The Hosea passage indicates that Israel WAS the people of God, but the Lo' 'Ammi child announced that this was no longer the case, until the restoration (Hosea 2:14-23).

When is that restoration? For Paul it is in the NT Church, hence the quotation of Hosea 2:23 in Rom.9:25. For JD, of course, it is not. That for him will come in the imagined millennium, but Paul simply does not speak in those terms at all. Fulfilment is NOW, not in some faraway millennium.

JD's treatment of the quotation of Exod.19:6 in 1 Peter 2:9 is pathetic. Peter clearly speaks of the NT church to whom he writes as inheriting the promises given at Sinai. What failed in Israel the NT church realises.

Then JD brings in his Disp'ism with a vengeance when he affirms that it was Law in the OT, but grace under the NT. Yet on the Justification thread he tells us that OT saints were saved by faith.

2. The 'anticipation' that I spoke of is that of historical continuity, not merely typifying. The company of God's people is that of continuity. The faithful Jewish exiles in Babylon formed a church, and began to organise themselves as such in something more akin to what we find in the NT, i.e. the synagogue, something Christ identified with during His earthly life and ministry.

Cutting off Israel from the church of the NT is to sever the body from the head. And btw, you still did not answer my point from Matt.8:11.

But JD, you claimed the following in answer to my question, "when did Israel cease to be a church?", and in regard to Acts 7:38:
"... but to answer your question, they stopped being an assembly when they were divided in their portion in land of Canaan"

It was in response to precisely this claim that I pointed out that you're just plain wrong. The Hebrew qahal, I repeat, is regularly translated by ekklesia in the LXX, and occurs throughout the OT. The apostles regularly employ this translation. See e.g. Heb.2:12, quoting Psa.22:22.

That the qahal of Israel was not a church of Christ is of course a mere truism. It was the the OT period, but yet it anticipated the NT church. They were the people of God, i.e. until God rejected them from that status (Hosea 1:8-9).

Yet that very rejection anticipated the restoration of the faithful in Israel in the Church of Christ, as Paul points out in Rom.9:26 (quoting Hosea 1:10): they are now the people of God and true sons of God. There is unity and continuity through change.

Now this is just plain codswallop!
Both the words qahal ("congregation") and 'edah (same basic meaning) occur frequently in the narratives beyond the Pentateuch.

We see the congregation of Israel in covenant renewal occasions (Josh.8), to avenge the death of the Levite's concubine etc (Judg.20), at the dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8), at the covenant renewal after the Exile (Ezra 10, Neh.8), and the Psalms are replete with references to the congregation (Greek ekklesia), e.g. Psa.22:22, 25; 107:32.

Another thing: on your premises, why does Peter address his Christian readers as people of God (1 Pet.2:9), and apply the language of Exod.19:6 to them if he is not speaking of CONTINUITY between the NT church and its OT counterpart?

By your artificial distinctions you put asunder what God has joined together. No wonder Dispensationalism has been described as Christianised Zionism.

Now, in view of your "answer" on Acts 7:38 let me ask the following simple questions:
1. Was Israel a "church"? You would really have to say "yes" in the light of Acts 7:38, but if "no" then why it it called such?

Consequently,
2. Is Israel a "church"? If yes, then what is its present relation to the NT church? If "no", since it was once but is no longer, when did it cease to be a church?

3. Are there in this age, then, two churches, one Jewish, the other Gentile (i.e. us)? Therefore if Jews are converted to Christ, should they therefore be excluded from a Gentile church because of Dispensational premises?

You did not answer my question on Matt.8:11. Let me repeat it for you:
'Also, are you denying that there was a people of God in the OT period? If so, what do you do with Matt.8:11, where Jesus affirms that there will be ONE people of God, sitting down together in the ONE kingdom of God, from both OT and NT periods?'

2. 1 Thess.4:16-17 is supposed to teach the notion of a "silent rapture", and that "meeting the Lord in the air" is supposed to mean that all and sundry are whisked off to heaven?

All you have done is cite texts with very little explanation (usual style, again). Exegesis is certainly not your strong suit, although it should be with the dogmatism you constantly display.

JD, what about Acts 7:38, where Stephen, in his review of OT history refers to "the church in the wilderness" (en tei ekklesia en toi eremo). The word is ekklesia, the regular word for "church" in the NT. It seems that Stephen had no problem talking about the "church" in the wilderness wandering, whereas you do. Please explain!

To assist your deliberations, consider that ekklesia in the LXX regularly translates the Hebrew qahal, "congregation", which occurs frequently throughout the OT in reference to the congregation of Israel under the LORD.

Also, are you denying that there was a people of God in the OT period? If so, what do you do with Matt.8:11, where Jesus affirms that there will be ONE people of God, sitting down together in the ONE kingdom of God, from both OT and NT periods?

Not to speak of John 10:16, where Christ will bring "other sheep" to join with those already gathered to form ONE flock, under ONE Shepherd.

