God's revelation as being parceled out at the right time and having overlapping implications for future economies.

I no longer hold to a distinct seven dispensation viewpoint. Ignore my Sunday School Lesson on Dispensationalism on my website. I have quite a bit I would modify today.