Confusion Caused by Dispensationalism?

Hat tip to Paul Henebury for the following article from The Aquila Report:

Even if one has never heard the word “dispensationalism” or received formal teaching on the doctrines of dispensationalism, it has had a great influence on modern evangelicalism. So, many evangelical Christians read the Old Testament and (perhaps even subconsciously) dismiss portions of God’s Word, thinking that they only apply to national Israel or those physically descended from Abraham. But, the Bible teaches that Israel under the old covenant is the root of the tree into which believers in the new covenant have been grafted in (Romans 11:17-21); those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s seed (or descendants), heirs according to promise (Galatians 3:29). To put it another way, borrowing from Paul’s language in Galatians 3, the Westminster Confession of Faith calls the people of Israel in the old covenant, “a church under age” (WCF 19:3)...keep reading

If I may be permitted to quote Dr. Henebury's comment here:

Once again we see the utter inability of supercessionists to read Romans 11. Israel is NOT "the root of the tree into which believers in the new covenant have been grafted." They are "the natural BRANCHES". When will these people believe what the Bible says?

Somewhat related to this is my recent article Can we trust prophecy?  There seems to be an eschatological agnostic trend in certain circles. Some claim to be agnostic or argue against certainty and precision regarding prophecy. They tells us to be humble in these areas. Indeed we should be humble in the areas where Scripture isn't explicit. However, in many cases I'm finding that these humble prophecy agnostics are pretty certain that they're right in their own pet conclusions.

Covenant Theologians routinely deny that CT is Replacement Theology. Not only are they in denial, but their assumptions of NT preeminence lead them to emphatic conclusions regarding much of the Old Testament promises to national Israel.

I've also linked to some more of Paul Henebury's articles. They should get more exposure!

Does the NT re-interpret the OT?

Does the NT really re-interpret the OT?

This topic came up in a conversation today with an amillennialist. The progression of the argument is fairly standard. An amil guy will wander into a forum and defend someone like Sizer. He'll inform the others that Israel is all done for a numbers of reasons (political and doctrinal) which is all really motivated by the belief that the church is the "New Israel." When the OT heavy artillery texts are introduced, the amil will reach into the bag of tricks for the "NT re-interprets of the OT" defense.

Here are some great links which challenge that notion. Fred Butler has conveniently put Paul Henebury's work into a PDF file HERE.

You can access Dr. Henebury's work directly on his site Part One & Part Two

Dr. Michael Vlach's work on the topic may also be accessed HERE.