JD wrote:
I was checking to see if you were paying attention but it still makes more sense than this; "For God so loved the elect" and it is far less damning.
There are some who teach the gap theory but I don't think Larkin did so I am not sure what was the context of the statement and I am quite sure the reformed one who brought it up did not care nearly as much about the context as winning the point.
However, the rapture of the church has nothing to do with Clarence Larkin and what he taught. It is neither true or false based on what he wrote in a book. One could also say the same for John Calvin and what his peculiar theology happened to be. The Scrpitures are the final arbiter of truth. What these men say must be measured against the word of God and if it is not true it must be rejected.
Most of these silly named yahoos are comparing Larkin against Calvins theological system and they have offered nothing from the Scriptures in defense of their criticism. That makes me think the mocking is to hid a bigger problem of ignorance and inability.

A rather opaque expression, to say the very least. What IS he trying to say?
It seems that he needs some lessons in English expression as well as logic, to say nothing of theology and exegesis.

DB,
"I am not sure what he (Clarence Larkin) means by "The Original Earth", The Chaotic Earth" and then "The Current Earth"."

Brilliant! You have at long last discerned my position. Whether you can properly represent it is, however, another question.
However, while it all may sound negative to you, that is only because your system is so utterly opposed to Scripture and sound hermeneutics that there is little in a positive vein for me to say.

"I do not think that Calvinism is a friend to Christianity."
For me Calvinism IS Christianity, and Arminian-Dispensationalism is a modern perversion thereof - and a serious one!

JD wrote:
MurrayA,
I did not give a day or an hour...but I am ready and expectant.

"The typical teaching of the creation week of seven 24 hour days is that they are typical of the seven 1000 year days of God."

Here is the old Millennium-Sabbath theory, which goes back to certain Church fathers, who had their own version of it, now revised and updated for the C21st. The Patristic version forecast that Christ would come at the end of the year 1000 A.D., whereupon many pilgrims went to Palestine in anticipation of His appearing, but returned home in the days afterward with shame of face.
This is yet another form of the same date predicting. Away with you and your false prophecies!

"(The Jews) have been back for 60 years. Jesus said when the fig tree begins to show forth her branches, then summer is nigh."

For me Matt.24:26 applies not only to geography ("Lo, here or Lo, there") but to chronology as well.

Furthermore, if an eschatological system leads one to predict dates, that in itself shows that the system, and the hermeneutics which undergird it, are deeply flawed.

Let us all remember well, that it was Hal Lindsey, the Dispensationalist, who confidently predicted that the Rapture (if we believe in such a thing) would take place in 1988. If some cultist like a JW or a Christadelphian had claimed that, the evangelical community would have been quick to say "Ha! We told you so" when it did not happen. But when a respected Dispensationalist claims that and it does not happen somehow that's all right.

The generation is 70 years which means we are very close. I personally believe the rapture will occur sometimes during this year. It is my opinion.

Be ready!"

Well, well! It is a Day known only to the LORD (Zech.14:7); no man knows the time (Matt.24:36); not even our Lord Himself knew the time.

But JD knows it!! Hallelujah! Let us all bow and humbly receive his revelation of the deep mysteries of God (and JD does know mysteries. It is one his great catch-words)!

One problem: come 1.1.2009 and we're still here is JD going to confess just as humbly that he was wrong and tender his apologies for having misled us??
Don't count on it!

I never said any such thing! Will you pleeeeease refrain from distorting my statements!

"...and have no prophetic character."

Here he goes again, with his "prediction-only" definition of prophecy. Can you at least try to understand your opponent's position, without squeezing him into your own mould.

For the umpteenth time:
Revelation is all prophecy, but that does NOT mean it is all prediction. Nor is it all about "end times", as you understand that term.

"The things which are": the 7 churches, then and there in the apostle's time. We may apply them to churches in our world today, just as we apply all Scripture. Chs.2-3

"The things which shall be hereafter": symbolic description of phenomena and events to come after the apostle's time. Chs 4-22.
However, it is NOT about a 7-year Tribulation which only comes about after a considerable gap (so far at least 1900 years) after the apostle's time.

And don't ask me to define circularity! I went down that track once before, by giving you a definition from a textbook on logic, then you had the effrontery to berate me for not appealing to Scripture. If you won't accept the definition of such an illicit procedure from a reputable source, then there's no use discussing anything with you. You simply will not listen to anyone who might just have a point or two. For you it's "heads I win; tails you lose."

Then again, throwing in your buzzword "mystery" might give an air of knowledge, and sound like evidence, but it is all smoke and mirrors. If you think that that is evidence, let me insist that it is not.

See E.J. Young as indicated below.

This whole series of exchanges began with my challenge to show me any evidence that the 7 churches of Revelation are to be read as 7 periods of church history.

All you have tendered is that Revelation is prophecy, combined with your (flawed) definition of prophecy. This is not evidence for the specifics of the interpretation of the 7 churches.

What you need to do is give specifics which indicate clearly that the 7 churches should be read that way. I insist that such evidence is entirely lacking.